Londonderry car bomb

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I wouldn't call them patriots...

Why not? Would you describe the dissidents as traitors?

Personally I would think that they are being quite brave. In a hypothetical situation where there would be no repercussions etc etc, then I think it would be the right thing to do.

Thank you.

Would that child rapists mates show up, kidnap you, shoot you and dump you naked somewhere? Or burn your house down? etc etc

Are you suggesting that the dissidents' support is based entirely on intimidation? That the majority of people who facilitate them and make it possible to carry out acts of terrorism dearly wish they could turn them in, but don't because they're living in fear of reprisal?

Cú Giobach

oscarBravo wrote: »

You just don't particularly oppose them.

Of course I won't oppose them, I won't have anything to do with them.
I value my life and my familys.

How would you feel about someone who had information that could bring a child rapist to justice, but decided to keep himself to himself in his little bit of paradise?

I wouldn't think very highly of them.
Of course they could have a valid reason.

Meh. I happen to think that tacitly supporting terrorism while loudly proclaiming your lack of support is hypocritical. But I guess that's just my biases talking.

If not putting myself or my family in danger isn't to your liking, Tough.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why not? Would you describe the dissidents as traitors?

Well I wouldn't want to be possibly describing a possible unionist as an Irish patriot would I? haha
No I wouldn't describe them as traitors. Would describe them as idiots though.

Thank you. Are you suggesting that the dissidents' support is based entirely on intimidation? That the majority of people who facilitate them and make it possible to carry out acts of terrorism dearly wish they could turn them in, but don't because they're living in fear of reprisal?

No, I am not. People support them for a variety of reasons. They see the actions of the PSNI, which in many cases are biased. There are more reasons to them having support than a "Brits out" mentality. I imagine those who actively support or facilitate them do so out of choice.

What I am saying is is that it is not healthy to be an informer, for you or your family.

oscarBravo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I wouldn't think very highly of them.

Unless, of course, it was a violent child rapist who might try to hurt the family of the person who turned them in. Would it be OK to let the child rapist go free then?

If not putting myself or my family in danger isn't to your liking, Tough.

Police officers and soldiers have been putting themselves in danger to combat the threat of terrorists for decades. In return for which, they've been branded "legitimate targets" - a designation that some of the very same people who get indignant about the very suggestion that they are equivocal about dissidents have been slow to disagree with.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Police officers and soldiers have been putting themselves in danger to combat the threat of terrorists for decades. In return for which, they've been branded "legitimate targets" - a designation that some of the very same people who get indignant about the very suggestion that they are equivocal about dissidents have been slow to disagree with.

Oh yes, the RUC and the BA were the super forces of the world, such a friendly unbiased bunch.

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well I wouldn't want to be possibly describing a possible unionist as an Irish patriot would I? haha

I didn't say Irish.

No I wouldn't describe them as traitors. Would describe them as idiots though.

They are traitors. They aim to undermine the state through force of arms. What would they have to do to qualify as traitors in your eyes?

No, I am not. People support them for a variety of reasons. They see the actions of the PSNI, which in many cases are biased. There are more reasons to them having support than a "Brits out" mentality. I imagine those who actively support or facilitate them do so out of choice.

I imagine they do. I don't understand how they sleep at night, to be honest.

What I am saying is is that it is not healthy to be an informer, for you or your family.

It's not healthy to be a police officer either. Wouldn't we have a wonderful society if everyone decided not to do anything that the dissidents didn't want them to?

Cú Giobach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unless, of course, it was a violent child rapist who might try to hurt the family of the person who turned them in. Would it be OK to let the child rapist go free then?

I can't speak for others, but for me my family comes first.
I would never endanger them for anything or anyone.

It is never OK to let such a person free to roam.

By the way we are talking about militant republicanism not child sexual abuse.

Police officers and soldiers have been putting themselves in danger to combat the threat of terrorists for decades. In return for which, they've been branded "legitimate targets" - a designation that some of the very same people who get indignant about the very suggestion that they are equivocal about dissidents have been slow to disagree with.

I am not, nor would ever dream of becoming a police officer if someone wants to do this they must accept that the job has risks, especially in NI.

Any soldier knows what he/she is getting into when they sign up. I don't really feel sorry for soldiers killed in action, if they don't want this to happen, then they shouldn't become soldiers.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't say Irish. They are traitors.

Traitors to whom? Ireland? Britain?

What would they have to do to qualify as traitors in your eyes?

Again, traitors to what exactly? ROI? Britain? The republic declared in 1916?

I imagine they do. I don't understand how they sleep at night, to be honest.

They probably seep grand, thinking they are doing the right thing.

It's not healthy to be a police officer either. Wouldn't we have a wonderful society if everyone decided not to do anything that the dissidents didn't want them to?

I am going to assume you have a family etc, would you really put them at such a great risk? I wouldn't inform on loyalists for the same reasons.

junder

All it takes for evil to triumph , is for good men to
Do nothing. But then how doesthe actions of the dissidents affect you, do you have to grieve the loss Of a relation who is police officer ( bearing in mind that the majorty of police officers that dissidents have targeted ate from the catholic community), do you have to check your car every morning for under. Car booby traps ( I do) of course not, it's all abstract to you, a goodies vers baddies a cowboy vers Indians game, what if it was not abstract what if the information you had could save the life of a fellow human being what if directly you held the life of a person in your hand. Would you pass that information on or live with the guilt.

Yitzhak Rabin

Just got a chance to read through all this thread now.

MUSSOLINI, what exactly is not black and white about the attempted murder of pizza delivery workers, and describing the victims as collaborators?

Einhard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

TBH I am starting to have a major issue with some of your posts now. I dont appreciate you putting words in my mouth like that.


It was not a dodge. Maybe you don't care about what could happen to you or your family if you were to do such a thing.
I do.

Mussolini, you complain that we have you all wrong, and you have no intent to give support, tacit or otherwise, to dissidents. Well, assuming we take you at your word, perhaps your can explain what you meant when you said the shooting of two pizza delivery men was "not black and white".

Now, it's a simple, open question. I'd like to know. And considering that others here have accused me of attempting to stifle debate, I think it's a wonderful opportunity for both of us.

Note though, that should you fail to answer, I will presume that the only reason you think it's less than black and white is because you have dissident sympathies. I don't think that's unreasonable, considering I'm giving you every opportunity to respond to my question.

oscarBravo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

It is never OK to let such a person free to roam.

By the way we are talking about militant republicanism not child sexual abuse.

I don't think it's OK to let either of them free to roam. Society would be better off with both of them behind bars.

I am not, nor would ever dream of becoming a police officer if someone wants to do this they must accept that the job has risks, especially in NI.

Any soldier knows what he/she is getting into when they sign up. I don't really feel sorry for soldiers killed in action, if they don't want this to happen, then they shouldn't become soldiers.

Wouldn't we just have a splendid society if everybody decided that the risks of being a police officer were too great?

The fact that some people are prepared to put themselves in harm's way to protect the rest of us from terrorists and other assorted criminals means that we should value them more highly than other civilians, rather than deciding that they asked for it, and as such are legitimate targets of an illegitimate criminal gang.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Traitors to whom? Ireland? Britain?

Traitors to the country of which they are citizens. It's pretty hard to be a traitor to anyone else.

Again, traitors to what exactly? ROI? Britain? The republic declared in 1916?

OK, let's do the semantics dance.

Assuming a member of a dissident group is a citizen of Ireland, would you consider him a traitor?

I'm at a loss as to how somebody can be a traitor to a republic declared in 1916, when that republic doesn't exist.

They probably seep grand, thinking they are doing the right thing.

I'm sure they do. That's the beauty of living in a parallel universe: all you have to do is make up your own set of moral values, and voila! you're doing the right thing, even when you're shooting at people who deliver pizzas.

I am going to assume you have a family etc, would you really put them at such a great risk?

I lived through the 1970s with a close family member who repeatedly put his life on the line to defend my country against terrorists - a true patriot. I know what it is to wonder whether someone will come home, or whether he will be the next victim of a bunch of thugs who value a political ideal over a human life.

The dissidents can continue to operate not because of cowardice, but because of the tacit support of people whose only criticism of them is that their actions are "misguided" or that the timing is wrong; not that they are murdering psychos who have no place in society.

But hey, let's keep singing those rebel songs, glorifying everyone else who has ever decided that the only way to achieve a political goal is through violence, while half-heartedly tut-tutting about those terrible dissidents. Because this time it's different.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

Mussolini, you complain that we have you all wrong, and you have no intent to give support, tacit or otherwise, to dissidents. Well, assuming we take you at your word, perhaps your can explain what you meant when you said the shooting of two pizza delivery men was "not black and white".

What I meant by saying that, is as with everything, there is always more than meets the eye, beyond the "pizza men shot" headline. Just like there was more behind the "dissidents bomb school" headline.

For what it is worth I utterly condemn that attack, I think it was a terrible thing to do.

Einhard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What I meant by saying that, is as with everything, there is always more than meets the eye, beyond the "pizza men shot" headline. Just like there was more behind the "dissidents bomb school" headline.

For what it is worth I utterly condemn that attack, I think it was a terrible thing to do.

Ok, you condemn the attack. But what is it about the shooting of two pizza delivering collaborators (as the RIRA labelled them) that the rest of us fail to recognise? You say there's more to it than meets the eye. So enlighten us. Please.

Cú Giobach

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think it's OK to let either of them free to roam. Society would be better off with both of them behind bars.

Yep. But I still wouldn't endanger my family, as I said, for anything.
Myself for some things yes, them No.

Wouldn't we just have a splendid society if everybody decided that the risks of being a police officer were too great?

I like the majority of people wouldn't like to be a cop. So f*cking what??
Thankfully not everyone wants the same profession otherwise the country would be "slightly" screwed up.

The fact that some people are prepared to put themselves in harm's way to protect the rest of us from terrorists and other assorted criminals means that we should value them more highly than other civilians, rather than deciding that they asked for it, and as such are legitimate targets of an illegitimate criminal gang.

Not at all, Every single man, woman and child should be valued equally, irrespective of their chosen profession (Though I would really put the highest value on a child).

I never said "they asked for it" just that they know the job has risks.

round tower huntsman

the question was asked what was the logic behind the disso's thinking. i explaind THEIR logic, that doesnt mean its my logic.
i could explain the lgic behind loyalist violence, that they saw killing innocent catholics as a way of exerting pressure on the ira etc....that doesnt mean i support them.
fact is armed republcanism was around long before the provos started up and it wont just because they have ended their campaign.
the motivation behind the disso's is the same as its always been, they see armed struggle as the only means to challange brit rule in ireland, no matter how futile it is.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

The fact that some people are prepared to put themselves in harm's way to protect the rest of us from terrorists and other assorted criminals means that we should value them more highly than other civilians, rather than deciding that they asked for it, and as such are legitimate targets of an illegitimate criminal gang.

But what if they blatantly side with only one side of the community? Like the RUC did?

Assuming a member of a dissident group is a citizen of Ireland, would you consider him a traitor?

treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by the Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt."

Would you consider them traitors going by the constitutional definition? You could argue either way I suppose.

I lived through the 1970s with a close family member who repeatedly put his life on the line to defend my country against terrorists - a true patriot.

What did he do? What was he?
Did he also take to the streets in protest against the treatment of Catholics?

The dissidents can continue to operate not because of cowardice, but because of the tacit support of people whose only criticism of them is that their actions are "misguided" or that the timing is wrong; not that they are murdering psychos who have no place in society.

Personally I think militant republicanism will never cease until such time as there is a UI.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

Ok, you condemn the attack. But what is it about the shooting of two pizza delivering collaborators (as the RIRA labelled them) that the rest of us fail to recognise? You say there's more to it than meets the eye. So enlighten us. Please.

The fact that they were not the main target of the attack. The targets were the soldiers were they not? In this case they deemed the pizza men as collateral damage. Thankfully they were not killed.
This was not a case of the RIRA going out and shooting the pizza men because they gave the soldiers pizza. There is more to it than that. That is what I meant by when I said it was not that back or white. If that was the case they wold have shot up the pizza place or asked for a delivery to somewhere.

KeithAFC

They tried to kill people. Simple as that. Never heard so much nonsense.

jackbenimble

MUSSOLINI said:

But what if they blatantly side with only one side of the community? Like the RUC did?

The same RUC that locked up thousands of Loyalists for extended periods of time?

Personally I think militant republicanism will never cease until such time as there is a UI.

Yes, the brainwashed and psychopathic will always be with us.

Wolfe Tone

jackbenimble wrote: »

MUSSOLINI said:



The same RUC that locked up thousands of Loyalists for extended periods of time?

Are you trying to say that the RUC was an unbiased police force?

Denerick

The Republican posters on this board would have more credibility if anyone bar a Republican was claiming 'there is more to this than meets the eye'. I'm sorry, but the violent and quasi fascist basis of your ideology means that you implicitly have to accept such extremists as 'lost sheep' within your own ranks. You are incapable of properly condemning them because to do so would be to condemn your ideology.

It isn't a coincidence that these threads always end up as Republicans v everyone else.

Cú Giobach

Denerick wrote: »

The Republican posters on this board would have more credibility if anyone bar a Republican was claiming 'there is more to this than meets the eye'. I'm sorry, but the violent and quasi fascist basis of your ideology means that you implicitly have to accept such extremists as 'lost sheep' within your own ranks. You are incapable of properly condemning them because to do so would be to condemn your ideology.

It isn't a coincidence that these threads always end up as Republicans v everyone else.

This has more to do with labeling than any political ideologies.
Anyone who even gives a quick synopsis of Irish history mentioning, say the causes and reasons for the PIRA campaign is labeled a Republican.
God forbid they should even mention the dissidents.

Wolfe Tone

To be fair, "everyone else" consists of about the ten posters who actually get involved in these debates.

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Would you consider them traitors going by the constitutional definition? You could argue either way I suppose.

Of course you could. But the simplest thing to do is to invent a parallel reality so that you don't have to confront the issue.

Republicans are good at that. They avoid the issue of being traitors to the Ireland that actually exists by pretending it doesn't, and inventing a whole new one, and being patriots in that one. Clever, really.

What did he do? What was he?

He was in the same line of work as Jerry McCabe. In other words, a legitimate target for bank robbers hitmen rogue republicans rehabilitated republicans whatever the current narrative about those murders happens to be.

Did he also take to the streets in protest against the treatment of Catholics?

Oh, I'm sorry. Putting his life on the line to protect innocent civilians from terrorists wasn't good enough? That was a hollow gesture on his part, when he could have been doing something useful like marching?

Personally I think militant republicanism will never cease until such time as there is a UI.

Well, isn't that awfully convenient.

Personally, I think militant republicanism will never cease until we stop, as a nation, glorifying militant republicanism. But that's probably far too logical an idea to fly in a republican parallel universe.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

He was in the same line of work as Jerry McCabe. In other words, a legitimate target for bank robbers hitmen rogue republicans rehabilitated republicans whatever the current narrative about those murders happens to be.

A RUC man then?

Oh, I'm sorry. Putting his life on the line to protect innocent civilians from terrorists wasn't good enough?

A huge part of the reason that the PIRA had support was due to the actions of the RUC. If he was a RUC man in the 70s I am sure he knew all about that. Rounding up innocent catholics etc etc, goes on and on.

Well, isn't that awfully convenient.

Its the truth tbh.

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

A RUC man then?

Jerry McCabe was in the RUC?

A huge part of the reason that the PIRA had support was due to the actions of the RUC. If he was a RUC man in the 70s I am sure he knew all about that. Rounding up innocent catholics etc etc, goes on and on.

Well I guess that clears it up. Jerry McCabe was a legitimate target because the RUC did bad things in the seventies.

That's that parallel universe I was talking about.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jerry McCabe was in the RUC?

I was under the impression you are from the north? You said the same line of work, ie, a police man.

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I was under the impression you are from the north?

Nope.

Police Chief Wiggum

it might a help if this lyric from the nationalist Paul Brady from Strabane. Co.Tyrone was added to the leaving cert curriculum, see him sing it here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD4eS2Xb6Ls

The Island
They say the skies of Lebanon are burning,
Those mighty Cedars bleeding in the heat,
They're showing pictures on the Television,
Women and children dying in the street,
And we're still at it in our own place,
Still trying to reach the future through the past,
Still trying to carve tomorrow from a tombstone...
Chorus
But hey ! Don't listen to me !
This wasn't meant to be no sad song,
We've heard too much of that before,
Right now I only want to be here with you,
Till the morning dew comes fall
ing,
I want to take you to the Island,
And trace your footprints in the sand,
And in the evening when the sun goes down,
We'll make love to the sound of the ocean.
They're raising banners over by the markets,
Whitewashing slogans on the shipyard walls,
Witchdoctors praying for a mighty showdown,
No way our holy flag is gonna fall,
Up here we sacrifice our children,
To feed the worn out dreams of yesterday,
And teach them dying will lead us into glory...
Repeat Chorus.
Now I know us plain folks don't see all the story,
And I know this peace and love's just copping out,
And I guess these young boys dying in the ditches,
Is just what being free is all about,
And how this twisted wreckage down on main street,
Will bring us all together in the end,
And we'll go marching down the road to freedom ... freedom ...

oscarBravo

Love that song.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope.

Ah, all right, could have sworn I saw you say somewhere that you where. Apologies so.

Denerick

OK. Answer me this. Why is it only the brave few posters with gaelic usernames and Republican picture's in their sig's who go out of their way to protect and defend the motives of these lunatics?

junder

I love this song, it's about a real event.


The British Soldier

In a station in the city a British soldier stood
Talking to the people there if the people would
Some just stared in hatred, and others turned in pain
And the lonely British soldier wished he was back home again

Come join the British Army! said the posters in his town
See the world and have your fun come serve before the Crown
The jobs were hard to come by and he could not face the dole
So he took his country's shilling and enlisted on the roll

For there was no fear of fighting, the Empire long was lost
Just ten years in the army getting paid for being bossed
Then leave a man experienced a man who's made the grade
A medal and a pension some mem'ries and a trade

Then came the call to Ireland as the call had come before
Another bloody chapter in an endless civil war
The priests they stood on both sides the priests they stood behind
Another fight in Jesus name the blind against the blind

The soldier stood between them between the whistling stones
And then the broken bottles that led to broken bones
The petrol bombs that burnt his hands the nails that pierced his skin
And wished that he had stayed at home surrounded by his kin

The station filled with people the soldier soon was bored
But better in the station than where the people warred
The room filled up with mothers with daughters and with sons
Who stared with itchy fingers at the soldier and his gun

A yell of fear a screech of brakes the shattering of glass
The window of the station broke to let the package pass
A scream came from the mothers as they ran towards the door
Dragging children crying from the bomb upon the floor

The soldier stood and could not move his gun he could not use
He knew the bomb had seconds and not minutes on the fuse
He could not run to pick it up and throw it in the street
There were far too many people there too many running feet

Take cover! yelled the soldier, Take cover for your lives
And the Irishmen threw down their young and stood before their wives
They turned towards the soldier their eyes alive with fear
For God's sake save our children or they'll end their short lives here

The soldier moved towards the bomb his stomach like a stone
Why was this his battle God why was he alone
He lay down on the package and he murmured one farewell
To those at home in England to those he loved so well

He saw the sights of summer felt the wind upon his brow
The young girls in the city parks how precious were they now
The soaring of the swallow the beauty of the swan
The music of the turning world so soon would it be gone

A muffled soft explosion and the room began to quake
The soldier blown across the floor his blood a crimson lake
They never heard him cry or shout they never heard him moan
And they turned their children's faces from the blood and from the bones

The crowd outside soon gathered and the ambulances came
To carry off the body of a pawn lost in the game
And the crowd they clapped and cheered and they sang their rebel songs
One soldier less to interfere where he did not belong

But will the children growing up learn at their mothers' knees
The story of the soldier who bought their liberty
Who used his youthful body as a means towards an end
Who gave his life to those who called him murderer not friend

Einhard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The fact that they were not the main target of the attack. The targets were the soldiers were they not? In this case they deemed the pizza men as collateral damage. Thankfully they were not killed.

Bollox they did. The only way collateral damage can be claimed is if the attacker makes a reasonable effort to avoid civilian casualties. The RIRA did nothing of the sort. They actively used the fact that civilians were making a delivery to execute their attack. they couldn't have succeeded in their murder were civilians not involved. They don't give a crap about the civilian lives lost or ruined, as long as it furthers their murderous goal.

And then, they accused the two pizza delivery men of being collaborators. And these are the men whom you claim avoid civilian casualtues out of a sense of humanitarianism. I know this word is both over used, and banned, but they are scum. Simple as.

FlutterinBantam

Denerick wrote: »

OK. Answer me this. Why is it only the brave few posters with gaelic usernames and Republican picture's in their sig's who go out of their way to protect and defend the motives of these lunatics?

It goes back to the old tribal traditions Denerick, it's a cyber way of hanging strings of bunting and painting kerbs to let the 'unwary traveler' know where he or she is.

These lunatics who plant bombs have no mandate,no responsibility,no prospects,but yet the idealists seek to tacitly seek to apply some reason and purpose to their deeds.

I can do that too....pure criminality.

KeithAFC

Something tells me they honestly have nothing better to do than plant bombs and run away. They offer f*ck all to society. They should either be arrested or taken to afganistan.

Denerick

KeithAFC wrote: »

Something tells me they honestly have nothing better to do than plant bombs and run away. They offer f*ck all to society. They should either be arrested or taken to afganistan.

Some people on here are willing to ascribe a kind of twisted nobility to their actions, the whole 'though I don't agree with them, I can see why they are doing it' lark. Its all code for something much more sinister.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

Some people on here are willing to ascribe a kind of twisted nobility to their actions, the whole 'though I don't agree with them, I can see why they are doing it' lark. Its all code for something much more sinister.

Some people are attempting to look at it subjectively, or examine their motives etc...

RDM_83 again

KeithAFC wrote: »

taken to afganistan.

???

On the previous post I see no posters who's aim "protect and defense of these lunatics"
I see people trying to explain why these people do these things. I thought this was a discussion board if you want to make some mindless sound bite condemnation with no insight this shouldn't be the place. Possibly worst non-after hours thread read on boards.ie just seems to be bunch of people from (TCFKA)*Free State trying to stamp out any discussion.

Ps Took a look at what this thread is actually meant to be about today, must have been a small device or failed to detonate properly as very little damage. Also fail to see how the two officers were injured perhaps there's been retirement out of the Bomb Squad or something.

The Country Formerly Known As
Decided might as well use a anachronistic referral to fit with thread

FlutterinBantam

RDM_83 again wrote: »

???

On the previous post I see no posters who's aim "protect and defense of these lunatics"
I see people trying to explain why these people do these things. I thought this was a discussion board if you want to make some mindless sound bite condemnation with no insight this shouldn't be the place. Possibly worst non-after hours thread read on boards.ie just seems to be bunch of people from (TCFKA)*Free State trying to stamp out any discussion.

Ps Took a look at what this thread is actually meant to be about today, must have been a small device or failed to detonate properly as very little damage. Also fail to see how the two officers were injured perhaps there's been retirement out of the Bomb Squad or something.

The Country Formerly Known As
Decided might as well use a anachronistic referral to fit with thread

Could you perhaps explain where you are coming from.

I'll help you out.

Do you either tacitly or otherwise support those who,without any mandate from the electorate seek to cause major disruption to normal operations.?

Do you tacitly support any action against the legitimate forces of the state as authorised by the NFA and endorsed by the vast majority of responsible people in this island.


Or do you think that indiscriminate acts of terrorism in today's situation are justified.

OhNoYouDidn't

3 days later and posters still trying hard to put words in other peoples mouths to pigeon-hole them. Very, very tedious.

Its exceptionally offensive to claim someone is a supporter of x because they subjectively analyse a situation. I can imagine the response if I called anyone who commented on the abuse scandal in the church a paedophile.

RDM_83 again

I'm trying to have a debate, this is a forum for debate. If you read my previous posts you'd see I never mentioned any support for these groups and in fact linked to some of the unreported actions that I abhor.

I'm reporting your post as I feel its harasment that people can't have a debate even if they have made they're position clear earlier in the thread.

On a personal note why would I support a group that put somebody i knows fathers in hospital, a bomb 10/20metres from my local pub back home and are trying to send the north back to the 70's.

ps to stoop to your level, do you sir support the Red Hand Commando's, Pol Pot and Satan

seaniedearg

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Could you perhaps explain where you are coming from.

I'll help you out.

Do you either tacitly or otherwise support those who,without any mandate from the electorate seek to cause major disruption to normal operations.?

Do you tacitly support any action against the legitimate forces of the state as authorised by the NFA and endorsed by the vast majority of responsible people in this island.


Or do you think that indiscriminate acts of terrorism in today's situation are justified.

spot on:cool:

Einhard

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its exceptionally offensive to claim someone is a supporter of x because they subjectively analyse a situation. I can imagine the response if I called anyone who commented on the abuse scandal in the church a paedophile.

There are always people who will put words in the mouths of others in order to construct straw man to demolish. However, I have done nothing of the sort on this thread. I've used the evidence available to make my points, and have quoted the statements that I have trouble with. There is far too much equivocation in certain Republican circles, and this carries across onto forums. It is not at all unreasonable or offensive to point this out, or to ask people to clarify what they mean when they seek to obfuscate in the name of "understanding".

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

3 days later and posters still trying hard to put words in other peoples mouths to pigeon-hole them. Very, very tedious.

Its exceptionally offensive to claim someone is a supporter of x because they subjectively analyse a situation. I can imagine the response if I called anyone who commented on the abuse scandal in the church a paedophile.

Lets be frank here. You are a Republican. The three people who have thanked you are Republicans. Coinicidence?

Cú Giobach

Denerick wrote: »

Lets be frank here. You are a Republican. The three people who have thanked you are Republicans. Coinicidence?

Maybe it's because instead of just spouting the (pointless) rhetoric of "scum" "murdering ba*tards" etc we try to examine the causes of and reasons for the continuation of, the conflict, and keep on being called "defenders" "apologists" "supporters of" etc and the threads just end up going round in circles.
Replies to a post should be regarding what the person posted.

oscarBravo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Maybe it's because instead of just spouting the (pointless) rhetoric of "scum" "murdering ba*tards" etc we try to examine the causes of and reasons for the continuation of, the conflict...

So do I. The conflict continues because some people believe that violence is the only way to achieve their aims. That belief stems, in large part, from the mythology that we've built up around other people, whom we unfortunately eulogise as heroes, who also believed that violence was the right way to achieve their aims.

The thing is, there will always be people who believe that violence is the right way to achieve their goals. For the most part, we call people like that criminals, and lock them up. But it seems that, as long as the people who prefer violent means subscribe to a long tradition of republican fantasy, we're not allowed to describe them as criminals, and have to accord them some sort of kid-glove treatment.

Sorry, but no. Anyone else who planted a bomb in a town would be considered a psychopathic criminal, so I don't see why this particular group of nutters should get a free pass. Feel free to dismiss my arguments just because I call it as I see it, but you don't get a monopoly on subjective analysis of republican murderers just because you happen to share their aims. Like everyone else who has ever posted an opinion on here, you're not automatically right.

Cú Giobach

oscarBravo wrote: »

So do I. The conflict continues because some people believe that violence is the only way to achieve their aims. That belief stems, in large part, from the mythology that we've built up around other people, whom we unfortunately eulogise as heroes, who also believed that violence was the right way to achieve their aims.

That belief stems from the fact that for thousands of years people have used violence to achieve their aims. The UK itself was founded on violence with the subjugation of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
Violence for some people is a valid option and the dissidents don't get their methods of trying to achieve their aims, just from some romantic ideal.
It seems to come from some deep instinct to use violence, that is inherent in most if not all animals.

Einhard

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Maybe it's because instead of just spouting the (pointless) rhetoric of "scum" "murdering ba*tards" etc we try to examine the causes of and reasons for the continuation of, the conflict

The two are far from mutually exclusive though. Some people however, seem to confuse "understand" with "excuse". Big difference.