Politics Forum

Scofflaw

I don't really want to go over the same ground again, but I can't help but note the rather odd middle part of your post:

We have had a debate about wanting higher standards, however it seems that any deviation from "they are scumbags, rabble rabble, terrible act" to "Terrible act, I condemn this utterly. It appears that the dissidents did xyz because" or correcting allegations that the dissidents are trying to massacre people by pointing out that if they wanted another Omagh they could have one, they would not be setting off bombs at 4am, or if they wanted to blow up a school and kill kids they would not have the bomb OUTSIDE the school grounds in a bin, makes it open season to be accused of being a supporter of an illegal organisation.

That's a very nuanced non-condemnation, and an essentially defensive one. I don't think "the dissidents are blowing things up carefully" can really be construed as anything other than a defence of the organisation responsible for the "careful" bombing. We get exactly the same kind of statements in respect of the actions of the IDF by people who say things like "of course they were careful when they boarded the Marmara - if they'd wanted a massacre they could easily have killed everyone on board". I don't have any difficulty seeing that as a defence of IDF actions, and by extension the IDF, and I don't really see any major difference between that statement and yours?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't really want to go over the same ground again, but I can't help but note the rather odd middle part of your post:



That's a very nuanced non-condemnation, and an essentially defensive one. I don't think "the dissidents are blowing things up carefully" can really be construed as anything other than a defence of the organisation responsible for the "careful" bombing. We get exactly the same kind of statements in respect of the actions of the IDF by people who say things like "of course they were careful when they boarded the Marmara - if they'd wanted a massacre they could easily have killed everyone on board". I don't have any difficulty seeing that as a defence of IDF actions, and by extension the IDF, and I don't really see any major difference between that statement and yours?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Did that person say "they should never have gone near the ships, it was 100% wrong" first? The situation you have there seems to be from the point of view of a person who thinks that the ships SHOULD have been boarded. Now, if I was a dissident supporter, and supported the bombs being planted, the comparison would be apt. But I am not.
Lets make this clear, we had a case were the dissidents were being accused of wanting another Omagh, wanting to massacre civilians.
I pointed out that if they WANTED that, they could do it, they would:
Not bomb in the middle of the night
Not have warnings
Etc etc.....
I also pointed out that the very last thing the dissidents would want is civilians dead, it would destroy what little support they have. Some posters could not accept this.
Or we have the case where I offered factual corrections, they bombed a school trying to kill kids, eh no they didn't, they phoned in a warning, lured the cops, and then blew up a bin to try and kill those PSNI men. I understand how that could be viewed as defending the dissidents in some sort of roundabout way, but only if I supported the PSNI being attacked, or the bombs being planted.
I don't support the PSNI being attacked. I don't support the dissidents. I don't support bombings. I have made this abundantly clear.


I have simply looked at these things subjectively.

The reason why I keep bringing this up is because I think you are wrong, simple as. I do not think it is fair. And I honestly cannot understand why you think you are right.
I am convinced that if it was Al Queda you would act differently. Why else no definitive clarification? Why say that you will deal with it on a case by case basis?

Scofflaw

The reason why I keep bringing this up is because I think you are wrong, simple as. I do not think it is fair. And I honestly cannot understand why you think you are right.

I'm definitely aware of that at this stage...

I am convinced that if it was Al Queda you would act differently. Why else no definitive clarification? Why say that you will deal with it on a case by case basis?

Because it would depend on what was being said, obviously. I think I've said all this before, but if someone says you're a shill for the dissidents, or dismisses some unrelated point you raise because you're a "terrorist supporter", those are ad hominems, and those can be dealt with. If, on the other hand, someone takes exception to your clarification of an incident and says that it means you support the actions of dissidents, it's up to you to clarify that misconception, not for me to police it, unless it's very obviously a piece of trolling on their part - and by "very obviously" I mean that it will be obvious to me as well as you.

Same if someone says "it couldn't be Al-Qaeda because if they wanted to kill x many people they'd fly a plane into a building" and someone else takes issue with that. If they come back by calling the first poster a "terrorist-lover" then that can be dealt with. If they say that they feel the poster is defending Al Qaeda, that's their opinion, and it's up to the first poster to clarify it. The only real difference in the Al Qaeda case is that it's pretty unlikely that the poster does support Al Qaeda, something that cannot be said about any form of republicanism.

We're not there to defend posters from what other people think of them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm definitely aware of that at this stage...



Because it would depend on what was being said, obviously. I think I've said all this before, but if someone says you're a shill for the dissidents, or dismisses some unrelated point you raise because you're a "terrorist supporter", those are ad hominems, and those can be dealt with. If, on the other hand, someone takes exception to your clarification of an incident and says that it means you support the actions of dissidents, it's up to you to clarify that misconception, not for me to police it, unless it's very obviously a piece of trolling on their part - and by "very obviously" I mean that it will be obvious to me as well as you.

Same if someone says "it couldn't be Al-Qaeda because if they wanted to kill x many people they'd fly a plane into a building" and someone else takes issue with that. If they come back by calling the first poster a "terrorist-lover" then that can be dealt with. If they say that they feel the poster is defending Al Qaeda, that's their opinion, and it's up to the first poster to clarify it. The only real difference in the Al Qaeda case is that it's pretty unlikely that the poster does support Al Qaeda, something that cannot be said about any form of republicanism.

We're not there to defend posters from what other people think of them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So what if I do clarify it and it surfaces again? What about the fact that it ends up derailing the whole thread into posters having to defend themselves from said accusations? It is not as if I have gone "Jayzus thats terrible, report post" I have defended myself to such an extent that the thread becomes derailed.

southsiderosie

One of the main objectives in setting off bombs with the potential to be lethal is to demonstrate to the public and to law enforcement that these groups have the capacity to kill and maim large numbers of people and destroy property. The fact that they choose not to do so - at this time - does not take away from the chilling impact that this demonstration of force has on the population.

For most people, it doesn't matter that they weren't 'meant' to kill. It doesn't matter that they were phoned in. What matters is that these groups are saying to the world that they have the potential capacity to drag Ireland back to a 1990s situation. It also demonstrates a complete disregard for the democratically expressed wishes of their fellow citizens.

You say "the very last thing the dissidents would want is civilians dead, it would destroy what little support they have". Not only us the use of the term "civilians" disturbing as a modifier, but regardless of what these groups say they want, enough has gone wrong with car bombs historically to know that there is a strong risk that something will go to **** and people will get hurt. To paraphrase the PIRA, the dissidents only have to be unlucky once. And when they are, God help the rest of us.

Ultimately, based on the qualifiers "intent" and "civilians" that consistently come up in these threads, I think that you and others leave yourselves open to charges that you do, to some extent support the actions of the dissidents.

Overheal

Scofflaw wrote: »

"the dissidents are blowing things up carefully"

Surgical Strike. The term has been in use for decades or longer.

MUSSOLINI wrote:

However,it apparently is fair game as "we cannot protect posters from the impression they give" No warnings given or anything. The reason why I think it is accepted is because of the fact it is republicans.
Ive been down this road lots of times so it is probably pointless to raise it again.

Well don't give off "an impression", take a stance. I make it clear that I'm neither a democrat or a republican, and I have a couple libertarian beliefs.

When a user makes their position clear and another user decides without any cause to ignore that and call you a liar, republican, guerrilla advocate, etc. in spite of stating you clearly are not: that's black and white against The Charter (again under Part 4, Civility), and the Mods do have an interest in enforcing that.

Or we have the case where I offered factual corrections, they bombed a school trying to kill kids, eh no they didn't, they phoned in a warning, lured the cops, and then blew up a bin to try and kill those PSNI men. I understand how that could be viewed as defending the dissidents in some sort of roundabout way, but only if I supported the PSNI being attacked, or the bombs being planted.

If I was in the same thread with the same data I'd have drawn the same conclusion, to be perfectly fair, that they weren't targeting children.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So what if I do clarify it and it surfaces again? What about the fact that it ends up derailing the whole thread into posters having to defend themselves from said accusations? It is not as if I have gone "Jayzus thats terrible, report post" I have defended myself to such an extent that the thread becomes derailed.

Thread derailment is thread derailment, and the hounding of one poster is hounding - feel free to report those issues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

For most people, it doesn't matter that they weren't 'meant' to kill. It doesn't matter that they were phoned in. What matters is that these groups are saying to the world that they have the potential capacity to drag Ireland back to a 1990s situation. It also demonstrates a complete disregard for the democratically expressed wishes of their fellow citizens.

I would agree with that. So what you are saying is that the actual targets dont matter?

You say "the very last thing the dissidents would want is civilians dead, it would destroy what little support they have". Not only us the use of the term "civilians" disturbing as a modifier, but regardless of what these groups say they want, enough has gone wrong with car bombs historically to know that there is a strong risk that something will go to **** and people will get hurt. To paraphrase the PIRA, the dissidents only have to be unlucky once. And when they are, God help the rest of us.

I would not regard soldiers or police men as civilians, wether they be Irish, British, American or whatever. I dont want them dead.
I agree 100%, hence my repeated condemnation of any and all bombings in the current climate, those days are gone.

Ultimately, based on the qualifiers "intent" and "civilians" that consistently come up in these threads, I think that you and others leave yourselves open to charges that you do, to some extent support the actions of the dissidents.

So by not describing soldiers and cops as civilians(they are not) it appears that we support dissidents? Come on.
So the intent is not relevant? Thats strange, I feel it is important that we know and examine the intent. The FACTS of the matter are important. Unless you want to engage in a sensationalist debate where such things as facts don't get in the way. Motivations are important in examining any act. As is the intent behind them. That is true in the courts, its true here too.

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Thread derailment is thread derailment, and the hounding of one poster is hounding - feel free to report those issues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thats a bit difficult when a mod is behaving in a similar vein.

Wolfe Tone

Overheal wrote: »

Well don't give off "an impression", take a stance. I make it clear that I'm neither a democrat or a republican, and I have a couple libertarian beliefs.

I think I have been pretty clear, however I will try to be more so in future.

When a user makes their position clear and another user decides without any cause to ignore that and call you a liar, republican, guerrilla advocate, etc. in spite of stating you clearly are not: that's black and white against The Charter (again under Part 4, Civility), and the Mods do have an interest in enforcing that.

Apologist is one that is used too, defender.

If I was in the same thread with the same data I'd have drawn the same conclusion, to be perfectly fair, that they weren't targeting children.

At the time I though that conclusion obvious.





I should really sleep now, thanks for all your time, I will be back tomorrow. If a mod deems it prudent to split this thread into two separate ones(I may have hijacked this a bit!!) that would be cool.

southsiderosie

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I would agree with that. So what you are saying is that the actual targets dont matter?

I would not regard soldiers or police men as civilians, wether they be Irish, British, American or whatever. I dont want them dead.
I agree 100%, hence my repeated condemnation of any and all bombings in the current climate, those days are gone.

So by not describing soldiers and cops as civilians(they are not) it appears that we support dissidents? Come on.

Then why not make an unqualified statement? Why not just say "it would be bad if people got killed"? By saying it would be bad if "civilians" were killed, the implication is that it wouldn't be so bad if police or soldiers were killed.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So the intent is not relevant? Thats strange, I feel it is important that we know and examine the intent. The FACTS of the matter are important. Unless you want to engage in a sensationalist debate where such things as facts don't get in the way. Motivations are important in examining any act. As is the intent behind them. That is true in the courts, its true here too.

The stated intent has become irrelevant. It does not matter that these people don't "intend" to hurt anyone. Their actions say that they think it is legitimate to use explosives to make a political point.

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

Then why not make an unqualified statement? Why not just say "it would be bad if people got killed"? By saying it would be bad if "civilians" were killed, the implication is that it wouldn't be so bad if police or soldiers were killed.

I thought I said that the LAST THING THE DISSIDENTS WOULD WANT would be civilians dead. Of course they want state forces dead.
To the people saying they want civilians dead, I say they don't, why would they? Look at it subjectively. It would make no sense for them to have another Omagh.

The stated intent has become irrelevant. It does not matter that these people don't "intend" to hurt anyone. Their actions say that they think it is legitimate to use explosives to make a political point.

So the debate should simply be "They used a bomb" and discard all other details?

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

The stated intent has become irrelevant. It does not matter that these people don't "intend" to hurt anyone. Their actions say that they think it is legitimate to use explosives to make a political point.

Which can't really be condoned, imo. But the problem becomes, I've seen over the years, that someone will come along and support the rest of the platform (Unification, or whatever the case may be) and then the reaction is "Oh if you agree with that then you must also enjoy killing babies" etc.

There are those out that that abhor the violence, there are those that just want to watch the world burn, and there are those people in the middle of that equation which believe that force is necessary in particular circumstances. In particular they see it as a war with battle lines and combatants and non-combatants.

You have to understand that in politics, things are very rarely Binary.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Apologist is one that is used too, defender.

Apology is just a style of debate; it's not a viewpoint.

southsiderosie

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I thought I said that the LAST THING THE DISSIDENTS WOULD WANT would be civilians dead. Of course they want state forces dead.
To the people saying they want civilians dead, I say they don't, why would they? Look at it subjectively. It would make no sense for them to have another Omagh.

And yet, based on Ireland's history of car bombings, another Omagh is inevitable because nobody can guarantee that something will not go wrong when there are explosives involved. And, again, it does not matter what the intent is; the reality is that bombs do not always go off according to plan and they KILL PEOPLE.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So the debate should simply be "They used a bomb" and discard all other details?

"Dissidents placed a bomb"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school, but called ahead and it was evacuated"

Once we've established the fact that dissidents placed a bomb, I honestly don't give a **** what any of the qualifiers or circumstances are: they are using VIOLENCE to make a POLITICAL point. Although the school as a case only makes it more horrible, not less.

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

Which can't really be condoned, imo. But the problem becomes, I've seen over the years, that someone will come along and support the rest of the platform (Unification, or whatever the case may be) and then the reaction is "Oh if you agree with that then you must also enjoy killing babies" etc.

There are those out that that abhor the violence, there are those that just want to watch the world burn, and there are those people in the middle of that equation which believe that force is necessary in particular circumstances. In particular they see it as a war with battle lines and combatants and non-combatants.

You have to understand that in politics, things are very rarely Binary.

In a democracy it is quite binary.

What is the point of having a political process if someone can just come along and say "no I don't like this so I am going to kill agents of the state?"

There is a constitutional path to unification. Not everyone may like it, but it is there.

The use of violence prior to the GFA is debatable. But in a post-GFA context, far less so. And what is particularly disturbing today is how many dissidents and sympathizers have no actual experience of repression; they are simply going off of history and feeding off of dissidents strains in their communities.

Overheal

It was not actually my intent to engage in a North discussion, it was an example used by MUSSOLINI to convey the problem he is trying to address in Politics.

southsiderosie wrote: »

And yet, based on Ireland's history of car bombings, another Omagh is inevitable because nobody can guarantee that something will not go wrong when there are explosives involved. And, again, it does not matter what the intent is; the reality is that bombs do not always go off according to plan and they KILL PEOPLE.

"Dissidents placed a bomb"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school, but called ahead and it was evacuated"

Once we've established the fact that dissidents placed a bomb, I honestly don't give a **** what any of the qualifiers or circumstances are: they are using VIOLENCE to make a POLITICAL point. Although the school as a case only makes it more horrible, not less.

Which is your opinion but in the context of this Feedback Thread (...guys?) this is the problem I think MUSSOLINI was getting at, is that other posters are unable to differentiate one viewpoint from the other (edit: case and point, "Once we've established that dissidents placed a bomb I dont give a ****") and it's resulting in miscommunication and ultimately false accusations, muppetry, and ad hominem attacks.

I'd have a real problem with US Politics for instance if it employed Sean Hannity logic, ie. "You support the Ground Zero Mosque?! Then you support the terrorists. You want the Terrorists to win. You are a terrorist, get out of my country. You hate America! Bla rabble rawr"

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

Which is your opinion but in the context of this Feedback Thread (...guys?) this is the problem I think MUSSOLINI was getting at, is that other posters are unable to differentiate one viewpoint from the other and it's resulting in miscommunication and ultimately false accusations, muppetry, and ad hominem attacks.

Yes, that's true, and happens to virtually every poster with a political opinion at some point most days. Some posters are unable to distinguish any form of nuance whatsoever, but apart from them, if many people make the same misinterpretation of your viewpoint, then the common thread is likely to be that you're not explaining yourself well enough. Or too well, depending.

As I said, if it spills over into something actionable, we can take action - otherwise I'm afraid it's the small change of discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

It was not actually my intent to engage in a North discussion, it was an example used by MUSSOLINI to convey the problem he is trying to address in Politics.


Which is your opinion but in the context of this Feedback Thread (...guys?) this is the problem I think MUSSOLINI was getting at, is that other posters are unable to differentiate one viewpoint from the other and it's resulting in miscommunication and ultimately false accusations, muppetry, and ad hominem attacks.

I think the fundamental problem is that the starting premises and underlying assumptions are completely different. If you are coming from a position where violence is sometimes legitimate, then yes you can engage in these debates. If you are coming from a position where political violence in a democratic context is rarely if ever legitimate, then no, there is no space for debate.

As I see it, these issues get muddled in threads. If someone who has identified as a republican says, in response to a bombing "Well, they don't want to hurt civilians", what this reads as is: 1) the use of bombs is legitimate to make a political point, and 2) the targeting of "non-civilians" is legitimate. Both perspectives may technically be correct, but they will inevitably lead to clashes in a thread.

The first has obvious problems, as I have pointed out. The second is more problematic, however, because the definition of "civilian" has been quite elastic historically, depending on the political situation. Unfortunately, what often happens is that "non-civilians" are dubbed to be "anyone who takes a position in this conflict in opposition to me", and this is how you end up with journalists, politicians, and businessmen being murdered (the Basque Country is a prime example of this). Ultimately it is a slippery slope: violence is OK as long as it targetes the state security apparatus, then people who work with the state security apparatus (touts!), then people who are non-security agents of the state (politicians) then people who criticize the use of violence (journalists, activists)...and so on and so forth.

Overheal

See the reason I'm not getting into a North debate is because I don't know any of the specifics, I've never even heard of Basque County, and for the purposes of this thread do not feel the need to be taught about it right now, either.

As long as you're not assuming people are right-wing extremists because they understand the [violent] intentions of an organisation - especially when they've expressly stated they don't belong to or agree with the organisations views - then there isn't a problem here. That is of course only for the purposes of this example. It would be the same situation if you could agree that someone might understand the argument for Pro Choice despite them personally being Pro Life. The problem only arises (and this is not aimed at you Dosie) when a poster attacks another poster accusing them of being "Pro Abortion" because they convey and understanding of the platform.

To make a long story short, I think this thread has run it's course. Moral of the story: don't make yourself too ambiguous, it avoids a lot of problems further along

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

See the reason I'm not getting into a North debate is because I don't know any of the specifics, I've never even heard of Basque County, and for the purposes of this thread do not feel the need to be taught about it right now, either.

As long as you're not assuming people are right-wing extremists because they understand the [violent] intentions of an organisation - especially when they've expressly stated they don't belong to or agree with the organisations views - then there isn't a problem here. That is of course only for the purposes of this example. It would be the same situation if you could agree that someone might understand the argument for Pro Choice despite them personally being Pro Life. The problem only arises (and this is not aimed at you Dosie) when a poster attacks another poster accusing them of being "Pro Abortion" because they convey and understanding of the platform.

To make a long story short, I think this thread has run it's course. Moral of the story: don't make yourself too ambiguous, it avoids a lot of problems further along

I think the abortion debate is a perfect analogy, not only for the reasons you have posted, but because the threads tend to descend into the same 8 people yelling at each other, and everyone else just bows out.

As for the Basque Country, it's like Ireland except rainier and with much better food.;)

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think the abortion debate is a perfect analogy, not only for the reasons you have posted, but because the threads tend to descend into the same 8 people yelling at each other, and everyone else just bows out.

As for the Basque Country, it's like Ireland except rainier and with much better food.;)

And the people are quite possibly madder. Also, fascinating language.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think the abortion debate is a perfect analogy, not only for the reasons you have posted, but because the threads tend to descend into the same 8 people yelling at each other, and everyone else just bows out.

As for the Basque Country, it's like Ireland except rainier and with much better food.;)

Spot on, all you have is what has been going on for the last 30 posts,every word and inference parsed and analysed for the different meanings and connotations it might imply.

Happens when idealistic one-issue posters insist on pushing their agenda on a Public forum .

And eventually you get the same die-hards dancing on the head of a pin whilst the other posters with lives have lost interest


Easiest thing is to blame the Mod.

southsiderosie

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Spot on, all you have is what has been going on for the last 30 posts,every word and inference parsed and analysed for the different meanings and connotations it might imply.

Happens when idealistic one-issue posters insist on pushing their agenda on a Public forum .

And eventually you get the same die-hards dancing on the head of a pin whilst the other posters with lives have lost interest


Easiest thing is to blame the Mod.

Well I normally don't comment in threads about Northern Ireland or republicanism. Last night was more insomnia than anything else (although, to be fair, it is hard to have a 'group' discussion at 2am!). I did venture into a thread about language and culture once, but, again, it just turned into a 5-on-5 'discussion'.

I think Northern Ireland is a fascinating topic, but it has the same problem that exists in the Basque Country (where I am living now): the actions of a few were (are) so vile that anyone with even a loose affiliation to them - or who rightly or wrongly are perceived as being remotely sympathetic to them - gets tarred with the same brush. And language is scrutinized because it serves as a signaling mechanism for people's politics. The flip side is that people who disagree with the nationalist party line are dismissed as being somehow self-loathing, rather than just having a different opinion.

I guess I will just wander back into economic policy threads.

FlutterinBantam

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well I normally don't comment in threads about Northern Ireland or republicanism. Last night was more insomnia than anything else (although, to be fair, it is hard to have a 'group' discussion at 2am!). I did venture into a thread about language and culture once, but, again, it just turned into a 5-on-5 'discussion'.

I think Northern Ireland is a fascinating topic, but it has the same problem that exists in the Basque Country (where I am living now): the actions of a few were (are) so vile that anyone with even a loose affiliation to them - or who rightly or wrongly are perceived as being remotely sympathetic to them - gets tarred with the same brush. And language is scrutinized because it serves as a signaling mechanism for people's politics. The flip side is that people who disagree with the nationalist party line are dismissed as being somehow self-loathing, rather than just having a different opinion.

I guess I will just wander back into economic policy threads.

You see that exactly re-enforces my point,here we have a well balanced individual poster who,if I read their post correctly, feels intimidated and prevented from entering discussions in the Politics forum as it just opens the door for the hard liners and single issue people to get stuck in,complete with signatures blazing at the bottom of every post,lest there be any doubt of their attitude of affiliation.

If I got that inference wrong, please feel free to correct it.

southsiderosie

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You see that exactly re-enforces my point,here we have a well balanced individual poster who,if I read their post correctly, feels intimidated and prevented from entering discussions in the Politics forum as it just opens the door for the hard liners and single issue people to get stuck in,complete with signatures blazing at the bottom of every post,lest there be any doubt of their attitude of affiliation.

If I got that inference wrong, please feel free to correct it.

Well-balanced, eh? That's a first! :P

I wouldn't say I feel "intimidated". It's more the fact that it seems impossible to have a real and/or interesting discussion because the reactions are so predictable and doctrinaire. Any debate where the core rationale or issue boils down to nationalism ends up being a shouting match, because nationalist narratives in general leave no room for subtlety, heterogeneity, or debate. But the reality is much more complicated; Ireland (and for that matter the Basque Country) was never as homogeneous as nationalists would make it seem, and underlying questions of class, urban/rural divides, and language get sandpapered away in most discussions. Which is a shame, because it's the messy parts that are worth having a discussion about.

In an economic debate, people may disagree. And sometimes these just turn into data wars. But I think most of the really good discussion threads on boards are when someone identifies a grey area, and we all muddle through it in an attempt to pick it apart. But there are very few grey areas when it comes to nationalism, and after decades of armed conflict, for many people there are even fewer when it comes to the use of political violence. So unless you are really passionate about one side of an issue or the other (or feel like banging your head against a wall), it's just not an interesting or compelling enough conversation to have.

FlutterinBantam

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well-balanced, eh? That's a first! :P

I wouldn't say I feel "intimidated". It's more the fact that it seems impossible to have a real and/or interesting discussion because the reactions are so predictable and doctrinaire. Any debate where the core rationale or issue boils down to nationalism ends up being a shouting match, because nationalist narratives in general leave no room for subtlety, heterogeneity, or debate. But the reality is much more complicated; Ireland (and for that matter the Basque Country) was never as homogeneous as nationalists would make it seem, and underlying questions of class, urban/rural divides, and language get sandpapered away in most discussions. Which is a shame, because it's the messy parts that are worth having a discussion about.

In an economic debate, people may disagree. And sometimes these just turn into data wars. But I think most of the really good discussion threads on boards are when someone identifies a grey area, and we all muddle through it in an attempt to pick it apart. But there are very few grey areas when it comes to nationalism, and after decades of armed conflict, for many people there are even fewer when it comes to the use of political violence. So unless you are really passionate about one side of an issue or the other (or feel like banging your head against a wall), it's just not an interesting or compelling enough conversation to have.

Nicely put.

Might follow your excellent and well-balanced rationale myself.

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

And yet, based on Ireland's history of car bombings, another Omagh is inevitable because nobody can guarantee that something will not go wrong when there are explosives involved. And, again, it does not matter what the intent is; the reality is that bombs do not always go off according to plan and they KILL PEOPLE.

Wow, bombs kill people. The points is that no one wants another Omagh, especially the dissidents. It would kill of all remaining support for militant republicansm. You must see that if they WANTED another Omagh they would do it. The current dissident campaign is one to win public support. We have drug dealers being shot, banks bombed, all designed to win over support. Massacreing civillians, like what happened at Omagh, does not fit in with that plan.

"Dissidents placed a bomb"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school, but called ahead and it was evacuated"

Once we've established the fact that dissidents placed a bomb, I honestly don't give a **** what any of the qualifiers or circumstances are: they are using VIOLENCE to make a POLITICAL point. Although the school as a case only makes it more horrible, not less.

Thats exactly the point, the only debate allowed is seemingly a "rabble rabble" with no subjective analysis, or even god forbid, clarification of the facts involved.

As I see it, these issues get muddled in threads. If someone who has identified as a republican says, in response to a bombing "Well, they don't want to hurt civilians", what this reads as is: 1) the use of bombs is legitimate to make a political point, and 2) the targeting of "non-civilians" is legitimate. Both perspectives may technically be correct, but they will inevitably lead to clashes in a thread.

Here we go again, I have not merely said "they don't want to kill civilians". Generally I start off with an outright condemnation of the attack. Followed with my analysis of the attack and the reasons why it occurred. TBH I would have thought that most peoples definition of civilians would be the same as mine. The average joe.
The targeting of non civilians is indeed legitimate in the eyes of the dissidents, not in mine. One would think this would be clear when I state something along the lines of "This act was terrible, should never have happened".

Ultimately it is a slippery slope: violence is OK as long as it targetes the state security apparatus, then people who work with the state security apparatus (touts!), then people who are non-security agents of the state (politicians) then people who criticize the use of violence (journalists, activists)...and so on and so forth.

Yet I have always stated that I reject the need for any violence in todays situation. I do not agree with violence being used in todays context. SO from the very beginning I have rejected violence.

As long as you're not assuming people are right-wing extremists because they understand the [violent] intentions of an organisation - especially when they've expressly stated they don't belong to or agree with the organisations views - then there isn't a problem here.

Well then there IS a problem. All I have done, and others like me, is offer a subjective analysis, and effectively been branded a terrorist. I HAVE expressly stated that I do not belong to any organisation that supports them, I HAVE stated that I do not agree with them, I HAVE condemned them.

people who disagree with the nationalist party line are dismissed as being somehow self-loathing, rather than just having a different opinion.

To the best of my recollection I for one have never done any such thing. I have strove to presuade people sure, but I have never written them off as say "west brits" because they do not agree with me.

You see that exactly re-enforces my point,here we have a well balanced individual poster who,if I read their post correctly, feels intimidated and prevented from entering discussions in the Politics forum as it just opens the door for the hard liners and single issue people to get stuck in,complete with signatures blazing at the bottom of every post,lest there be any doubt of their attitude of affiliation.

If I got that inference wrong, please feel free to correct it.

I know for a fact that some posters feel intimidated about partaking in threads on republicanism least they be tarred with the dissident brush. Ahh, hard liners and single issue posters. Is that what you think of me? So you have issues with posters signature now? Problems with me having Bobby Sands and co in my sig? GOD FORBID someone have a signature which reflects their political beliefs.

P. Breathnach

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

... So you have issues with posters signature now? Problems with me having Bobby Sands and co in my sig? GOD FORBID someone have a signature which reflects their political beliefs.

If your sig reflects your political beliefs, then you should not complain when people draw an inference from it.

southsiderosie

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Wow, bombs kill people. The points is that no one wants another Omagh, especially the dissidents. It would kill of all remaining support for militant republicansm. You must see that if they WANTED another Omagh they would do it. The current dissident campaign is one to win public support. We have drug dealers being shot, banks bombed, all designed to win over support. Massacreing civillians, like what happened at Omagh, does not fit in with that plan.

You keep raising the Omagh issue. The claim there was that they phoned it in, but due to miscommunication it was a terrible accident that so many people got killed. But the reality of bombmaking is that accidents happen. If the dissidents were serious about preventing deaths, they would not be setting off bombs, no matter how many 'precautions' they take.

As for winning support through violence aimed at social undesirables, exactly whose support are they trying to win? Bombing banks is a cynical ploy to take advantage of the current economic situation. And kneecapping drug dealers may win some hearts and minds, but any rational person has to ask themselves, again, about the prospect of a slippery slope. I can think of no case where this kind of vigilantism did not, over time, slide into a morass of extortion, racketeering and intimidation, often at the whim of those with the muscle. Who wants to live like this?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Here we go again, I have not merely said "they don't want to kill civilians". Generally I start off with an outright condemnation of the attack. Followed with my analysis of the attack and the reasons why it occurred. TBH I would have thought that most peoples definition of civilians would be the same as mine. The average joe.
The targeting of non civilians is indeed legitimate in the eyes of the dissidents, not in mine. One would think this would be clear when I state something along the lines of "This act was terrible, should never have happened".

At this point we are going in circles. We are not going to see eye to eye on this.

Paddy Woodworth wrote the following about the Basques, but I think it equally applies to the Irish. This critique may not apply to you directly, but it certainly applies to many of your fellow-travelers.

Over the years, I have repeatedly asked members of Batasuna [Basque nationalist party linked to the terrorist organization ETA] how they could justify attacks like these. These are, I repeat, individuals whose decency and humanity was evident in everything except in their complicit silence before such crimes. Their actual words have varied, of course, but essentially there are two responses. One, a mantra familiar from Sinn Fein members in similar circumstances, runs like this: "These deaths, like all deaths, are regrettable, but they are the inevitable result of the Basque conflict, and will no longer happen when the conflict is resolved."

This is disingenuous, of course. ETA is not a force of nature which operates independently of the will of individuals. A conflict has no finger to squeeze a trigger or detonate a bomb. Only individual human beings can do these things. And these individuals must be aware that there are many non-violent alternatives to such actions in the Basque Country today.

Wolfe Tone

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If your sig reflects your political beliefs, then you should not complain when people draw an inference from it.

He was claiming that it intimidated posters.