RIRA make new years statement- Threaten to "expand its campaign in 2011"

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well he harped on about the glories of war, Denerick would be the man to discuss that with.

Then I have no respect for Pearse. Simple as that.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Of course they went and did sectarian attacks, which where despicable. Or blew up innocent people for little reason. The IRAs biggest asset was the moral high ground, they pissed that away to a great degree.

Then we are in agreement again. I would not condone targetted stuff, but if they had stuck to that I could have at least understood their reasons; without trivialising it, it'd be the equivalent of me (a pacifist) giving Bertie Ahern a well-deserved thump.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The cause of the problem is always important is it not? The motivatons for crime are too. Do you not think it is important to know the motivations, the reasons why? I've tried to explain them on here before and been lablled a supporter when I am not. These men are prepared to risk over fourteen years in jail(it re portably terrible conditions!) to throw a glorified banger(pipe bomb) at a cop shop.

Why single out a cop-shop ? There is no indication that they will be in any way targetted, and given atrocities like Omagh I have no faith that they will.

And no, when it comes to murdering or injuring innocents I have no time for investigating the "cause of the problem". If they choose that route then it's their choice.

If I'm pissed off with someone and thump them, then we could look at the cause, and people could see and maybe even support my actions. If I'm pissed off and thump an innocent, that is an incorrect choice on my part and I have no problem with getting hammered by the law of the land and losing respect, because my actions cannot be justified.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The dissidents have a bit of support now in fairness. I wonder if there are membership numbers of their political wings? They do have some support.

I was basing my figures on the percentage that voted for the GFA. That would indicate that there is no reason for these thugs to continue to intimidate, maim and murder.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Same here.

Good to hear.

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then I have no respect for Pearse. Simple as that.

In fairness to the man a lot did in that era.

Why single out a cop-shop ? There is no indication that they will be in any way targetted, and given atrocities like Omagh I have no faith that they will.

I've been following militant republican activity for the past while. There is still dissatisfaction with the PSNI, dont forget there is still harassment, recently enough it was ruled that they were in breach of human rights with their section 44 actions, stopping and searching, if I remember correctly this only ever resulted in literally a handful of convictions despite tens of thousands of illegal searches, a percentage of PSNI members are still the same as the old RUC(its only been re branded a decade, if FF changed there name in ten years do you think the cancer would be gone? Of course not). So they attack police, pipe bombs, car bombs, sniper attempts, luring them etc etc in order to build support. The police retaliate with raids etc, this is viewed as harassment. Hence more support for revenge against them. They have continually targeted police and the army over the past few years.

I am so convinced that they wont kill civilians that if that did occur I would be quicker to believe it was Mi5 rather than a militant republican attack. Their biggest fear is another Omagh, that killed them off for near a decade, another one of them would be the end of them. I also suggest reading up more on Omagh, there is much more to it than the RIRA planting the bomb.

And no, when it comes to murdering or injuring innocents I have no time for investigating the "cause of the problem". If they choose that route then it's their choice.

I dont understand this POV. If someone gets killed I want to know why.

If I'm pissed off with someone and thump them, then we could look at the cause, and people could see and maybe even support my actions. If I'm pissed off and thump an innocent, that is an incorrect choice on my part and I have no problem with getting hammered by the law of the land and losing respect, because my actions cannot be justified.

They are targeting police and the army, certainly not innocents in everyones eyes.

KeithAFC

I also suggest reading up more on Omagh, there is much more to it than the RIRA planting the bomb.

No there isn't. The RIRA planted the bomb and ran off like the pack of idiots they are. Disgraceful incident was Omagh.

I am so convinced that they wont kill civilians that if that did occur I would be quicker to believe it was Mi5 rather than a militant republican attack.

That is logical. Lets just ignore the ability they have in being able to kill people and lets just think it could be MI5. What sort of planet are you living on when you would think an intelligence organisation would plant a bomb to kill people than a dissident group of thugs?

They are targeting police and the army, certainly not innocents in everyones eyes.

Already forgotten about the two civilian delivery men at Massereene Barracks?

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

No there isn't. The RIRA planted the bomb and ran off like the pack of idiots they are. Disgraceful incident was Omagh.



That is logical. Lets just ignore the ability they have in being able to kill people and lets just think it could be MI5. What sort of planet are you living on when you would think an intelligence organisation would plant a bomb to kill people than a dissident group of thugs?


Already forgotten about the two civilian delivery men at Massereene Barracks?

While the ultimate responsibility lies with the RIRA there is more to it than what you say.


What would be logical about them doing another Omagh? If they wanted to they could do it tomorrow. I believe there is no way in hell they would.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

While the ultimate responsibility lies with the RIRA there is more to it than what you say.


What would be logical about them doing another Omagh? If they wanted to they could do it tomorrow. I believe there is no way in hell they would.

They killed those 2 soldiers, could of easily had killed two people doing their job (Pizza delivery boys) and two other soldiers got injured. A similar group killed a police officer (who was a Catholic) and seemed to be proud to claim responsability.

They could easily do another Omagh and it doesn't have to be lots of deaths. Another death is one too many. Why can't they move into politics? Why carry the gun still? Pointless.

marienbad

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

In fairness to the man a lot did in that era.



I've been following militant republican activity for the past while. There is still dissatisfaction with the PSNI, dont forget there is still harassment, recently enough it was ruled that they were in breach of human rights with their section 44 actions, stopping and searching, if I remember correctly this only ever resulted in literally a handful of convictions despite tens of thousands of illegal searches, a percentage of PSNI members are still the same as the old RUC(its only been re branded a decade, if FF changed there name in ten years do you think the cancer would be gone? Of course not). So they attack police, pipe bombs, car bombs, sniper attempts, luring them etc etc in order to build support. The police retaliate with raids etc, this is viewed as harassment. Hence more support for revenge against them. They have continually targeted police and the army over the past few years.

I am so convinced that they wont kill civilians that if that did occur I would be quicker to believe it was Mi5 rather than a militant republican attack. Their biggest fear is another Omagh, that killed them off for near a decade, another one of them would be the end of them. I also suggest reading up more on Omagh, there is much more to it than the RIRA planting the bomb.


I dont understand this POV. If someone gets killed I want to know why.


They are targeting police and the army, certainly not innocents in everyones eyes.

You seem to be very keen on studying motivation, but just because that motivation may be correct, that really gets you nowhere.

drug dealers could site lack of education, derilict housing estates etc etc for their reason for going into drug dealing. And you could say OK lets work on that and try and eliminate the root causes .

Similarly with RIRA , the Nationalist/Unionist grievances have been comprehensively analysed and the GFA is the result and endorsed overwhelmingly by the people , end of

Anyone who continues to espouse physical force is no better that the drug dealer at this stage . Motivation is irrelvant because nothing short of a solution on their terms will satisfy them. And that is just not on offer.

JustinDee

proon4 wrote: »

Now I realise......................Your allunder 50 and have the reveniosist History,,,ffs read history not The pricks Eoghan Harrris history

Posting while on the turps is not really a good idea, particularly if you're seeking some sort of credibility in the ridiculous claim that nobody who left school after 1978 has a clue.
What utter bilge.

senordingdong

JustinDee wrote: »

Posting while on the turps is not really a good idea, particularly if you're seeking some sort of credibility in the ridiculous claim that nobody who left school after 1978 has a clue.
What utter bilge.

Is that what he was saying?

I couldn't understand at all...

gandalf

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why can't they move into politics? Why carry the gun still? Pointless.

It is quite simple really because they would have next to no support and would fade away into the background. These criminals can't handle the fact now the troubles are on the whole over that they are now nobodies.

The authorities now need to deal with them and whatever violent loyalist remnants that are left in the same way, that they are common criminals and target every cent that they have and if they cannot account for where it came from take it from them.

The people on both sides of the border spoke democratically with the GFA and rejected violence anyone who violently rejects this mandate is not fit to be part of society here in the Republic or in Northern Ireland.

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What would be logical about them doing another Omagh?

What was logical about them doing the first Omagh?

Noreen1

ISAW wrote: »

so you opposed the invasion of Iraq?


Well it is but it is not a legitimate Army.



But this is not the way RIRA view it. They dont view N Ireland being a separate state as equality.


Yes and it is something worth doing something about
But as regards this discussion ..... so what?
If Loyalists were persecuted so what? that isn't at issue. The issue is why RIRA are persecuting anyone.



Most if not all sectarian atrocities by the IRA were in the 1970s. Loyalist killings come later and more recent.



Except for the fact that the IRA didnt carry out such a proportion of attacks against Protestants. Two thirds of their killings were of military and of the other third it splits about 65/35 protestant to catholic which isnt evidence of sectarianism since Loyalists were more then 65 per cent Protestant.



Pity about the million dead in Iraq then? and the millions currently being wiped out in Palestine. REmind me who sells then weapons again?



In spite of the evidence i posted - published academic sources. University of Ulster no less.
And they continue.



They don't have the same reasons for violence




i agree. But the Republicans have ceased fire and admitted to mistakes.

Yes, I opposed the invasion of Iraq. It was nothing more than a glorified attempt to control oil supplies, dressed up as a "pre-emptive" strike.

I don't view the partition of this country as being true equality either - but I'm willing to recognise that I can't have everything I want, when I want it. Neither do I have the right to impose my wishes on anyone else.

A lot of the British people couldn't care less about the North. They don't understand the history of this country, and they see Northern Ireland as a financial drain, with no benefits to mainland UK to offset the costs.
So the only real barrier to a united Ireland is the Loyalist community.
A return to violence against that community is not going to encourage them that the Nationalist community will be happy to live in peace with them.

You say, if Loyalists were persecuted, so what?
Does that mean that a Loyalist who lost a son/husband/brother hurts any less than a Nationalist in the same situation? I don't think so!
It makes no difference what value you, or the RIRA place on a Loyalist life (and there we appear to have very different opinions, by the way), the truth is, their families will go through the exact same emotions that a Nationalist family will suffer - and, human nature being what it is, they will react with the same anger that Nationalists feel at the deaths/injuries to their own loved ones.
That is why a return to violence will never achieve either peace in this country, or a united Ireland, and that is why the GFA is the only way forward that I can see.

History is written by the victor - and usually not in an unbiased fashion. For example, anyone who can justify exporting grain to Britain during the famine, either hasn't heard that the starving Irish were prevented from accessing that grain at gunpoint, or are so blinkered in their justification of the British crown, that they refuse to see the truth when it's staring them in the face. Unfortunately, killing more of them wont make them see the truth - it will just make their views more entrenched. On the other hand, time taken now to let bitterness die down, will eventually lead to the truth being accepted. Then, and only then, can we reach understanding.

I accept that certain Loyalist organisations were sectarian to the core - to a far greater extent than the Nationalist organisations ever were. But its not me the RIRA need to convince of that fact - it's the moderate Loyalist community, and by engaging in violence, they will only achieve a return to the same blinkered view that was held in the past. It will achieve Bloody Sunday in reverse IMHO.

I have posted my views on the suffering of the Lebanese people in several threads. I don't condone either the Israeli occupation or the part the British government played in granting the Jews the state of Israel. However, I don't see how the average Unionist in Northern Ireland is responsible for that.

The republicans have ceased fire, and admitted to mistakes. Some Unionists have done the same. The truth is, there are bitter people on both sides, who will never admit that anything their "side" did could possibly be wrong. The trouble is, these are the people who will never achieve anything but more hatred and bitterness, and that will gain no-one anything.

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What was logical about them doing the first Omagh?

Do you think that the aim of Omagh was simply to blow up all those people?

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Do you think that the aim of Omagh was simply to blow up all those people?

I haven't a clue what the aim was, but that's what happens when you park a live bomb on a street and run away.

What I'm saying is that Omagh wasn't logical first time around, so whether a second version (or even a "more minor" version that murders one person) is not going to be based on any known logic.

gandalf

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Do you think that the aim of Omagh was simply to blow up all those people?

Would you not agree that when you leave a large bomb with little or no warning in a busy town on a Saturday then it is a unavoidable outcome that people will be killed?

To any sane person it is obvious that the device was intended to kill and maim on a large scale in a very indiscriminate manner. No amount of revisionism can camouflage this.

Wolfe Tone

You need to read up on Omagh.


They wanted to bomb the couthouse, was no spaces, so for incomprehensible reasons they left the car 400yards down the road. They phoned in warnings to the effect "bomb near courthouse, main street"(along those lines).
Omagh doesn't have a main street, so for reasons only known to them, the RUC deviated from normal procedure(I believe they usually sent everyone to the bus depot in a bomb scare) they herded everyone towards the bomb.

There was a police ombudsman report which found that the RUC basically made a bags of it, ignored warnings etc, the RUC even tried to stop it from getting published. Mi5 also received a warning with lots of details a couple of days before, they never passed it on.


They are the facts.


Of course the ultimate responsibility lies with the RIRA. But it was not just a case of leaving a bomb in a town in order to massacre people. That just makes no sense. Those deaths didnt benefit the RIRA. Thats why you have allegations from some that the RUC and Mi5 deliberately let it happen. ie, this is what you are in for if you don't go for the GFA.


Look at the newry courthouse car bomb last year, they did that in the dead of night.

junder

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Didnt someone post that up earlier?



Seriously, if you think it would add to the discussion, should I throw up a bunch of accounts of loyalist attacks?

Nobody is defending loyalists attacks, unlike people still trying to explain away republican actions. As for the context if the articule it's a very clear example of the sectarian nature of the ira, the list does go on le mons, Warrington, black Friday and the Mountain Lodge Pentecostal Church all resulting in the death of innocent people.

KeithAFC

Agree. Constant excuse making for the RIRA. Stop making excuses for them. Its PATHETIC.

Wolfe Tone

junder wrote: »

Nobody is defending loyalists attacks, unlike people still trying to explain away republican actions. As for the context if the articule it's a very clear example of the sectarian nature of the ira, the list does go on le mons, Warrington, black Friday and the Mountain Lodge Pentecostal Church all resulting in the death of innocent people.

Have you ever seen me try to explain away republican sectarian attacks?


The fact remains that nigh on every loyalist attack was sectarian, the same is not true for republican ones, do you dispute that?

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Have you ever seen me try to explain away republican sectarian attacks?


The fact remains that nigh on every loyalist attack was sectarian, the same is not true for republican ones, do you dispute that?

You just did it in your last post.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

Agree. Constant excuse making for the RIRA. Stop making excuses for them. Its PATHETIC.

Dont you hate when posts just disappear too?



Am I wrong in what I said?

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

You just did it in your last post.

Even if Omagh was simply to blow people up, it was definitely not a sectarian attack. If you disagree please outline how it was an attack aimed solely at protestants because they were protestants. You wont be able to, because it was not.

And I havent "explained it away" I have merely given some more detail, and truth, something the families, I am sure you agree, deserve. Everything I said is fact.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Even if Omagh was simply to blow people up, it was definitely not a sectarian attack. If you disagree please outline how it was an attack aimed solely at protestants because they were protestants. You wont be able to, because it was not.

And I havent "explained it away" I have merely given some more detail, and truth, something the families, I am sure you agree, deserve. Everything I said is fact.

I don't care if it was sectarian or not. All i know is the IRA have murdered people because of their religion. I don't care for stats and all that nonsense. I care for the facts.

Omagh was a disgrace.

Wolfe Tone

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Have you ever seen me try to explain away republican sectarian attacks?


The fact remains that nigh on every loyalist attack was sectarian, the same is not true for republican ones, do you dispute that?

KeithAFC wrote: »

You just did it in your last post.

Its clear I did no such thing.

KeithAFC wrote: »

I don't care if it was sectarian or not

Im confused, why did you say it was sectarian then?

All i know is the IRA have murdered people because of their religion. I don't care for stats and all that nonsense. I care for the facts.

So do I, when I provided them you accused me of trying to explain away a sectarian attack. Can you be any more wrong?

Omagh was a disgrace.

I agree.

KeithAFC

So do I, when I provided them you accused me of trying to explain away a sectarian attack. Can you be any more wrong?

Did you actually read the post? Read it carefully. THE IRA HAVE MURDERED PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION. FACT. What is it you don't understand about that? Your stats point scoring system won't work.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

Did you actually read the post? Read it carefully. THE IRA HAVE MURDERED PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION. FACT. What is it you don't understand about that? Your stats point scoring system won't work.

Was Omagh such an instance? Clearly not. Why did you say it was, and accuse me of explaining away sectarian attacks? When I did no such thing?


Please retract that statement.

gandalf

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The fact remains that nigh on every loyalist attack was sectarian, the same is not true for republican ones, do you dispute that?

This is what I hate about any discussions on the troubles. Its the we didn't stoop as low as the others therefore we are better than them train of thought.

All sides were involved in criminal acts against people whether they maimed them or killed them, they are all as equally bad as each other and should be held in equal contempt.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Was Omagh such an instance? Clearly not. Why did you say it was, and accuse me of explaining away sectarian attacks? When I did no such thing?


Please retract that statement.

No i won't. Omagh imo was blatent sectarian murder with the aim to kill Unionists-Protestants. Regardless of who got caught up in it.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

No i won't. Omagh imo was blatent sectarian murder with the aim to kill Unionists-Protestants. Regardless of who got caught up in it.

Look up the definition of sectarian, you are obviously confused.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Look up the definition of sectarian, you are obviously confused.

Protestants got killed you know. Sectarian murder. All there is to it.

Wolfe Tone

gandalf wrote: »

This is what I hate about any discussions on the troubles. Its the we didn't stoop as low as the others therefore we are better than them train of thought.

All sides were involved in criminal acts against people whether them maimed them or killed them, they are all as equally bad as each other and should be held in equal contempt.

What I said was fact was it not? I responded to loyalists posting up accounts of republican sectarian attacks by asking if I should post up accounts of loyalists ones(pointing out that doing such is silly, and not helpful at all) and further pointed out that loyalists attacks where nigh on 100% sectarian.


Personally I abhor sectarianism, killing people solely because of their religion is wrong. Thats why I am pissed that keith is basically accusing me of being sectarian.