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

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK, so if a fireman tries to help you out after an arson attack and gets it wrong, then he's somehow to blame ?

No, of course not.

Saying "the blame lies ultimately with RIRA" doesn't cut it. Neither does giving RIRA the benefit of the doubt while referring to "allegations from some that the RUC and MI-5 deliberately let it happen".

I dont believe that the RUC did it on purpose, but they certainly fcuked up and closed ranks in the face of an investigation.That is a bit suspicious.

As for parking spaces, jesus what a cop-out!

A cop out? That why the car was where it was. As I said I dont know why they didn't just dive away, the cowards must have been afraid of being caught.

If there are no parking spaces in town on a Saturday I don't even park in a disabled area, let alone dump a car with a bomb somewhere else!

I agree, at the very least they should have taken the car away, personally I feel they were better off not even bringing the bomb into the town in the first place.

I'm sorry, but whatever about your general feelings (and I think I've even thanked one or two of your posts) I cannot have a discussion with someone who regurgitates the excuses of one crowd and gives them credibility and caveats while simultaneously referring to allegations of collusion for the other.

What I did in my post was paraphrase the wikipedia article, thats all really.

So count me out of any further discussions of this nature with you, but feel free to come back to me when you realise that bringing a bomb into a town is an absolute disgrace and the ONLY people to blame for the consequences are the ones who left the bomb there.

I agree it is a disgrace, where have I said it wasn't? You seemed to be under the impression that Omagh was simply an attempt to blow up as many people as possible. It wasn't. Of course that doesn't matter too much as thats what happened anyway, but it was not a deliberate attempt to kill as many people as possible. You asked yourself, what was logical about it? It wasn't logical, it would make no sense for them to kill all those people.

If someone parked a truck containing nuclear waste in the middle of a town and pissed off for lunch would you blame the emergency services for not saving people, or would you agree that the driver should never have taken the truck near the town in the first place ?

The police did not not do their job properly, that is fact, the RUCs own ombudsman said that, not me. I certainly agree, the bomb should have been no where near that town at all.


Everything I said in my post was true, what investigations turned up.

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The police did not not do their job properly, that is fact, the RUCs own ombudsman said that, not me. I certainly agree, the bomb should have been no where near that town at all.

Then why even bring up whether the police did their job properly, or the conspiracy theories ?

No scum & no bomb = no casualties.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You asked yourself, what was logical about it? It wasn't logical, it would make no sense for them to kill all those people.

I asked that because you said that it wouldn't be "logical" for them to repeat it; and you've just reinforced what I was getting at - if the first one wasn't logical, why is there a need for a repeat to be logical ?

When is driving a car into a town where there are innocent bystanders "logical", regardless of where they abandoned it ?

We are dealing with people who have no regard for human life or the wishes of anyone other than their own sick, twisted, violent minds.

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then why even bring up whether the police did their job properly, or the conspiracy theories ?

No scum & no bomb = no casualties.



I asked that because you said that it wouldn't be "logical" for them to repeat it; and you've just reinforced what I was getting at - if the first one wasn't logical, why is there a need for a repeat to be logical ?

When is driving a car into a town where there are innocent bystanders "logical", regardless of where they abandoned it ?

We are dealing with people who have no regard for human life or the wishes of anyone other than their own sick, twisted, violent minds.

Because it is relevant if you want to understand the Omagh bombing and to see it for what it really was. I was explaining how it led to so many deaths.


The RIRA did not set out to kill as many people as possible that day, they set out to bomb the courthouse. Can you see that? It is relevant to todays RIRA. Killing all those people was bad from everyones POV, it killed off the RIRA for a decade(of course, that may be seen as a good thing, but was it worth all those deaths, of course not)

These days they bomb courthouses in the dead of night. They dont want another Omagh. They know that would be the end of them.

Ive said it before, the only way they will stop is if they get a UI or there is another Omagh. Thats my opinion.


And thats why I think they will be taking precautions not to kill innocents(in there eyes anyway, our view of innocents no doubt differs to theirs) in their coming campaign, and ties in what I was saying earlier in response to you asking about them attacking copshops.

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

These days they bomb courthouses in the dead of night. They dont want another Omagh. They know that would be the end of them.

What they want is irrelevant to me.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ive said it before, the only way they will stop is if they get a UI or there is another Omagh. Thats my opinion.

Two options that will hopefully not happen; the latter "ever" for obvious reasons and the former until the democratic will of the people (and not a psychotic bunch of violent thugs) requests it so.

I do not want to live in an Ireland created by people who are so narrow-minded as to ignore what over 90% of the people of this island want.

It's the equivalent of allowing some old grannies re-impose a ban on contraception.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hope its not the eye of the storm but seems to me like their activity has gone down a lot in recent weeks. Was looking for a while like that OnhE crowd were more powerful but everything they've done thus far would be overshadowed by a fortnight of activity by the Provos in the 80s. Planting carbombs beside bomb-proof police stations/courthouses/MI5 headquarters ain't that clever mate.

With so much surveillence equipment and technology I really don't understand how they think they can mount anything close to a successful campaign - Alqaeda can't even manage regular suicide attacks in the UK and they don't even care about hitting military targets.

On top of that the Gardai and PSNI seem to get on great now - something that wasn't the case during the troubles and means the southern border counties are even less safe than they were then. I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this years attacks were black ops to promote the case for anti-terrorism funding.

I really don't think this will be a good year for militant republicans.

junder

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Hope its not the eye of the storm but seems to me like their activity has gone down a lot in recent weeks. Was looking for a while like that OnhE crowd were more powerful but everything they've done thus far would be overshadowed by a fortnight of activity by the Provos in the 80s. Planting carbombs beside bomb-proof police stations/courthouses/MI5 headquarters ain't that clever mate.

With so much surveillence equipment and technology I really don't understand how they think they can mount anything close to a successful campaign - Alqaeda can't even manage regular suicide attacks in the UK and they don't even care about hitting military targets.

On top of that the Gardai and PSNI seem to get on great now - something that wasn't the case during the troubles and means the southern border counties are even less safe than they were then. I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this years attacks were black ops to promote the case for anti-terrorism funding.

I really don't think this will be a good year for militant republicans.

I think the term is to quiet, I regard last years attacks as test runs, they have Been probing defences and looking to root out touts the chances they are planning something big

KeithAFC

What people seem to be missing on here is when they say they don't aim to kill innocent people. Im sorry but the PSNI are INNOCENT people. The PSNI are supported by the process we have in place. There is no conflict anymore. We are now in a peace process and politics and have been for a long time now.

Its about time the RIRA wake up and see the situation. If you don't like something, put it to the ballot and see if people agree with you. The RIRA aim to KILL people. That is all there is to it. They don't care who they kill, as long as they create as much damage as possible and try to bring down the current government, then they simply don't care.

These people don't have morals when it comes to this.

Liam Byrne

KeithAFC wrote: »

What people seem to be missing on here is when they say they don't aim to kill innocent people. Im sorry but the PSNI are INNOCENT people. The PSNI are supported by the process we have in place. There is no conflict anymore. We are now in a peace process and politics and have been for a long time now.

Its about time the RIRA wake up and see the situation. If you don't like something, put it to the ballot and see if people agree with you. The RIRA aim to KILL people. That is all there is to it. They don't care who they kill, as long as they create as much damage as possible and try to bring down the current government, then they simply don't care.

These people don't have morals when it comes to this.

While I don't fully agree with the logic, there is an argument that the security forces - police and army - signed up for jobs that involved threats and possibly even represent "the enemy" to some folk.

That, of course, applies to security forces in Northern Ireland (the area with the dispute) and not to Gardaí or police in other parts of the UK.


Taking it away from Northern Ireland for a sec, I could see, for example, why Iraqis might attack the forces that illegally invaded their country. There is, however, no justification for killing civilians.
That argument is also diluted since people who signed up to the PSNI didn't sign up within a "conflict"area; recognition of the GFA as the will of the people should have ensured that. So you may have a point post-GFA.

So there is some argument that the key objection that people have is when innocent people are killed & maimed.

KeithAFC

Liam Byrne wrote: »

While I don't fully agree with the logic, there is an argument that the security forces - police and army - signed up for jobs that involved threats and possibly even represent "the enemy" to some folk.

Taking it away from Northern Ireland for a sec, I could see, for example, why Iraqis might attack the forces that illegally invaded their country.

That, of course, applies to security forces in Northern Ireland (the area with the dispute) and not to Gardaí or police in other parts of the UK.

That argument is also diluted since people who signed up to the PSNI didn't sign up within a "conflict"area; recognition of the GFA as the will of the people should have ensured that. So you may have a point post-GFA.

So there is some argument that the key objection that people have is when innocent people are killed & maimed.

The whole point of the GFA was peace. Then the PSNI was set up as the police force, the army off the streets. The RIRA are living a different planet it seems.

the_syco

The moment they attacked the pizza delivery people, is the moment I marked them down as cowards.

Liam Byrne

KeithAFC wrote: »

The whole point of the GFA was peace. Then the PSNI was set up as the police force, the army off the streets. The RIRA are living a different planet it seems.

Agreed, as per the mention of post-GFA. Anything I said is really onlyvs factor when past atrocities are being discussed.

ISAW

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 they maimed them or killed them, they are all as equally bad as each other and should be held in equal contempt.

This is entirely missing the point i made!
The discussion is about RIRA and their campaign.
I pointed out that different groups have different reasons for violence.
Let us simplistically say the IRA for example have nationalist reasons and loyalists have secterian reasons. That isn't saying one groups has a "better" reason thught in their eyes they do.

KeithAFC wrote: »

I consider the murder of the Protestants at Omagh as sectarian murder.

Say a bomb goes off and kills a hundred people and 50 of them are Protestant. Are yu seriously contending that the bomb was planted for sectarian motives? That the killing of the other 50 was a "mistake"?

gandalf wrote: »

Personally I would say that killing people is wrong and leave it at that.

And again you miss the point

The point is different reasons for violence.

conflict resolution suggests you remove the reason in order to stop the violence.

Just saying "killing people is wrong" and levaing it at that leaves it at that i.e. people go on killing. It is necessary to find out why people are killing others and then to remove that reason if yuo want the killing to stop. Blanket condemnation does not stop violence.

gandalf wrote: »

Keith I think you are getting carried away. Omagh was mass murder of people despite their religion. It was an indiscriminate act by a pack of desperate dinosaur criminals who are now threatening the people of NI again despite the majority there and in the republic rejecting the kind of tribal fascism that they represent.

Why are they doing it?

junder wrote: »

Which is the point I have been making all along except some people still want live with the illusion that the troubles were all about the goodies versus baddies and that one side was some how nobler.

Again miss the point!

i brought up the "sectarian" point to illustrate a principle of conflict resolution.
different reasons for violence are given by different groups.
REmove the reasons and you remove the violence by them.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK, so if a fireman tries to help you out after an arson attack and gets it wrong, then he's somehow to blame ?

If a fireman let your house burn down when he could do something about it surely he is also at fault?

Saying "one is just as bad as the other" is putting your interpretation on it!

What I am suggesting is that without judfing then just find out the reason they have.
Then if you remove the reason yu remove the violence

for example as I simplistically pointed out if Ireland was united the resaon of "we want to unite Ireland" wold be removed. As I pointed out in the uniting Ireland point, it make no different what Loyalists think about this for the point to stand.

Similarly if all Catholics were removed the sectarian reason would be removed for Loyalists. It makes no difference what Repubilcans say about this to test the reason of "if there were no Catholics would your group need to exist"?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What they want is irrelevant to me.

Then how is it you are expressing an opinion on what they want?
You may not agree with them but at some stage you have to think about what others who differ from your opinion want.

KeithAFC wrote: »

What people seem to be missing on here is when they say they don't aim to kill innocent people. Im sorry but the PSNI are INNOCENT people.

In your opinion! In the RIRA opinion ( or in republican opinion before the GFA) they were "legitimate Military targets."

The PSNI are supported by the process we have in place. There is no conflict anymore. We are now in a peace process and politics and have been for a long time now.

A process the OIRA and PIRA are in but the CIRA and RIRA and some Loyalist groups are not in so that argument does not apply to them.

Its about time the RIRA wake up and see the situation. If you don't like something, put it to the ballot and see if people agree with you. The RIRA aim to KILL people. That is all there is to it. They don't care who they kill, as long as they create as much damage as possible and try to bring down the current government, then they simply don't care.

Well I don't know. that is not all there is to it. Maybe RIRA don't think it was out to a ballot. Or they do think it was and they see the ballot was overwhelmingly for Irish unity and Unionists were given a veto on that.

i mean put it this way ( as they might). If the "will of the people" is to be followed and the Unionists believe they are British why not have a ballot of all of Britain? Maybe the RIRA would agree to this - a referendum in the UK about Ireland. Unionists who want union with the UK however probably would not agree to that either. So RIRA might actually say Unionists don't want the will of the majority of the UK and don't want the will of the Majority of Ireland. So who is the dissident group in their eyes?

gandalf

ISAW wrote: »

This is entirely missing the point i made!

That statement was posted in response to another posters statement and not yours, I didn't even realise you contributed to this thread until I saw this post.

And again you miss the point

The point is different reasons for violence.

conflict resolution suggests you remove the reason in order to stop the violence.

Just saying "killing people is wrong" and levaing it at that leaves it at that i.e. people go on killing. It is necessary to find out why people are killing others and then to remove that reason if yuo want the killing to stop. Blanket condemnation does not stop violence.

So what then, some killing is half wrong and others are wrong and some is right.

So lets say we find out the reason that the RIRA gun down pizza delivery men is a United Ireland. What then, they are not going to get it delivered to them tomorrow or even in a couple of generations (or any fast food if they keep treating the workers in that industry in a violent manner!).

So then because we cannot deliver their demands do we leave them to it? Or do we treat them like others who cannot abide by the norms of the majority. In my opinion these people are the same as Drug Dealers, Rapists, Common Thieves and others who are working against society and should be punished as such.

It takes a lot of money to carry out the activities that these organisations engage in. The vast majority is raised illegally. The right way to deal with them is to target the funds via the CAB and their NI equivalent and if the individuals cannot prove where they got the funds to seize them and if these individuals are caught carrying out crimes to obtain these funds to deal with them like the common criminals that they are.

Why are they doing it?

How about you humour me and tell me why you think these people are doing this?

Explain why when the majority on this Island voted democratically for the GFA that these people feel they have a mandate to go against these wishes?

Is it because maybe these people do not believe in democracy at all but in getting their wishes no matter the cost and no matter who opposes them even the people they claim to represent?


TBH I only addressed the points where you quoted my responses. I didn't address your other points because tbh I felt it was bordering on justifying the actions of a group of individuals who I believe are psychopaths and I think that this is not what you are trying to do.

I understand your point about conflict resolution and removing the reason for people carrying out violence but when do you decide to draw a line with that type of reasoning. I can understand why this was the case with the GFA and the pIRA and Sinn Fein because they did and do still represent a large number of people in Northern Ireland and a significant minority here. However why should we pander to a marginalised splinter group like the RIRA who have very limited support. If one man was carrying on like this should we pander to his demands just because he will go out and carry out acts of extreme violence just because he didn't get his way. Personally I do not think that is a very good way to structure a society, do you?

ISAW

gandalf wrote: »

That statement was posted in response to another posters statement and not yours, I didn't even realise you contributed to this thread until I saw this post.

Fair enough. But you do know now. [irony]Mind you given what people say about my posting style I wouldn't be surprised if you had me on ignore[/irony]

So what then, some killing is half wrong and others are wrong and some is right.

Again Ill restate the earlier argument.
Please don't confuse resons for violence and justification of violence.
It isn't a question of making judgments on what is right or wrong.
It is a question of asking "why are you doing this"?
Suppose the answer is "because I want a united Ireland"
You then can for example ask
1. Show how this is achieving a united ireland?
2. If there was another way to achieve a uniter ireland quicker than this would you adopt that way?

So lets say we find out the reason that the RIRA gun down pizza delivery men is a United Ireland. What then, they are not going to get it delivered to them tomorrow or even in a couple of generations

Get what delivered a united Ireland or a Pizza?

(or any fast food if they keep treating the workers in that industry in a violent manner!).

So then because we cannot deliver their demands do we leave them to it?

There demands of a United Ireland? So you believe that is impossible? In fact most people in Ireland would not agree with you. So you are a Unionist I take it?

[quite]
Or do we treat them like others who cannot abide by the norms of the majority.
[/quote]

Well Catholics didn't abide by the gerrymandered norms of the majority in N Ireland from say about 1920 till about 1970 and you think that was acceptable?

In my opinion these people are the same as Drug Dealers, Rapists, Common Thieves and others who are working against society and should be punished as such.

Well then it is lucky you are not in charge then or you would be introducing internment, Diplock courts, and gaoling or executing the likes of the Birmingham Six guildford Four and Mc Guire Seven. Oh hold on they already did that.

What by the way is an "uncommon thief" ?

And how many rapes were committed for the cause of Irish unity? I thought that was more to do with Redcoats and the British Army. and the Opium Wars in which opium was used as as weapon and which eventually facilitated the spread of the drug to Europe were instituted by which Empire? Oh yeah the British Empire!

It takes a lot of money to carry out the activities that these organisations engage in.

You are dead right! the activities in which the British Military engage costs hundreds of Billions of pounds!

The vast majority is raised illegally.

No the vast majority of money is legal through taxation! You muyst be referring to money raised by The IRA? You know the illegal way they reaise money? How do you know? what evidence have you?

The right way to deal with them is to target the funds via the CAB and their NI equivalent

Indeed. But Ill bet people will still buy laundered diesel or cheap ciggies on the streets.

and if the individuals cannot prove where they got the funds to seize them and if these individuals are caught carrying out crimes to obtain these funds to deal with them like the common criminals that they are.

As opposed to "uncommon criminals"? Which are???

It strikes me as funny that a similar argument is made in another thread for cannabis for example. they go on about criminals but they still buyt hash from people ...and those people got it from where? And while seizures happen ( a HUGE one of tens of millions in cigarettes last year) the trade still goes on.

How about you humour me and tell me why you think these people are doing this?

Different reasons as I stated. REpublicans in the main in order to being about a republic. But you would have to address the question to the RIRA.

Explain why when the majority on this Island voted democratically for the GFA that these people feel they have a mandate to go against these wishes?

Again I earlier stated because the RIRA would say the majority voted for a United Ireland.
the Americvan civil War was caused because some states didnt want to be in the Union.
Maybe RIRA think Kerry cant just leave Ireland and neither should six counties be allowed to do so.

Is it because maybe these people do not believe in democracy

Again as I stated earlier a Republic is not a democracy!
In the US a majority cant deny rights to black people just by a vote.
Similarly a minority in N Ireland should not be discriminated against just by a vote.
But as I stated you would have to ask them and then tackle the reason given.

at all but in getting their wishes no matter the cost and no matter who opposes them even the people they claim to represent?

Well you are now n to representative democracy. I suggest you look to Edmund Burke who suggested people are elected members of Parliament and not just members of their constituency to do what a majority of constituents want. They have to act according to their judgment and the people who elect them cant do anything about that until the next election.

TBH I only addressed the points where you quoted my responses. I didn't address your other points because tbh I felt it was bordering on justifying the actions of a group of individuals who I believe are psychopaths and I think that this is not what you are trying to do.

WEll I take that as a personal insult! I didn't justify actions of the RIRA at all! I resent your trying to colour an academic pursuit as justifying terrorism. I also find it ironic that a moderator can close one thread for what might be a personal attack on Sinn Fein and yet one can call RIRA or their political counterparts or supporters "scum" and "criminal" and that is deemed entirely fitting.

If you believe in objective argument please try to separate the issue from the individuals.
Do you always resort to ad hominen and attack the person when you don't like the issues they raise?

I understand your point about conflict resolution and removing the reason for people carrying out violence but when do you decide to draw a line with that type of reasoning. I can understand why this was the case with the GFA and the pIRA and Sinn Fein because they did and do still represent a large number of people in Northern Ireland and a significant minority here.

Oh so now you are the judge of how many people constitute a significant minority? Good job we are not talking about Jewish communities then eh? Or Jehovas witnessess? Why is it you depart from a principle of justice depending on what the crowd follow?

However why should we pander to a marginalised splinter group like the RIRA who have very limited support.

Indeed. Or the Jews? Or Jehovas witnessess? Or gays? Or Orange Men? Or black people? why indeed when we can dominate them and tell them what to do? And then when they start fighting back we can blame them I suppose?

If one man was carrying on like this should we pander to his demands just because he will go out and carry out acts of extreme violence just because he didn't get his way.

[irony]
You don't mean The Judean People's Front
[/irony]

While hard cases make for bad laws we don't tend to legally discriminate against innocent people. Usually we try to assume innocence and prove guilt.

Also, one man does not a movement make. There have to be followers and people convinced in the philosophy. You are contradicting yourself if you claim millions is involved in an organised network and then claim it is a billionaire batman like vigilante. By the way would you give in to Batman's demands?

Personally I do not think that is a very good way to structure a society, do you?

I think you have contradicted yourself, not addressed the issues raised and indulged in ad hominem so I am not really pushed to reply to a vaguely defined and biased question.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Agreed, as per the mention of post-GFA. Anything I said is really onlyvs factor when past atrocities are being discussed.

Id have to mention something here on the Republican perspective. ther were two main reasons for the IRA from their point of view

1. The people of Ireland supported them and what they were doing
2. The nationalist community was not being protected by the RUC or British military who were not trusted

The GFA vote dealt with reason 1 for most (not for the fringe) Republicans. By the way see my comments above about "significant" numbers of republicans. If they aren't such significant numbers why is Gandalf commenting on them?

Reason 2 is still outstanding and wont really be worked on till Republicans have some control and input into policing. However, much of the collusion and so on has been visibly worked on and the difference in the Orange protests at the Pottadown/Garvahey Road today compared to it's height attest to that.

Liam Byrne

ISAW wrote: »

If a fireman let your house burn down when he could do something about it surely he is also at fault?

Not even remotely. He's there to do what he can.

How can you - as a non-expert in his field - judge that "he could do something" ?

ISAW wrote: »

for example as I simplistically pointed out if Ireland was united the resaon of "we want to unite Ireland" wold be removed.

If that issue wasn't explored, you may have some point. But the issue was explored and the people voted.

If I simplistically point out that I want a million euro, can I do whatever the hell I like to achieve that, regardless of the law or who gets hurt or killed ?

And having established that that's the "reason" for my actions, do you simply turn around and give me the million euro ?

ISAW wrote: »

Then how is it you are expressing an opinion on what they want?

I'm not. I'm expressing an opinion on their actions.

They are as entitled to want it as I am to want the million euro. I'm not objecting to them wanting it, I'm objecting to them threatening and carrying out violent acts that are against the law and against the democratic decision taken in the GFA.

ISAW wrote: »

You may not agree with them but at some stage you have to think about what others who differ from your opinion want.

I do, regularly - when it comes to law-abiding citizens. But I don't care what the local terrorist, or drug-dealer or paedophile or FF member, wants because they don't consider what I want and they selfishly impose their self-interested views on others. Respect, tolerance and negotiation are two-way streets.

And since you raised that issue, how much did RIRA think about the fact that 28 people in Omagh wanted to keep living ? What did THEY do about THAT "difference of opinon" ?

Terrorists aren't kids who can throw a tantrum and to hell with everyone else's wishes; the day they start respecting the majority of this country - or even this island - is the day I might consider listening to them.

ISAW wrote: »

i mean put it this way ( as they might). If the "will of the people" is to be followed and the Unionists believe they are British why not have a ballot of all of Britain? Maybe the RIRA would agree to this - a referendum in the UK about Ireland.

What ? The RIRA have no authority to "agree" to anything! You'd swear they were a legitimate organisation with a mandate the way you're phrasing that!

KeithAFC

ISAW wrote: »

This is entirely missing the point i made!
The discussion is about RIRA and their campaign.
I pointed out that different groups have different reasons for violence.
Let us simplistically say the IRA for example have nationalist reasons and loyalists have secterian reasons. That isn't saying one groups has a "better" reason thught in their eyes they do.


Say a bomb goes off and kills a hundred people and 50 of them are Protestant. Are yu seriously contending that the bomb was planted for sectarian motives? That the killing of the other 50 was a "mistake"?


And again you miss the point

The point is different reasons for violence.

conflict resolution suggests you remove the reason in order to stop the violence.

Just saying "killing people is wrong" and levaing it at that leaves it at that i.e. people go on killing. It is necessary to find out why people are killing others and then to remove that reason if yuo want the killing to stop. Blanket condemnation does not stop violence.


Why are they doing it?


Again miss the point!

i brought up the "sectarian" point to illustrate a principle of conflict resolution.
different reasons for violence are given by different groups.
REmove the reasons and you remove the violence by them.


If a fireman let your house burn down when he could do something about it surely he is also at fault?

Saying "one is just as bad as the other" is putting your interpretation on it!

What I am suggesting is that without judfing then just find out the reason they have.
Then if you remove the reason yu remove the violence

for example as I simplistically pointed out if Ireland was united the resaon of "we want to unite Ireland" wold be removed. As I pointed out in the uniting Ireland point, it make no different what Loyalists think about this for the point to stand.

Similarly if all Catholics were removed the sectarian reason would be removed for Loyalists. It makes no difference what Repubilcans say about this to test the reason of "if there were no Catholics would your group need to exist"?


Then how is it you are expressing an opinion on what they want?
You may not agree with them but at some stage you have to think about what others who differ from your opinion want.



In your opinion! In the RIRA opinion ( or in republican opinion before the GFA) they were "legitimate Military targets."



A process the OIRA and PIRA are in but the CIRA and RIRA and some Loyalist groups are not in so that argument does not apply to them.




Well I don't know. that is not all there is to it. Maybe RIRA don't think it was out to a ballot. Or they do think it was and they see the ballot was overwhelmingly for Irish unity and Unionists were given a veto on that.

i mean put it this way ( as they might). If the "will of the people" is to be followed and the Unionists believe they are British why not have a ballot of all of Britain? Maybe the RIRA would agree to this - a referendum in the UK about Ireland. Unionists who want union with the UK however probably would not agree to that either. So RIRA might actually say Unionists don't want the will of the majority of the UK and don't want the will of the Majority of Ireland. So who is the dissident group in their eyes?

All i see there is a lot of excuse making for violence. A bit pathetic to be honest.

There is no reason for it. That is all there is to it. Wake up to the current process.

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not even remotely. He's there to do what he can.

How can you - as a non-expert in his field - judge that "he could do something" ?

Im not saying I should judge anything personally. Im sayiong if a fireman comes and says "let ut burn2 or a RUC man arrives and says "let the family be abducted by the mob" don't you think they have some responsibility?

By the way in some countries ther are laws which suggest negligence. In France for example if you are walking by a canal and see someone drowning and do nothing you can be charged.

And having established that that's the "reason" for my actions, do you simply turn around and give me the million euro ?

the reason for a political movement is usually not selfish. the example you pick is of someone doing something to make their loit better and not for altruistic reasons. But if you are using illegal reasons e.g. cutting a bog which is protected but which your family always cut. WE could find a bog with a million euro of turf in it for you to cut elsewhere maybe.
In fact i have a friend who is being blocked by environmentalists because they claim he is quarrying somewhere which is bad for heritage. It will cost him and people in jobs tens of millions.


You say you are objecting to the actions not the reasons behind it. Do you not think that if you say you will kill people until you get a million euro and I show you a simpler way to get a million euro by not killing them then if you continue killing you can't be killing people for the reason given since you could satisfy this need for a million in an easier way?

They are as entitled to want it as I am to want the million euro. I'm not objecting to them wanting it, I'm objecting to them threatening and carrying out violent acts that are against the law and against the democratic decision taken in the GFA.

And the state will support you in that. But your objection isn't going to remove their reason for doing it is it? and you "million euro" is couching it in 2you want something you can't have" which is not an advisable position if you want to convince people to stop killing. If you begin with a position that they can have it bu other means you might fare better in stopping them using current means.

I do, regularly - when it comes to law-abiding citizens. But I don't care what the local terrorist, or drug-dealer or paedophile or FF member, wants because they don't consider what I want

I cant see why you consider FF members in the same category of drug dealers terrorists and pedophiles. Can you justify that comment? I think it is apt because FF call themselves republican party.

and they selfishly impose their self-interested views on others. Respect, tolerance and negotiation are two-way streets.

Unlike Loyalists who got the RUC and Military to do the dirty work for them?

And since you raised that issue, how much did RIRA think about the fact that 28 people in Omagh wanted to keep living ?

I don't know. why not ask them?

What did THEY do about THAT "difference of opinon" ?

As much as the British did about Catholics or Chagos Islanders.?

Actually in fact they called a ceasefire!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Irish_Republican_Army#Omagh_bombing

With the organisation under intense pressure, which included McKevitt and Sands-McKevitt being forced from their home after the media named McKevitt in connection with the bombing, the RIRA called a ceasefire on 8 September.

Terrorists aren't kids who can throw a tantrum and to hell with everyone else's wishes;

some are! certainly many both within and outside the British establishment and all supported by the British establishment were.

the day they start respecting the majority of this country - or even this island - is the day I might consider listening to them.

But that is my point! It isnt a question of you listening to themn It is a question of you convincing them and then listening to you. The 1916 people were they terrorists? People dint listen to them but they praise them today! RIRA probably view themselves in the same vein. If you want them to stop you have to get inside their heads. And believe me from someone who is apt to get into peoples heads - not listening to them isn't going to change them. and sometimes when you get inside someones head they don't even realise they are changing.

What ? The RIRA have no authority to "agree" to anything! You'd swear they were a legitimate organisation with a mandate the way you're phrasing that!

In their eyes they are legitimate.
Again you are in the "ignore" mode rather than the "convince" mode. the "im telling you and I will even torture you till you agree" method does not work in the long run even if yu are doing it for reasons you believe are right. In fact you are more like them than you realise if you resort to to such methods just as the British Military did. It all goes back to finding their reasons and removing them and getting them to agree. Agreement requires operating off common standards. If you assume in advance they are "scum" with no common standards of reason then you will get nowhere. They were born into the world just as you were. what changed them to become what they are?

ISAW

KeithAFC wrote: »

All i see there is a lot of excuse making for violence. A bit pathetic to be honest.

There is no reason for it. That is all there is to it. Wake up to the current process.

Kieth what I posted is the underlying theory of the current process!
It is the same reasoning used with loyalist and republican paramilitaries that agreed to the GFA.

Liam Byrne

The reason I won't listen is BECAUSE they chose murderous actions.

And why should we say to them "ye can have a united Ireland" when that's not what the island wants?

They ARE being selfish. They want THEIR OWN WAY, so it is IN NO WAY altruistic.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The reason I won't listen is BECAUSE they chose murderous actions.

And why should we say to them "ye can have a united Ireland" when that's not what the island wants?

They ARE being selfish. They want THEIR OWN WAY, so it is IN NO WAY altruistic.

It is what the island as a whole wants. The island was never given a choice to vote on it as one entity so I wouldn't be using that as an argument

Liam Byrne

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It is what the island as a whole wants. The island was never given a choice to vote on it as one entity so I wouldn't be using that as an argument

The GFA says otherwise, particularly in terms of the tactics that the terrorists are threatening to return to.

KeithAFC

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It is what the island as a whole wants. The island was never given a choice to vote on it as one entity so I wouldn't be using that as an argument

Its what the people of Ulster want though.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The GFA says otherwise, particularly in terms of the tactics that the terrorists are threatening to return to.

How can anything the GFA says change the fact the people of the island never voted on sovereignty as one entity.

Theres plenty of ways you can validly attack the ideology of anti GFA republicans - no need to be adding in ''what the people of Ireland want'' because they were never given that choice.

KeithAFC wrote:

Its what the people of Ulster want though.

I'm not challenging that I was simply pointing out a flaw in Liam's argument

Mike 1972

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It is what the island as a whole wants. The island was never given a choice to vote on it as one entity so I wouldn't be using that as an argument

Would you have been happy with Germany invading Poland if The two countries as one entity voted for it ?

Liam Byrne

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

How can anything the GFA says change the fact the people of the island never voted on sovereignty as one entity.

Why the "as one entity" caveat?

Maybe you reckon the EU isn't valid either, because countries voted independently? It wasn't "as one entity" either, with no borders. Do you view that as invalid as a result?

Theres plenty of ways you can validly attack the ideology of anti GFA republicans - no need to be adding in ''what the people of Ireland want'' because they were never given that choice.

Yes they were.

danbohan

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Would you have been happy with Germany invading Poland if The two countries as one entity voted for it ?

so the nationalists in the north have no rights to consider themselves irish or to want to be reunited with the rest of the island ?

KeithAFC

Some one should tell them they can't defeat the loyalist people.

danbohan

KeithAFC wrote: »

Some should tell them they can't defeat the loyalist people.

somebody should tell you , they have

KeithAFC

danbohan wrote: »

somebody should tell you , they have

Really? Must of missed that.

Liam Byrne

danbohan wrote: »

so the nationalists in the north have no rights to consider themselves irish or to want to be reunited with the rest of the island ?

They have the right to be considered Irish and they can want and work towards anything they wish.

I do find it amusing that threads about terrorists talk about those who would like to be part of this country as if that implied they support terrorism.