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

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 6:53pm

Oh - ISAW - in some countries there are other laws too, such as ones that get your hand cut off for robbery and death penalty for murder....so I'd suggest thinking twice before you try to imply that laws from other countries - such as the negligence one you cited- are relevant.

If we imposed both laws we might all be better off.

danbohan · 06-01-2011 6:53pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

the vast majority of nationalists in the north despise the actions of the rira as much as anybody else on this island, and its not that they would like to be part of this country , they are part of this country despite been cut off and abandoned by the republic since 1922

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 6:54pm

danbohan wrote: »

the vast majority of nationalists in the north despise the actions of the rira as much as anybody else on this island

Good to hear.

gandalf · 06-01-2011 6:57pm

ISAW wrote: »

I didn't justify actions of the RIRA at all! I resent your trying to colour an academic pursuit as justifying terrorism.

Academic pursuit, your academic pursuit is the reality of the RIRA murdering people. Quite frankly I disagree with your whole position and tbh I am not wasting any more time discussing it with you.

I do believe that you are justifying murder by these criminals and even worse you have the gall to compare them to legitimate minorities like Jews, Jehovas witnessess, gays, Orange Men and black people. By anybodies logic that is quite twisted.

I think I will take your "ironic" advice and put you on ignore.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 06-01-2011 6:58pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why the "as one entity" caveat?

Because you said:

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

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?

See above

Yes they were.

When were they given the chance to vote on sovereignty? (heres a clue:they weren't)

Mike 1972 wrote: »

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

Will ya wind your neck in ffs. I was pointing out Liam's argument that the current situation is what Irish people want is flawed - nothing more.

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 7:02pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

When were they given the chance to vote on sovereignty? (heres a clue:they weren't)

Over 90% voted for self-determination and an end to violence.

What part of that sentence (and event) didn't get through to you?

And the "as one entity" has no bearing on how people voted re what was put before them.

Wolfe Tone · 06-01-2011 7:04pm

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" ?

What if an investigation by other fireman determined that he could have?

Wolfe Tone · 06-01-2011 7:06pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Over 90% voted for self-determination and an end to violence.

What part of that sentence (and event) didn't get through to you?

And the "as one entity" has no bearing on how people voted re what was put before them.

You seem to think that the GFA was a vote against a UI.

Many voted for it as a way to get a UI.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 06-01-2011 7:11pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Over 90% voted for self-determination and an end to violence.

What part of that sentence (and event) didn't get through to you?

And the "as one entity" has no bearing on how people voted re what was put before them.

That was a vote on the GFA and more specifically articles 2/3

It was done to put an end to violence not as something people of the island wanted as a permanent solution.

Your logic would stand if it was a vote on

A. The GFA being implemented

B. United Ireland

and majority of people voted for A. As you well know people of the Island never got that chance

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 7:11pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What if an investigation by other fireman determined that he could have?

What ifs, now ? Here's one : what if the terrorists just didn't bring a bomb ? Who investigates the terrorists' actions ?

We're into "Hancock" territory here, where people object to those trying to help them.

I tell you what - next time you're likely to object to the actions of the emergency services, try not ringing them at all and see how get on!

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 7:14pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That was a vote on the GFA and more specifically articles 2/3

It was done to put an end to violence not as something people of the island wanted as a permanent solution.

Your logic would stand if it was a vote on

A. The GFA being implemented

B. United Ireland

and majority of people voted for A. As you well know people of the Island never got that chance

Well I had to stomach voting to let criminals out of jail, in return for stopping violence,

So if the GFA has failed, let's put all the terrorists back in jail and start again.

As always, it's a two-way street.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 06-01-2011 7:19pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well I had to stomach voting to let criminals out of jail, in return for stopping violence,

So if the GFA has failed, let's put all the terrorists back in jail and start again.

As always, it's a two-way street.

what are you talking about? how has it failed?

Wolfe Tone · 06-01-2011 7:35pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ifs, now ? Here's one : what if the terrorists just didn't bring a bomb ? Who investigates the terrorists' actions ?

We're into "Hancock" territory here, where people object to those trying to help them.

I tell you what - next time you're likely to object to the actions of the emergency services, try not ringing them at all and see how get on!

Its not a what fcuking if, the ombudsman said there was in the case of Omagh.

Mike 1972 · 06-01-2011 7:39pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You seem to think that the GFA was a vote against a UI.
Many voted for it as a way to get a UI.

Meanwhile many Unionists were lead to believe that voting for it was going to safeguard the Union

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 7:46pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You seem to think that the GFA was a vote against a UI.

Many voted for it as a way to get a UI.

Incorrect. I never said that it was a vote against a UI.

It was a vote that we here in this country do not have a say in how Northern Ireland chooses to proceed at some stage in the future.

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 7:52pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

what are you talking about? how has it failed?

Well I voted for it so that violence would stop, so that means it has failed.

If re-jailing the previous terrorists was a possible outcome, then maybe those released would put more pressure on the current terrorists.

Just a thought.

DaSilva · 06-01-2011 7:54pm

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.

If your point is, that the rationale behind the RIRAs violent campaign is different than loyalist violent campaigns then fine, as none of us (I imagine) have been part of both, we don't ultimately know the actual reasons for it. In fact every different action within their respective campaigns may have had individual rationale differing from the other actions.

ISAW wrote: »

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"?

I think trying to determine the motivation without actually being part of the group who carried out the attack is in the end just speculation. Are you able to confirm the motivation of this hypothetical attack was not sectarian?
This seems like hypocrisy, where you tell people they cannot determine the rationale but then suggest/deny a rationale yourself.

ISAW wrote: »

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.

Agreed, if we want this specific campaign to stop we can't just smother it, that never seems to work.

ISAW wrote: »

Why are they doing it?

Who knows at this point, there has been endless progress in the North, yet these guys just keep coming back. You will have to understand that people are tired of trying to resolve the issues these people have.

ISAW wrote: »

...On and on about how the reasons are different and if we want to finally end it we must understand and fix those reasons...

Here is a thought to consider. What if the cause of this seemingly endless violence, is not a seemingly endless list of rationale social/political problems, but rather one problem. There are people who are willing to use violence as a solution to pretty much any problem. What if this is the real problem?

Let us hypothetically assume we know the rationale behind the RIRA and in order to stop their campaign fix all the problems that motivate them, now maybe the loyalists will start a campaign, fix their problems and now somebody else starts.

Some of us are tired of these groups, tired that they think it is fair to hold everybody hostage to their demands, that we need to be somewhat sympathetic to their plight, to hell with that, if they have a true cause that needs attention, tell us. I want to see a RIRA spokesman on camera saying something like "There is a terrible social problem here and it needs some attention, here is our proposed solution....", not "We are going to make everybody's life hell until someone fixes something".

Mike 1972 · 06-01-2011 7:57pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If re-jailing the previous terrorists was a possible outcome, then maybe those released would put more pressure on the current terrorists..

Incidently when the Shinners (eventually) agreed to support the PSNI did this include calling on any "previous terrorists" (within or outside their ranks) to pass on any information they had on the "current terrorists" to the authorities and If not why not ?

Wolfe Tone · 06-01-2011 8:00pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well I voted for it so that violence would stop, so that means it has failed.

If re-jailing the previous terrorists was a possible outcome, then maybe those released would put more pressure on the current terrorists.

Just a thought.

Would re-jailing them not also go against your democratic ideals?

Also I doubt they would come quietly.

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 8:03pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Would re-jailing them not also go against your democratic ideals?

What makes you think claim that ?

An agreement was signed; it was up to them to keep to their part and not allow a spin-off that would keep the violence going.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Also I doubt they would come quietly.

Neither do other criminals. Should we stop aiming for justice altogether ?

Wolfe Tone · 06-01-2011 8:05pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What makes you think claim that ?

An agreement was signed; it was up to them to keep to their part and not allow a spin-off that would keep the violence going.

Neither do other criminals. Should we stop aiming for justice altogether ?

Thats going under the assumption that its former provos in the RIRA etc.

Do you honestly think going around rounding up former provos is a good idea?

Mike 1972 · 06-01-2011 8:07pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats going under the assumption that its former provos in the RIRA etc.

Isint the RIRA a splinter group from the PIRA ? Therefore wouldnt it seem plausable that there would be quite a few former Provos within its ranks ?

OhNoYouDidn't · 06-01-2011 8:08pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Incidently when the Shinners (eventually) agreed to support the PSNI did this include calling on any "previous terrorists" (within or outside their ranks) to pass on any information they had on the "current terrorists" to the authorities and If not why not ?

Yes. Much to the horror of many Provo's who would gladly 'deal' with the dissidents but baulk at touting.

You can't criticise PSF on this one.

OhNoYouDidn't · 06-01-2011 8:10pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What makes you think claim that ?

An agreement was signed; it was up to them to keep to their part and not allow a spin-off that would keep the violence going.

So what you are saying is that the Provo's should shoot the dissidents.

You cannot blame PSF for newer iterations of the IRA any more than you can FG for the Provos

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 8:11pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats going under the assumption that its former provos in the RIRA etc.

Are you suggesting that all of the previous IRA just stopped and a completely new and unassociated and formerly inactive bunch of people just started at the same time ?

Stretching credibility there, I would say.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Do you honestly think going around rounding up former provos is a good idea?

No, I'd prefer if all parties stuck to the terms of the GFA. However since that was even broken with the murder of Jerry McCabe (oh hang on, no it wasn't, because it wasn't sanctioned; oh hang on, yes it was, because Sinn Féin wouldn't have claimed they were qualifying "political" prisoners otherwise) that's a moot point.

If someone breaks the law, they should be in jail. If they get out based on an agreement that isn't upheld, they should be re-jailed.

Re going around rounding them up, let me check with Martin Ferris and get back to you as to whether it's a good idea.

Mike 1972 · 06-01-2011 8:11pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Much to the horror of many Provo's who would gladly 'deal' with the dissidents but baulk at touting.

Didnt the provos give up their weapons and renounce criminality ?

How therefore would you propose they "deal with" the dissidents ?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If someone breaks the law, they should be in jail. If they get out based on an agreement that isn't upheld, they should be re-jailed.

While its a good point the only flaw I can see in it is that the majority of prisoners released under the Belfast agreement would have served their time by now even in the absence of said agreement. others may be no longer involved in either the Provos or any splinters thereof.

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 8:12pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So what you are saying is that the Provo's should shoot the dissidents.

:eek: I didn't suggest anyone shooting anyone, so don't put words in my mouth, please.

Wolfe Tone · 06-01-2011 8:15pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you suggesting that all of the previous IRA just stopped and a completely new and unassociated and formerly inactive bunch of people just started at the same time ?

Stretching credibility there, I would say.

Sure, maybe a handful didnt.

If someone breaks the law, they should be in jail. If they get out based on an agreement that isn't upheld, they should be re-jailed.

But most have.

Re going around rounding them up, let me check with Martin Ferris and get back to you as to whether it's a good idea.

Your logic is the same as that which the brits used to introduce internment.

Rounding up former provos is foolish in the extreme.

KeithAFC · 06-01-2011 8:25pm

I don't see what the RIRA are trying to do by carrying on with a campaign when its pointless. They can't bring down the state.

If its a message to the Loyalist people, its not working.

Liam Byrne · 06-01-2011 8:31pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Your logic is the same as that which the brits used to introduce internment.

Rounding up former provos is foolish in the extreme.

Not quite the same, because this time around people have voted.

Also, can I take you back to your comment about my "democratic ideals" ? What were you on about ?

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

Comments