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

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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 ?

Its not very democratic to go against what the people voted for is it? Simply because some people disagree?

You are accusing the dissidents of being fascist, what would rounding up the provos be if not the same? You are both going against "what the people voted for"

michael45

do u fully follow the ira

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Its not very democratic to go against what the people voted for is it? Simply because some people disagree?

You are accusing the dissidents of being fascist, what would rounding up the provos be if not the same? You are both going against "what the people voted for"

Incorrect.

"What the people voted for" was a two-way agreement; unless one side holds up their side of that agreement (and you've admitted that the "dissident" terrorists must include some former terrorists) then the agreement is null and void. There's also Mike's point that those who have stopped agreed to disclose any who continued is part of that agreement.

If I was jailed and was then let out based on a particular condition, and then broke that condition, then I'd be re-jailed.

Neither of the above is undemocratic.

Anyway, we're going off-topic. The bottom line is that if the dissident terrorists decide to engage in violence, they should be hit with everything the state - and maybe even the EU - have.

The people of this island are sick of violence and have clearly indicated this.

If one group has wishes that contravene law & order and impose on others' right to life, then they should be taken off the streets for good.

FFS, this country even puts the right to life of a child ahead of its mother's right to an abortion, and we can't put the public's right to life ahead of extremist violent-minded thugs.

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Incorrect.

"What the people voted for" was a two-way agreement; unless one side holds up their side of that agreement (and you've admitted that the "dissident" terrorists must include some former terrorists) then the agreement is null and void. There's also Mike's point that those who have stopped agreed to disclose any who continued is part of that agreement.

So if one drug dealer continues to deal drugs and the rest stop, all should be rounded up? They are criminals right?

If I was jailed and was then let out based on a particular condition, and then broke that condition, then I'd be re-jailed.

But what if someone was jailed alongside you and you kept your side and he didnt? is it fair that you go back to jail?

Neither of the above is undemocratic.

It sure aint fair.

Anyway, we're going off-topic. The bottom line is that if the dissident terrorists decide to engage in violence, they should be hit with everything the state - and maybe even the EU - have.

How should they go about it?

The people of this island are sick of violence and have clearly indicated this.

Ok.

If one group has wishes that contravene law & order and impose on others' right to life, then they should be taken off the streets for good.

Fair enough.

michael45

yes but that agrement was only maid by u sso we would be able to get arms into the country and have a irish republick and a army we thought the north would never last and the reso n y devalera sent michael collins was becouse he new that the brits wouldent setle for it

Iwasfrozen

michael45 wrote: »

yes but that agrement was only maid by u sso we would be able to get arms into the country and have a irish republick and a army we thought the north would never last and the reso n y devalera sent michael collins was becouse he new that the brits wouldent setle for it

What? I'm not being funny of anything. I honestly didn't understand your post.

Bottle_of_Smoke

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.

That's a recipe for disaster. How could they put pressure on them without being armed? Arm them means arming the people who carried out the previous campaign. Stormont would fall apart

By comparison to the early 90s violence has stopped. The GFA is working - not perfectly but there is no perfect solution

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So if one drug dealer continues to deal drugs and the rest stop, all should be rounded up? They are criminals right?

The rest should be able to say "look mate, you're ruining it for the rest of us. Cop the fliuch on"

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But what if someone was jailed alongside you and you kept your side and he didnt? is it fair that you go back to jail?

If I was let out under an agreement and before time I shouldn't have any complaints; after all, if there was no agreement I would still be in there.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It sure aint fair.

You claimed it went against my democratic principles. I take it from the above that you are retracting that false statement.

Look, the bottom line is that anyone involved in criminal activities should be in jail; some aren't because of an agreement that we'd release them.

Some of them are still involved in crime and terrorism.

The responsibility to stop is with them, not me to pander to them because of their threats.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's a recipe for disaster. How could they put pressure on them without being armed? Arm them means arming the people who carried out the previous campaign

I wasn't suggesting arming them. They managed to get those who witnessed Robert McCartney's murder to keep their mouths shut without being armed.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting arming them. They managed to get those who witnessed Robert McCartney's murder to keep their mouths shut without being armed.

Sorry but this and other posts in this thread make it clear you don't have a clue how things run in the north. I am not claiming to be an expert but if you think those lads didn't have access to weapons you are beyond deluded.

Getting them to take on the RIRA would mean at least acknowledging and condoning them having weapons but more likely providing them with more powerful ones.

Either of which would end power sharing if done publicly

Liam Byrne

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Sorry but this and other posts in this thread make it clear you don't have a clue how things run in the north. I am not claiming to be an expert but if you think those lads didn't have access to weapons you are beyond deluded.

We were told they had put all weapons beyond use - again as part of the GFA.

Now if they lied, that's not my problem, but it would mean that there's another reason why they should all still be in jail.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You claimed it went against my democratic principles. I take it from the above that you are retracting that false statement.

Look, the bottom line is that anyone involved in criminal activities should be in jail; some aren't because of an agreement that we'd release them.

Some of them are still involved in crime and terrorism.

The responsibility to stop is with them, not me to pander to them because of their threats.

Those found and proven to be involved in criminality or terrorism are locked up.

It looked a few posts ago you were advocating locking up all former provisionals based on some of them being involved in terrorism. Which is utterly insane.

Liam Byrne

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It looked a few posts ago you were advocating locking up all former provisionals based on some of them being involved in terrorism. Which is utterly insane.

Not "all former provisionals", no.

All that would still be in jail were it not for the GFA allowing their early release, yes.

If even one terrorist is involved in RIRA and breaks the terms of the GFA, then it's broken; all bets off.

But if the terrorism and violence stops, we keep the GFA.

That choice is in the hands of the terrorists.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not "all former provisionals", no.

All that would still be in jail were it not for the GFA allowing their early release, yes.

If even one terrorist is involved in RIRA and breaks the terms of the GFA, then it's broken; all bets off.

But if the terrorism and violence stops, we keep the GFA.

That choice is in the hands of the terrorists.

This is why I think you have no clue. You don't seem to realise that would lead to hundreds of people's friends and family all turning on the police and making it very easy for militant republicans to recruit more people as well as have more places to prepare their operations. Then by your laws when one loyalist retaliates all loyalists go back to jail and the situation becomes twice as bad.

I actually think this suggestion could bring the troubles back.

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You claimed it went against my democratic principles. I take it from the above that you are retracting that false statement.

I said "wouldn't it be?" And it would be. You would be violating the GFA too, in fact you would end it. What do you think would happen if the Brits came out tomorrow and said they where going to round up all former provos?

Look, the bottom line is that anyone involved in criminal activities should be in jail; some aren't because of an agreement that we'd release them.

So if one provo goes against it all should be arrested again? I doubt any of the provos actually jailed are involved anyway, MI5 know who they are, prob the first people they looked at.

Wolfe Tone

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

This is why I think you have no clue. You don't seem to realise that would lead to hundreds of people's friends and family all turning on the police and making it very easy for militant republicans to recruit more people as well as have more places to prepare their operations. Then by your laws when one loyalist retaliates all loyalists go back to jail and the situation becomes twice as bad.

I actually think this suggestion could bring the troubles back.

I agree chara, its pure madness and would bring the troubles back.

Liam Byrne

OK I'll bow out. I'll fully admit that I will never understand anyone who thinks it's OK to blow a 5 year old into a million bits.

Nor - despite people saying we need to "understand" them - do I want to.

Hopefully they'll all be in a room somewhere making a bomb and it will go off accidentally and the problem will be solved.

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK I'll bow out. I'll fully admit that I will never understand anyone who thinks it's OK to blow a 5 year old into a million bits.

Nor - despite people saying we need to "understand" them - do I want to.

Hopefully they'll all be in a room somewhere making a bomb and it will go off accidentally and the problem will be solved.

So what do you want?


Just to come into threads, shout "down with that type of thing" mention McCabe and get angry and imply things when someone supplies context and more detail, ie have a discussion, something which is increasingly becoming more difficult on this site, even dlofnep has had enough.

marienbad

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So what do you want?


Just to come into threads, shout "down with that type of thing" mention McCabe and get angry and imply things when someone supplies context and more detail, ie have a discussion, something which is increasingly becoming more difficult on this site, even dlofnep has had enough.

Ok Mussoline, I'll bite , say we make great efforts to understand them , what then ? what do you propose ?

Wolfe Tone

marienbad wrote: »

Ok Mussoline, I'll bite , say we make great efforts to understand them , what then ? what do you propose ?

What I want is to be able to have a decent discussion about them, their motivations, why they do things and what we can expect in the future. Invariably such seems to be equated with me supporting them, I respond by saying I don't, then we get round 100 of republicans vs the world.

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So what do you want?

That should be pretty obvious, and I have no idea how you could even ask.

I want what any right-thinking person would want; I want people who think it's OK to maim and murder and terrorise innocent people to stop.

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What I want is to be able to have a decent discussion about them, their motivations, why they do things and what we can expect in the future. Invariably such seems to be equated with me supporting them, I respond by saying I don't, then we get round 100 of republicans vs the world.

Do you ask about the motivations of paedophiles and other types of criminals ?

KeithAFC

You know their motivations Mussolini. Its been explained on this forum plenty of times. They don't agree with the peace process, they don't agree with the state of Northern Ireland, they don't like the PSNI, they don't like the political situation we have at the moment.

They hate Sinn Fein, DUP and all the political parties who signed up to the GFA. Everyone KNOWS about their motivations.

A lot of deluded mong heads with no intelligence.

marienbad

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What I want is to be able to have a decent discussion about them, their motivations, why they do things and what we can expect in the future. Invariably such seems to be equated with me supporting them, I respond by saying I don't, then we get round 100 of republicans vs the world.

I have read enough of your posts to discern that you are a Nationist/Republican that acepts the GFA and dos'nt agree with the use of force in todays climate. Am I correct in that ?

Furthermore I would say that while you in no way agree with RIRA's methodology you would regard them as mistaken rather then criminal ?

Is that a fair summation ?

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do you ask about the motivations of paedophiles and other types of criminals ?

I certainly do about criminals yes, wouldn't spend any time thinking about paedos tbh, why would I?

Wolfe Tone

marienbad wrote: »

I have read enough of your posts to discern that you are a Nationist/Republican that acepts the GFA and dos'nt agree with the use of force in todays climate. Am I correct in that ?

Yes.

Furthermore I would say that while you in no way agree with RIRA's methodology you would regard them as mistaken rather then criminal ?

I think they are wrong, what they are doing is not warranted.

Is that a fair summation ?

Pretty much.

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I certainly do about criminals yes, wouldn't spend any time thinking about paedos tbh, why would I?

So you make a distinction as to which type of criminals you consider the "motivation" of, considering it for some and not for others ?

Then we have something in common.

When someone indiscriminately murders innocent people I lose any interest in their motivation. They chose an extreme act and targetted innocents. They are judged accordingly.

And since - if there was a discussion about paedophiles - you wouldn't factor in their motivation, you should be able to understand the concept of the "reasoning" for a crime being irrelevant to certain people.

I guess I view blowing a kid into 1,000 pieces as "abuse" while you seem to have a different view, even though you are against it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do you ask about the motivations of paedophiles and other types of criminals ?

Its often done on the humanities forum. Posters don't get accused of supporting paedos there for discussing them.

I think you're only bowing out of this thread because I exposed how clueless your idea to imprison ex-provos to counteract the RIRA was. Yet no doubt you'll be back on future threads to bring up Jerry McCabe and murders on every thread mentioning SF.

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you make a distinction as to which type of criminals you consider the "motivation" of, considering it for some and not for others ?

Then we have something in common.

When someone indiscriminately murders innocent people I lose any interest in their motivation.

And since - if there was a discussion about paedophiles - you wouldn't factor in their motivation, you should be able to understand the concept of the "reasoning" for a crime being irrelevant to certain people.

I guess I view blowing a kid into 1,000 pieces as "abuse" while you seem to have a different view, even though you are against it.

I am interested in republicanism, obviously I would spend more time thinking about militant republicans and their actions.


Im the opposite, when I read of something, whether it be a terrorist attack, a murder, whatever, my first thought is "why?" Ive aways been that way. I admit I spent a while thinking about why the RCC hid abuse and stuff. Everything happens for a reason.

For example today in Drogheda two people where stabbed, I wonder why that happened?

Liam Byrne

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its often done on the humanities forum. Posters don't get accused of supporting paedos there for discussing them.

I think you're only bowing out of this thread because I exposed how clueless your idea to imprison ex-provos to counteract the RIRA was. Yet no doubt you'll be back on future threads to bring up Jerry McCabe and murders on every thread mentioning SF.

Think what you like, you're wrong.

I cannot understand people looking for reasons behind mass murder, and was told that I didn't understand, blah, blah.

The thread has already gone on for pages and pages with to-ing and fro-ing about motivations and understanding and other stuff that I couldn't care less about.

What we should be talking about on a thread like this is how threats can be stopped and how the authorities can nip this in the bud.

So cut off your victory lap midway.

I have said why I'm bowing out and you have no authority to speculate or contradict that.

I hope you don't use the same level of speculation and guesswork when trying to determine the motives of terrorists.

Do not put words in my mouth again.

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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

They didn't vote on the GFA in the South. The referendum in the Republic of Ireland on the same day, rather than explicitly seeking approval of the Agreement itself, sought endorsement of constitutional amendments required by the Agreement.

It passed 70/30 int he North and 95/5 in the South but RIRA would I suppose think this isnt a valid vote and does not express the will of the Irish people.

either that or RIRA (in their view) are not fighting for what the Irish people want but for what they want themselves. AFAIK RIRA have always claimed they are fighting for the will of the Irish people. This is part of my point. Hjo0 wdo you convince them they aren't. Obviously showing them a vote result isn't doing it.