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

ISAW

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.

Like in Dresden Hiroshima or Falluja?

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.

Ah well that is the way the British got into this mess in the first place half of them were ignorant and didn't know and half didn't care. Maybe we were lucky from time to time it was the same half and we got to convince the other half.

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

So you want an end to British militarism then?

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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

Indeed I do! I know people who work with them and I find the subject interesting from an academic point of view. Other people find murder interesting from a fiction point of view. The sort of thinking that separates the insane and the criminal and the "bad" people from the "beautiful" people is elitist and gravitates towards a "Brave Now World" ( Huxley) or "1984" ( Orwell) scenario. I mean look at the US prison system and population and their justice system.

Jonah42

ISAW wrote: »

Like in Dresden Hiroshima or Falluja?

I find it hard to comprehend that your comparing IRA violence to an atomic bomb...

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

But this isnt an individual. It is a whole organisation with a thesis.

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.

Certain people who congflate reasons with justifications?

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.

So you are against the British military?

ISAW

Jonah42 wrote: »

I find it hard to comprehend that your comparing IRA violence to an atomic bomb...

Blowing someone into a million pieces is something which happens in spite of the person who presses the button. But yes you are right - the IRA never had an atomic bomb and probably would never use one if they could.

marienbad

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes.


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


Pretty much.

Ok Then, so you advocate trying to understand RIRA and their motivations in continuing a campaign of violence. I agree with you 100% . I also agree that trying to understand their motivation does not mean one condones it. In fact one could still regard them as either patriots or criminals, depending on one's viewpoint and still try to understand them.

I presume their viewpoint is no different to the PIRA one, a viewpoint that has been studied and analysed and expounded so that there is little room for misunderstanding. PIRA believe the GFA draws a line ,RIRA dos'nt .that is the difference.

Without rehashing the whole history of the conflict,would you agree that
they will accept nothing less than a full British withdrawal and the creation of a 32 county Republic. That this is based on the only valid poll results,the election of 1918. As this was the last time the whole country voted as one unit it is the only valid poll and cannot be overturned by any other poll since , including those attached to the GFA.

Would you acept the above as a shorthand version of their motivation and beliefs in as much as we can know any thing about a secret organisation ?


If you do agree that I am in the general ballpark, then I have some questions for you

1 what can we offer them, without unravelling all the gains of the last decade.

2 For arguments sake, say we were able to offer them something and that offer was accepted by 90% of RIRA, but 10% declined and vowed to continue . What then ?

irelandspurs

ISAW wrote: »

Blowing someone into a million pieces is something which happens in spite of the person who presses the button. But yes you are right - the IRA never had an atomic bomb and probably would never use one if they could.

Are you sitting there typing with a balaclava on with a few rebel songs on in the back ground?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

It would be a lot easier to do that if when discussing their actions or ideology, we weren't accused of being supporters or had to have the thread derailed by the usual Jerry McCabe/Baby-killer rhetoric

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.

I didn't put words in your mouth I just stated my belief about why you're bowing out.

Tell me one thing - do you still think it would be a good, practical idea to lock up all provos who got out because of the GFA because of the actions of the RIRA? Even though I've pointed out it would undoubtedly bring a return of the troubles?

JustinDee

ISAW wrote: »

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

The Irish people expressing their will in a vote, not valid and not expressing the will of the Irish people?
Brilliant.
Almost as lame as some of the excuses for the actions of the deluded group in question.

ISAW

irelandspurs wrote: »

Are you sitting there typing with a balaclava on with a few rebel songs on in the back ground?

Do you always resort to attacking the poster when you can't deal with the issue? In my opinion if the IRA had a nuclear weapon they would not use it. I might be wrong but I don't believe they would use it if they had it at the height of the troubles. This does not mean I support the IRA. But I am critical enough and clear headed enough to see what militarism has done. The British have lost about 20,000 personell since WWII. Only about 1,000 were in N Ireland. so in spite of centuries of putting the boot in the military were still supporting economic colonialism since WWII. They are hand in glove with US militarists on this. They gave the US the excuse to invade Iraq for no reason at all. A million civilians died a thousand times what the IRA killed of their military in N Ireland. So please don't equate the facts with trying to paint me as an IRA supporter and get your facts in context and scale. the RIRA are in the halfpenny place compared to the British Military.

ISAW

JustinDee wrote: »

The Irish people expressing their will in a vote, not valid and not expressing the will of the Irish people?
Brilliant.
Almost as lame as some of the excuses for the actions of the deluded group in question.

that is your opinion. It also happens to be the opinion of the vast majority of people north and south. But RIRA aren't ten people sitting in a room like the Tooting Popular Front ( as in Citizen Smith) or the Peoples Front of Judea( as uin Life of Brian). Obviously they have some support. That support believes in this "delusion" as you call it. Saying " Think what you like, you're wrong," makes their detractors no better than all the other bigots in their eyes.

Spudmonkey

ISAW wrote: »

the RIRA are in the halfpenny place compared to the British Military.

Does that somehow excuse their actions?

ISAW

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Does that somehow excuse their actions?

No but people paint a picture of "we are right and they are delusional /wrong/fundamentalists".
The peasants of Iraq or the people of the Falls Road comne into theis world just as anyone else. The system that creates them isn't of their own device alonme. They dont make it "sinn fein" to be literal.
I don't know but I think Bobby Sands went out and joined the IRA the day after he had a bin flung through his window and was told to move since a protestant couple wanted the house. It may not be true but I think the point is illustrated.

KeithAFC

In fact one could still regard them as either patriots or criminals, depending on one's viewpoint and still try to understand them.

Yeah, i would really take the person who considers them patriots seriously. Good one.

JustinDee

ISAW wrote: »

that is your opinion

Its not an opinion. Not in the slightest.
Its a fact. It happened.
People turned up, voted and "expressed their will".
If don't believe that it happened and nobody voted, then yes again...they are DELUDED or willfully ignorant of the people they delusively claim to represent and know better than. When they bandy about the word 'democracy' it shows their delusion up even more.

Don't bother defending them to me. I wouldn't p*** on them or anyone who supports them if they were on fire.

Bottle_of_Smoke

JustinDee wrote: »

Its not an opinion. Not in the slightest.
Its a fact. It happened.
People turned up, voted and "expressed their will".
If don't believe that it happened and nobody voted, then yes again...they are DELUDED or willfully ignorant of the people they delusively claim to represent and know better than. When they bandy about the word 'democracy' it shows their delusion up even more.

I would agree anyone who says the Irish people did not vote for the GFA is deluded. They most clearly did.

However, what has to be underlined is that voting yes does not mean they are content with the situation. They basically wanted any end to the troubles. They were willing to let murderers out of prison to facilitate this end.

Irish people were never given the chance to vote for a united Ireland, so it is ridiculous for the likes of McGuinness to call the RIRA traitors on the basis of the yes vote to the GFA.

I'd call them idiots, wrong, ignorant, murderers, terrorists sure but there's no logical sense to calling them Irish traitors.

As an analogy - I believe the civil partnership bill for same sex marriage to be insufficient as I want full civil marriage for same sex couples. However I would still vote yes to civil partnership because it is better than no rights at all. If a gay rights group bombed a government building I would call them terrorists but not traitors.

Liam Byrne

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It would be a lot easier to do that if when discussing their actions or ideology, we weren't accused of being supporters or had to have the thread derailed by the usual Jerry McCabe/Baby-killer rhetoric

Rhetoric ?

It happened.

It is not an exaggeration (which is the meaning of rhetoric) to say that it happened.

So next time you want to use big words and catchphrases, please be clear on their meaning.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I didn't put words in your mouth I just stated my belief about why you're bowing out.

Yes, I said why I was bowing out and you suggested that I was a liar and put an alternative reason out there.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Tell me one thing - do you still think it would be a good, practical idea to lock up all provos who got out because of the GFA because of the actions of the RIRA? Even though I've pointed out it would undoubtedly bring a return of the troubles?

Why would I even reply considering you probably would convince yourself not to believe me in order to keep your argument going ?

You've indicated that you won't listen to what I say and will attribute other fictional reasoning to my posts; I've said that I've no interest in listening to the demands of terrorists.

What's the point in continuing to "discuss" anything when we've reached that impasse ?

BTW - in case it isn't clear from the above - this is my ABSOLUTELY LAST POST on this thread.

Wolfe Tone

You've indicated that you won't listen to what I say and will attribute other fictional reasoning to my posts;

Thats a bit rich coming from you tbf

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Rhetoric ?

It happened.

It is not an exaggeration (which is the meaning of rhetoric) to say that it happened.

So next time you want to use big words and catchphrases, please be clear on their meaning.

It happened of course. You just bring it up so regularly it has lost any meaning. I'm not even a SF supporter and I find it irritating. You also bring it up when there's much better ways of criticising Sinn Fein/IRA in the context.

Yes, I said why I was bowing out and you suggested that I was a liar and put an alternative reason out there.

That's not putting words in your mouth I was just stating my opinion. I didn't claim/imply you said anything which you didn't so I didn't put words in your mouth.

Why would I even reply considering you probably would convince yourself not to believe me in order to keep your argument going ?

You've indicated that you won't listen to what I say and will attribute other fictional reasoning to my posts; I've said that I've no interest in listening to the demands of terrorists.

Saying you have no reason listening to the demands of terrorists is not a valid explanation for your proposal of locking up former provisionals on the basis of militant republican activity today. You saying that in response to my rebuttal of that proposal is why I called you on it.

Furthermore I have no reason not to believe you. 2 options

A. You still think its a good idea. I will think you a fool but I will believe you

or

B. You now realise it is not a good idea. Therefore you will have admitted it was a bad idea which is reason enough for me to believe you

GuanYin

MOD

Personal jibes will NOT be tolerated in the politics forum.

Please refrain from making debates personal.

GuanYin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

2 options

A. You still think its a good idea. I will think you a fool but I will believe you

or

B. You now realise it is not a good idea. Therefore you will have admitted it was a bad idea which is reason enough for me to believe you

To be fair dude, thats not how "debate" works.

You've made your points, he made his. You can dismiss his as much as you want, but you can't "force" anyone to accept your opinion or way of thinking.

If thats howthis thread is going to continue, I'll either split off your to and fro into thunderdome and you guys can carry on or I'll lock the thread.

Hannibal

ISAW wrote: »

No but people paint a picture of "we are right and they are delusional /wrong/fundamentalists".
The peasants of Iraq or the people of the Falls Road comne into theis world just as anyone else. The system that creates them isn't of their own device alonme. They dont make it "sinn fein" to be literal.
I don't know but I think Bobby Sands went out and joined the IRA the day after he had a bin flung through his window and was told to move since a protestant couple wanted the house. It may not be true but I think the point is illustrated.

The Sands family like many other catholic families were forced from their homes through intimidation from protestents. The loyalists in many ways created the IRA, the way they attacked the nationalists communties through violence and intimidation with the help of the police and army was practically psychological bullying. When people understand the conditions that nationalists were forced to undure up north they will understand how the split within the IRA brought about the PIRA. The PIRA were focused on what they had to do, yes they done some regrettable things but a lot of it was retaliation attacks. People can condemn Sinn Fein for close involvement with the IRA and use it as a stick to beat the party but SF done a fantastic job in bringing peace and establishing a government with two bigots like Paisley and Robinson which was near impossible. The RIRA on the other hand have little or no grassroot support among republicans. The situation up north is a approaching equality and as a result the RIRA will forever be on the fringes. They might gain members now with a recession as they can snap up angry young men that cant fond work but the final steps on unity cant be achieved through violence as this will only alienate loyalists already finding it tough with nationalists in joint power. The real test will come in the next Stormont elections with SF looking like becomming the largest party and hence a First ministerial role. SF are the only party in the south with any solution or will on issues in the north, all the other parties are ignoring the situation which in the long term could be a fatal mistake.

KeithAFC

The RIRA just don't seem to have learned from history. You can't break the spirit of the loyalist people. Its been proved time and again. Both sides have now came together in government. Perhaps they should too.

GuanYin

marienbad wrote: »

Fair enough if thats how you see it. I have'nt dismissed his points at all, in fact we are in agreement 99% of the way . I am not trying to ''force'' anything .I am in fact genuinely interested in his response and not in the debating sense either but in seeing his point of view and thereafter I may even expand my own .

Are you Bottle_of_Smoke??

Good attitude, debate shouldn't be about "making someone see your point of view" it should be about discussing all aspects and sides of the topic and allowing everyone to make up their own minds. It's mostly about exposing people to new ideas.

Too many people come to a debate with their mind made up and a sole intent of "winning" by making him admit he's wrong (or in this case, doing it for him). Thats not debate. Thats propaganda.

In any case, this is off topic, so if anyone wants to continue this tangent, PM me and we can do so elsewhere.

[mod]
Back on topic. (that means me too!

Hannibal

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RIRA just don't seem to have learned from history. You can't break the spirit of the loyalist people. Its been proved time and again. Both sides have now came together in government. Perhaps they should too.

The RIRA are ignoring everything thats gone before them. I dont think its about breaking the spirit of loyalist people. Lets be honest, Irish unity will happen and I dont think there's any doubt about it. Economically and culturally it should happen and acceptence of both cultures is important.

junder

Dotsey wrote: »

The RIRA are ignoring everything thats gone before them. I dont think its about breaking the spirit of loyalist people. Lets be honest, Irish unity will happen and I dont think there's any doubt about it. Economically and culturally it should happen and acceptence of both cultures is important.

Economically it makes no sense since the republic of Ireland is bankrupt why would we in northern Ireland would we want to part of a bankrupt country, your banks and cockeyed finical policys you can't afford a united ireland. Cultrally I don't want be part of a Foreign country and when it comes down to it even northern Irish republicans see themselves apart from you freestaters, they look down on you for in thier eyes turning your back on the troubles and if cause not having gone through the troubles, no doubt I will get the usual cat calls but you all know it's true

Mike 1972

junder wrote: »

Economically it makes no sense since the republic of Ireland is bankrupt why would we in northern Ireland would we want to part of a bankrupt country, your banks and cockeyed finical policys you can't afford a united ireland.

While Id largely go along with what youre saying I wouldnt be getting TOO smug about the Republics economic situation if I were you.

Just wait and see what effect the Tories forthcoming public sector cuts have on NI :eek:

Liam Byrne

OK, following the above, I'll contribute again in order to answer one or two questions.

Firstly, no - I don't think it's necessarily a good idea for provisional IRA members to be re-jailed, but I commented on it because if there are members involved in the supposed "breakaway" group, then they should certainly be jailed, and given that the agreement (which goes both ways) in the GFA was that violence would stop and that SF & IRA would do everything in their power to help ensure that, there is an argument that the penalty could be extended if the GFA has been abandoned by enough people who shouldn't really be on the streets in the first place if there was no GFA.

I also suggested that the IRA should "have a word" and tell them to stop. Within that I had no mention of violence or weapons, and that too was extended beyond what I meant, with people pointing out that the IRA would have access to weapons (another fact which, in my naievity, I wouldn't have considered because I tend to believe that when people agree to stuff they stick to it, particularly if they are being let out of prison). I know that doesn't apply to "normal" criminals who commit crimes while on bail, etc, but there is supposedly a differential with terrorists who are working for their "cause" and I would have thought their word meant something; obviously not.

Other than that, the discussion - or at least, my part in it - had run its course, because I am a firm believer in - generally - giving someone one chance and understanding them, but if they fail / reject that chance I don't want to know; in addition I'm not even 100% on giving people who murder kids a "chance" in the first place.

So if the discussion was going to continue about "understanding the RIRA", despite them not even remotely reciprocating and "understanding" the democratic vote of the people on this island, then I have nothing to add to it. Respect and understanding - like agreements - is a two-way street, and they have no intention of respecting us.

That is where I stand on this, and it was where I stood earlier when I decided to bow out.

So I will do that now.

round tower huntsman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I also suggested that the IRA should "have a word" and tell them to stop.

them days are gone. all the provos top operators are either retired and disillusioned or gone with the dissos. look at east tyrone, just recently brian arthurs and others have come out and slated the provo leadership, a sunday tribune article said about 90% of the provos in east tyrone had walked away from the gfa and the provos.
the provos wont be having words with anyone except maybe the psni.