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

Wolfe Tone

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Civil cases are decided on the balance of probability. Criminal cases are decided beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is much less for civil cases, so being ruled against in a civil case does not mean that you actually are "guilty" so to speak. Important to bear that in mind.

They are actually appealing it.


http://news.ie.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=155803265

Pat D. Almighty

These people represent a verty tiny proportion of the Irish population, North & South. We voted for the Good Friday Agreement, the majority spoke then, and it remains in place as the only viable way for peace on the island, even if that peace comes in the form of a 32 county republic or an independent Northern state.
The Provisionals had support, they had a short term goal which they have achieved, now it's up the the people to decide. If there ever is a border poll, and the majority want to remain part of the UK, then Republicans like myself will just have to accept it and move on.

ISAW

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

These people represent a verty tiny proportion of the
Irish population, North & South.

So did Sinn Fein when the PIRA were active. They had 1 to maybe 3 per cent of the vote in the South. the point is that even with tiny proportions they caused considerable carnage and it took effort to take them round to considering the constitutional route. should not even more effort be devoted to RIRA?

We voted for the Good Friday Agreement,

Having sat down with SF and others to work on a wording and agreeing prisioner release etc.

the majority spoke then, and it remains in place as the only viable way for peace on the island, even if that peace comes in the form of a 32 county republic or an independent Northern state.

Sorry but Ill have to reiterate the point. what does majority opinion have to do with convincing those who think the majority are deluded into stopping violence?

The Provisionals had support, they had a short term goal which they have achieved, now it's up the the people to decide. If there ever is a border poll, and the majority want to remain part of the UK, then Republicans like myself will just have to accept it and move on.

Not necessarily they could do another Lisbon like vote say every five years. why not have a referendum with each election? If that was offered maybe some of RIRA would work on getting it passed rather then storing politically ineffective bombs?

ISAW

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Civil cases are decided on the balance of probability. Criminal cases are decided beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is much less for civil cases, so being ruled against in a civil case does not mean that you actually are "guilty" so to speak. Important to bear that in mind.

All the same OJ simpson was found not guilty of a crime but it was the civil case that ruined him.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

Not necessarily they could do another Lisbon like vote say every five years. why not have a referendum with each election? If that was offered maybe some of RIRA would work on getting it passed rather then storing politically ineffective bombs?

Maybe not.

Some republicans would actually boycott any border polls. The reasoning being they believe they shouldn't have to vote to have their own country recognised.

There was a guy called Dan Keating who fought in the war of Independence. He refused to accept a state pension because he sees the republic as illegal. In 2002 he refused the E2500 award given to centenarians. He died in 2007 whilst being Ireland's oldest man.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

So did Sinn Fein when the PIRA were active. They had 1 to maybe 3 per cent of the vote in the South. the point is that even with tiny proportions they caused considerable carnage and it took effort to take them round to considering the constitutional route. should not even more effort be devoted to RIRA?



Having sat down with SF and others to work on a wording and agreeing prisioner release etc.



Sorry but Ill have to reiterate the point. what does majority opinion have to do with convincing those who think the majority are deluded into stopping violence?



Not necessarily they could do another Lisbon like vote say every five years. why not have a referendum with each election? If that was offered maybe some of RIRA would work on getting it passed rather then storing politically ineffective bombs?

Hello ISAW , what if we do as you suggest and engage with RIRA and somehow reach an accomadation but 10% refuse and break away and continue a campaign of violence. What then ? Do we do the same again with that brealaway group ?

I keep asking you this question and you have yet to answer.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Hello ISAW , what if we do as you suggest and engage with RIRA and somehow reach an accomadation but 10% refuse and break away and continue a campaign of violence. What then ? Do we do the same again with that brealaway group ?

Yes.
Difference being each time the groups gets smaller until it becomes the size of the tooting popular front or the Judean popular front.

I keep asking you this question and you have yet to answer.

Where did you ask it? Can you give three examples?

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

marienbad wrote: »

Hello ISAW , what if we do as you suggest and engage with RIRA and somehow reach an accomadation but 10% refuse and break away and continue a campaign of violence. What then ? Do we do the same again with that brealaway group ?

Yes.
Difference being each time the groups gets smaller until it becomes the size of the tooting popular front or the Judean popular front.



Where did you ask it? Can you give three examples?

pie in the sky , my friend , just wont work. Sooner or later you have to say enough.

Bottle_of_Smoke

marienbad wrote: »

Hello ISAW , what if we do as you suggest and engage with RIRA and somehow reach an accomadation but 10% refuse and break away and continue a campaign of violence. What then ? Do we do the same again with that brealaway group ?

I keep asking you this question and you have yet to answer.

Its a very unlikely scenario really, to be honest so unlikely it is pointless to discuss. What possible accommodation could you come to with 90% of republicans opposed to the GFA without ripping up the GFA?

And I'm not having a go at you, I think trying to engage with them is pointless too. Was the claim really made they should be engaged with regarding re-negotiating the north?

There's a lot of things I don't like about the GFA and I think republicans got the short end of the stick.

However, it was accepted - by the PIRA army council, and the Irish public, I acknowlege it was a gerrymandered Irish public but nonetheless loyalists weren't going to back down with the principle of consent.

So armed conflict is just a non-runner. Once the Army council and the majority of the IRA said ''fair enough'' the jig was was up.

marienbad

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its a very unlikely scenario really, to be honest so unlikely it is pointless to discuss. What possible accommodation could you come to with 90% of republicans opposed to the GFA without ripping up the GFA?

And I'm not having a go at you, I think trying to engage with them is pointless too. Was the claim really made they should be engaged with regarding re-negotiating the north?

There's a lot of things I don't like about the GFA and I think republicans got the short end of the stick.

However, it was accepted - by the PIRA army council, and the Irish public, I acknowlege it was a gerrymandered Irish public but nonetheless loyalists weren't going to back down with the principle of consent.

So armed conflict is just a non-runner. Once the Army council and the majority of the IRA said ''fair enough'' the jig was was up.

Correctomundo, if one item is reopened all are reopened to everyone, It is done deal or no deal , lets move on.

KeithAFC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/nolan/clips/20110127_sheila

A caller in support for the dissidents. A bit shocking in some regards to the tone she uses but when i think about it, it is no surprise.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW wrote: »

marienbad wrote: »

pie in the sky , my friend , just wont work. Sooner or later you have to say enough.

No you don't! You should always leave the door open to anyone who is prepared to say they are rejecting violence and embarking on constitutional politics.

donaghs

I've no time for the RIRA. But one thing which struck is how narrowly Anglo-Centric they are. I mean, if they're claiming to be fighting for an independent Ireland etc, have they not been watching the news about the EU/IMF bailout?

xE

The Real IRA said it had learned from "past mistakes" which it didn't detail.

Evidently not.

ISAW

donaghs wrote: »

I've no time for the RIRA. But one thing which struck is how narrowly Anglo-Centric they are. I mean, if they're claiming to be fighting for an independent Ireland etc, have they not been watching the news about the EU/IMF bailout?

they are in the rut that SF was in in the 1980s. They think "united Ireland" and everything else will follow. They have no policy on anything else.

KeithAFC

They tried to lure a group of police officers near a bomb, making it plain and obvious while a 2nd bomb lay nearby. Could of killed 3 police officers. They aren't getting a Untied Ireland. So they should just stop.

lightspeed

If history has taught or shown us anything its that violence will always exists and thrive in an occupied territory without fail under any circumstances. How can the british make the claim to the north when we are not geographically attached to mainland britain? People will always see that point and be willing to fight for such liberation from what they deem as oppression of a foreign empire. I read before how during the troubles the british paratroopers where there best friend when it came to recruitment campaigns for the ira and how everytimes the paratroopers drove through the streets and killed and maimed irish people the more and more members the IRA got, Same in spain with ETA and in palestine and israel , and the USA and Afghanistan. There are significantly well more now in al qaeda with better weapons and experiance than before and yet the USA try to convince themselves they are making the area they have occupied safer when ironically its killing their enemy that has given their enemy so much growth and strength. I know it must sound like im getting off topic but the main point im trying to make is that if you choose to live in an area that you can see as to how its occupied you have to be able to accept there will be acts of extreme violence . You cant have it both ways. If it was possible to have permanent lasting peace in an occupied land than there would be permanent lasting peace in such areas.
If britain really cared about the citizens of the north then it would have given us a united ireland long ago. Ive never unserstood as to why the people in the north that want to remain under the british crown dont just move to britain? its just across the pond so why insist on occupying our northern territories where all this violence and trouble will always be present?

lightspeed

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

These people represent a verty tiny proportion of the Irish population, North & South. We voted for the Good Friday Agreement, the majority spoke then, and it remains in place as the only viable way for peace on the island, even if that peace comes in the form of a 32 county republic or an independent Northern state.
The Provisionals had support, they had a short term goal which they have achieved, now it's up the the people to decide. If there ever is a border poll, and the majority want to remain part of the UK, then Republicans like myself will just have to accept it and move on.

Id like to see such a referendum conducted but republicans will never give up the fight if the result is not in the favour. I think the republic has more pressing issues to look at right now however apparently the republic will be spending €500 million to build roads in the north of ireland and i heard brian lenehin say a few weeks ago that contractors from northern ireland are underbidding people in the republic for work and contracts which was one of the reasons as to why the minimum wage was lowered but im not so sure i believe that entirely, Its clearly eveident that Britain has little regard as to the economic effect on the republic without a united ireland.

KeithAFC

lightspeed wrote: »

If history has taught or shown us anything its that violence will always exists and thrive in an occupied territory without fail under any circumstances. How can the british make the claim to the north when we are not geographically attached to mainland britain? People will always see that point and be willing to fight for such liberation from what they deem as oppression of a foreign empire. I read before how during the troubles the british paratroopers where there best friend when it came to recruitment campaigns for the ira and how everytimes the paratroopers drove through the streets and killed and maimed irish people the more and more members the IRA got, Same in spain with ETA and in palestine and israel , and the USA and Afghanistan. There are significantly well more now in al qaeda with better weapons and experiance than before and yet the USA try to convince themselves they are making the area they have occupied safer when ironically its killing their enemy that has given their enemy so much growth and strength. I know it must sound like im getting off topic but the main point im trying to make is that if you choose to live in an area that you can see as to how its occupied you have to be able to accept there will be acts of extreme violence . You cant have it both ways. If it was possible to have permanent lasting peace in an occupied land than there would be permanent lasting peace in such areas.
If britain really cared about the citizens of the north then it would have given us a united ireland long ago. Ive never unserstood as to why the people in the north that want to remain under the british crown dont just move to britain? its just across the pond so why insist on occupying our northern territories where all this violence and trouble will always be present?

The majority has spoken. What are they going to do about the Loyalist people who don't want to be ruled by Dublin?

namelessguy

KeithAFC wrote: »

The majority has spoken. What are they going to do about the Loyalist people who don't want to be ruled by Dublin?

Agreed. Only the people of N Ireland can decide to remain in the UK or join the Republic.

lightspeed wrote:

Ive never unserstood as to why the people in the north that want to remain under the british crown dont just move to britain? its just across the pond so why insist on occupying our northern territories where all this violence and trouble will always be present?

That works both ways. Why don't people who want to join the republic just move south? It's alot closer.

deise go deo

KeithAFC wrote: »

The majority has spoken. What are they going to do about the Loyalist people who don't want to be ruled by Dublin?

Interesting you should say that Keith when you have said several times that Loyalists will turn to violence should there be a referendum on unity, It seams you want to hold Republicans to a higher standard than your own.

What are loyalists going to do should the majority speak for Unification?

JustinDee

lightspeed wrote: »

If britain really cared about the citizens of the north then it would have given us a united ireland long ago

I'd bet the house that if they had the choice they would have relinquished the status quo in a heartbeat. As it happens they can't without a return to the NI of late '60s and 70s.

lightspeed wrote: »

Ive never unserstood as to why the people in the north that want to remain under the british crown dont just move to britain? its just across the pond so why insist on occupying our northern territories where all this violence and trouble will always be present?

Because its where these people are from. They didn't just arrive there.

What is prevalent now is compromise as opted for in referendum. I don't know if you were old enough to remember what it was like on this island and across the ditch before, but its far better nowadays than ever before.

CrankyCod

lightspeed wrote: »

If history has taught or shown us anything its that violence will always exists and thrive in an occupied territory without fail under any circumstances. How can the british make the claim to the north when we are not geographically attached to mainland britain? People will always see that point and be willing to fight for such liberation from what they deem as oppression of a foreign empire. I read before how during the troubles the british paratroopers where there best friend when it came to recruitment campaigns for the ira and how everytimes the paratroopers drove through the streets and killed and maimed irish people the more and more members the IRA got, Same in spain with ETA and in palestine and israel , and the USA and Afghanistan. There are significantly well more now in al qaeda with better weapons and experiance than before and yet the USA try to convince themselves they are making the area they have occupied safer when ironically its killing their enemy that has given their enemy so much growth and strength. I know it must sound like im getting off topic but the main point im trying to make is that if you choose to live in an area that you can see as to how its occupied you have to be able to accept there will be acts of extreme violence . You cant have it both ways. If it was possible to have permanent lasting peace in an occupied land than there would be permanent lasting peace in such areas.
If britain really cared about the citizens of the north then it would have given us a united ireland long ago. Ive never unserstood as to why the people in the north that want to remain under the british crown dont just move to britain? its just across the pond so why insist on occupying our northern territories where all this violence and trouble will always be present?

The majority of people on the island voted for the Good Friday Agreement, end of debate until the next island-wide vote. If you want a united Ireland, get out, knock on doors, and persuade your fellow island-dwellers. You can be sure the British government would be gone before the ink was dry on the ballot-papers.

I don't see any logical reason why this island should be a single state, just because of an accident of geography. It is people who define a state, not salt-water.

KeithAFC

deise go deo wrote: »

Interesting you should say that Keith when you have said several times that Loyalists will turn to violence should there be a referendum on unity, It seams you want to hold Republicans to a higher standard than your own.

What are loyalists going to do should the majority speak for Unification?

I said pockets of violence. And yeah, there probably would be an uprising all over Ulster. But the point is, these dissidents want the British out. What are they going to do with all the loyalists who consider themselves British and don't bow down to the Tri colour?

Noreen1

KeithAFC wrote: »

I said pockets of violence. And yeah, there probably would be an uprising all over Ulster. But the point is, these dissidents want the British out. What are they going to do with all the loyalists who consider themselves British and don't bow down to the Tri colour?

Who said anything about Loyalists bowing down to the Tricolour?
It seems to me that Republicans/Nationalists are not noted for being obsessive about flags?

What you clearly fail to understand about Nationalists is that we remember that Ireland was invaded by Britain.
The moderate among us recognise that moderate Unionists cannot reasonably be punished for the crimes of their forefathers - hence we try to accomodate your rights - but we also remember that the wrongs of the past need to be put right........
Look at the history of any oppressed people - there is never true peace until justice is seen to be done.

My hope is that justice will eventually be seen to be done, in a peaceful manner. More killing/violence, by either side, will solve nothing.

KeithAFC

Did you listen to that supporter on the link? That is basically what she wants. All things Irish, British out etc.

bernardo mac

The way I see it the citizens of the Republic have lots of enemies on this island: self serving politicians,bankers,developers,drug traffickers...self proclaimed dissident republicans,their counterparts of the loyalist fringe.That's quite a lot to start with.There are plenty of other violent types who kill, maim and rob.I believe we have enough to sort out before thinking about a United Ireland.The country is in an economic mess: emigration's at an alarming rate ; HSE and health costs scandalouss and there a quite critical level of depression among young and old.Let's get Real

danbohan

KeithAFC wrote: »

Did you listen to that supporter on the link? That is basically what she wants. All things Irish, British out etc.

you mean she wants the exact opposite of what your ancestors wanted , irish out ?

KeithAFC

danbohan wrote: »

you mean she wants the exact opposite of what your ancestors wanted , irish out ?

No. If that was the case, their would be no Irish on the island anymore.

Scofflaw

KeithAFC, danbohan, don't make me have to bang your heads together.

moderately,
Scofflaw