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

junder

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?

If there was a united ireland tomorrow I am sure there would be widespread violence afterall the gfa was passed only by a slim majorty within the unionist community. All Keith is doing Is pointing out what he believes to be true, he has no control over the loyalist community and nether do I so at the end of the day the amorphous thing that is the unionist/loyalist community will do what it thinks to be right regardless of what me, Keith, you are anybody else on this site says. However since there is no chance of a united Ireland in the foreseeable future, that gives you all plenty of time to convince the loyalist/unionist community the merits of a united Ireland, although going by the comments of most of the sinn fein'esk republicans on this site your all doing a really pants job of it

Hannibal

junder wrote: »

so at the end of the day the amorphous thing that is the unionist/loyalist community will do what it thinks to be right regardless of what me, Keith, you are anybody else on this site says.

By applying the same standards to Republicans that quote can easily justify the 25 years of the Troubles but of course that would be ignoring the underlying condition that caused the Troubles in the first place.

junder

I never made any justification only pointed out the most likely outcome if a united Ireland happened tomorrow.

ISAW

junder wrote: »

I never made any justification only pointed out the most likely outcome if a united Ireland happened tomorrow.

How do you know loyalist terrorism is most likely?

alrightcuz

"To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child." – Cicero

The great irish famine

The Irish Famine of 1846-50 clamed to have took as many as one million lives from hunger and disease, and changed the social and cultural structure of Ireland in profound ways. The Famine also spurred new waves of immigration, thus shaping the histories of the United States and Britain as well.
as many as 5 million died in what was not a famine as such but a holocaust - there was no shortage of food, but the british sent in troops of soldiers to take the crops and bacon, etc., and these were sent to Britain - exports of food actually increased! The census for 1841 was over 10 million people - and that of 1851 just over 6 million. Allowing for natural increase, it means that 6 million have gone missing - and the victims must number about 5 million. Thomas Carlisle made it clear that the genocide of the Irish (which he supported) was the secret agenda - and that efforts to alleviate the sufferings of the starving were a mere cosmetic exercise. I think there needs to be an international tribunal to establish the facts about this and other aspects of the British terror regime in Ireland.
It is a fact easily verified through economic reports that productivity in agriculture other than in potatoes increased during that time. In fact, Ireland regularly outproduced Britain in terms of food production. We were their breadbasket.
Food was transported to the ports under armed guard as people lay dying on the roadsides with green stains around their mouths from eating grass.
There were many Landlords and English who worked very hard to alleviate the situation. The Quakers in particular did incredible work. However the British Government official policy prevented any real relief from happening. Today it would be considered a deliberate attempt to inflict genocide on the people of Ireland.

CrankyCod

alrightcuz wrote: »

"To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child." – Cicero

The great irish famine

The Irish Famine of 1846-50 clamed to have took as many as one million lives from hunger and disease, and changed the social and cultural structure of Ireland in profound ways. The Famine also spurred new waves of immigration, thus shaping the histories of the United States and Britain as well.
as many as 5 million died in what was not a famine as such but a holocaust - there was no shortage of food, but the british sent in troops of soldiers to take the crops and bacon, etc., and these were sent to Britain - exports of food actually increased! The census for 1841 was over 10 million people - and that of 1851 just over 6 million. Allowing for natural increase, it means that 6 million have gone missing - and the victims must number about 5 million. Thomas Carlisle made it clear that the genocide of the Irish (which he supported) was the secret agenda - and that efforts to alleviate the sufferings of the starving were a mere cosmetic exercise. I think there needs to be an international tribunal to establish the facts about this and other aspects of the British terror regime in Ireland.
It is a fact easily verified through economic reports that productivity in agriculture other than in potatoes increased during that time. In fact, Ireland regularly outproduced Britain in terms of food production. We were their breadbasket.
Food was transported to the ports under armed guard as people lay dying on the roadsides with green stains around their mouths from eating grass.
There were many Landlords and English who worked very hard to alleviate the situation. The Quakers in particular did incredible work. However the British Government official policy prevented any real relief from happening. Today it would be considered a deliberate attempt to inflict genocide on the people of Ireland.

The famine was a tragedy and the government response to it was disgraceful but it was a bit more complex than you describe. The main problem was that the government allowed trade to continue as normal, and did not prevent the Irish farmers and merchants from exporting food from the afflicted areas. Food should have been bought and distributed to he needy but that was against the extreme laissez-faire economic creed of the time.

All very tragic but what has it to do with the RIRA?

By the way the fact that we're here means our ancestors didn't starve, but I'm not sure I'd like to know what they had to do to survive.

ISAW

junder wrote: »

I never made any justification only pointed out the most likely outcome if a united Ireland happened tomorrow.

and I asked you "how do yo know" ? On what evidence is this claim of a most likely outcome based?

ISAW

alrightcuz wrote: »

"To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child." – Cicero

The great irish famine

The Irish Famine ...- there was no shortage of food, ...I think there needs to be an international tribunal to establish the facts about this and other aspects of the British terror regime in Ireland.

Is relevant to RIRA campaign in what way exactly?
Are you seriously claiming the RIRA are only simply doing revenge killings for the damage caused by British engineered starvation?

Cú Giobach

alrightcuz wrote: »

The census for 1841 was over 10 million people - and that of 1851 just over 6 million. Allowing for natural increase, it means that 6 million have gone missing - and the victims must number about 5 million.

The census for 1841 was 8,175,124 and in 1851 was 6,552,385
The famine was a horrific man made disaster that doesn't need any exaggeration for "dramatic effect".
Check out These figures.

JustinDee

CrankyCod wrote: »

All very tragic but what has it to do with the RIRA?

As with democracy, asbolutely nothing.

ISAW

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The census for 1841 was 8,175,124 and in 1851 was 6,552,385
The famine was a horrific man made disaster that doesn't need any exaggeration for "dramatic effect".
Check out These figures.

The World Economy Volume 1: A Millennial Perspective Volume 2: Historical Statistics

page 410

Population(000's) England Scotland Wales 1820 -14,183
Ireland (1820) - 7,101

1840 - 18,396 & 8,348
1870 - 25,981 & 5,419

You might note Ireland over half of the population of the UK in 1820.
Technically ( if you believer in majority vote) Ireland could control Westminster at that rate without Scottish or Welsh support.

By 1840 it was 45 %
By 1870 - 20%

Quite dramatic!

ISAW

JustinDee wrote: »

As with democracy, asbolutely nothing.

I guess the point is that the poster may think RIRA believe they are doing something about past genocide but I have yet to hear RIRA say this.

Cú Giobach

ISAW wrote: »

The World Economy Volume 1: A Millennial Perspective Volume 2: Historical Statistics

page 410

Population(000's) England Scotland Wales 1820 -14,183
Ireland (1820) - 7,101

1840 - 18,396 & 8,348
1870 - 25,981 & 5,419

You might note Ireland over half of the population of the UK in 1820.
Technically ( if you believer in majority vote) Ireland could control Westminster at that rate without Scottish or Welsh support.

By 1840 it was 45 %
By 1870 - 20%

Quite dramatic!

Yes, and as I said, there is no need to exaggerate any of the figures, they quite clearly speak for themselves.

Noreen1

ISAW wrote: »

I guess the point is that the poster may think RIRA believe they are doing something about past genocide but I have yet to hear RIRA say this.

I can't speak for the RIRA, since I don't know who they are - but I've certainly heard some Nationalists quote injustices perpetrated by the British, including the famine, listed as reasons why they believe in a United Ireland.

The truth is, old injustices do not get forgotten in Countries that have been invaded. I could list a fair few injustices myself - and I'm very moderate in my views, so it's probably fair to say that the famine is one factor in determining the attitudes of at least some of the members of the RIRA.

ISAW

Noreen1 wrote: »

I can't speak for the RIRA, since I don't know who they are - but I've certainly heard some Nationalists quote injustices perpetrated by the British, including the famine, listed as reasons why they believe in a United Ireland.

The truth is, old injustices do not get forgotten in Countries that have been invaded. I could list a fair few injustices myself - and I'm very moderate in my views, so it's probably fair to say that the famine is one factor in determining the attitudes of at least some of the members of the RIRA.

i entirely agree that British injustice is a major cause for a belief in a united independent republic of Ireland. But my point is - how is this related to the RIRA justifying the killing of innocent civilians?

junder

ISAW wrote: »

and I asked you "how do yo know" ? On what evidence is this claim of a most likely outcome based?

Maybe I am the brigadier-commander in Chief of the loyalist paramilitary or maybe living in a loyalist community and being a working class loyalist myself, I have an insight into the mindset of many people within my community? you choose.

Noreen1

ISAW wrote: »

i entirely agree that British injustice is a major cause for a belief in a united independent republic of Ireland. But my point is - how is this related to the RIRA justifying the killing of innocent civilians?

You'd have to ask a member of the RIRA that, I'm afraid.
My point is that former atrocities are the reason that some people join these organisations in the first place.

I imagine they believe that their actions may lead to Britain wanting to "dump" Northern Ireland, on a cost basis. That is just my opinion, though, and one I have no way of verifying.

It's not a belief that I share, if that is indeed their motivation.
My own belief is that further violence will only undo the progress the GFA has brought.

ISAW

junder wrote: »

Maybe I am the brigadier-commander in Chief of the loyalist paramilitary or maybe living in a loyalist community and being a working class loyalist myself, I have an insight into the mindset of many people within my community? you choose.

No I don't! If you make a claim it is for you to support it. And saying you know more about it isn't good enough either

Look up "argument from authority" and "shifting the burden" you will find them under "logical fallacy"

Now how do you know a large violent publically supported loyalist paramilitary campaign is inevitable?

ISAW

Noreen1 wrote: »

You'd have to ask a member of the RIRA that, I'm afraid.
My point is that former atrocities are the reason that some people join these organisations in the first place.

Yes they might well join a paramilitary group based on history but not the famine. And the main point is even if they join such groups what is the reason for such groups to expand a campaign of violence in 2011?

I imagine they believe that their actions may lead to Britain wanting to "dump" Northern Ireland, on a cost basis. That is just my opinion, though, and one I have no way of verifying.

But it was not reason enough for the PIRA so why for the RIRA? and if so they would not be bombing cenotaphs or killing pizza delivery people but bombing financial districts.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

Yes they might well join a paramilitary group based on history but not the famine. And the main point is even if they join such groups what is the reason for such groups to expand a campaign of violence in 2011?

They more than likely don't consciously think of the famine when joining but anti-British sentiment has been passed down through the generations due to the famine. Its really not that long ago in terms of generations.

So not a reason they'd join in itself - but perhaps this generational anti-sentiment is part of the reason they are likely to be nationalist.

But it was not reason enough for the PIRA so why for the RIRA? and if so they would not be bombing cenotaphs or killing pizza delivery people but bombing financial districts.

The PIRA did bomb economic targets. Martin McGuinness was famous for it in Derry. And the most obvious example would be the bombing of financial districts in London. Also the Real IRA recently bombed a bank in Derry

Furthermore their very existence costs the British state in security budgets

politics

I am not in anyway condemming terrorist attacks i think they are very wrong, but the R. Ira released a statement, they havent done anything just realised a statment.

ISAW

politics wrote: »

...they havent done anything just realised a statment.

I think you may have meant "released" otherwise your post is contradictory.

politics

I did yeah But i think people getting caught up about something that hasnt happened yet is silly..

Judgement Day

Noreen1 wrote: »

I can't speak for the RIRA, since I don't know who they are - but I've certainly heard some Nationalists quote injustices perpetrated by the British, including the famine, listed as reasons why they believe in a United Ireland.

The truth is, old injustices do not get forgotten in Countries that have been invaded. I could list a fair few injustices myself - and I'm very moderate in my views, so it's probably fair to say that the famine is one factor in determining the attitudes of at least some of the members of the RIRA.

That's an interesting theory so do the 'wicked' Brits still harbour grudges against the Romans, Vikings, Normans etc?

Cú Giobach

Judgement Day wrote: »

That's an interesting theory so do the 'wicked' Brits still harbour grudges against the Romans, Vikings, Normans etc?

Some do against the Germans and Japanese from a war only 20 years after the black and tans were over here.

FUNKY LOVER

ISAW wrote: »

i entirely agree that British injustice is a major cause for a belief in a united independent republic of Ireland. But my point is - how is this related to the RIRA justifying the killing of innocent civilians?

:rolleyes:please show me the link where they said this...

junder

ISAW wrote: »

No I don't! If you make a claim it is for you to support it. And saying you know more about it isn't good enough either

Look up "argument from authority" and "shifting the burden" you will find them under "logical fallacy"

Now how do you know a large violent publically supported loyalist paramilitary campaign is inevitable?

Since this is not a court of law there is no burden on me to prove anything unless I actully care if you believe me or not, which I don't. I am a loyalist, I live in a loyalist community that gives me an insight into how my community would react if a united ireland happened tomorrow (which is not going to happen so we are talking about a entirely fictional event), an example of would likely occur would be the riots of 2005 in Belfast. Of course you as an Irish republican may think you know my community better then me.

junder

politics wrote: »

I am not in anyway condemming terrorist attacks i think they are very wrong, but the R. Ira released a statement, they havent done anything just realised a statment.

They 'realised' thier statement by leaving two bombs in north Belfast last week

Bottle_of_Smoke

politics wrote: »

I am not in anyway condemming terrorist attacks i think they are very wrong, but the R. Ira released a statement, they havent done anything just realised a statment.

you eh . . . meant ''not in anyway condoning terrorist attacks'' . . . right?

ISAW

junder wrote: »

Since this is not a court of law there is no burden on me to prove anything unless I actully care if you believe me or not, which I don't.

that is also logically incorrect.

I referred to "logical fallacies" and not to court cases.

If you say "all roses are red" and I ask for ecidence and you say "they are all red because
all lilies are blue" you are making fallacious statements.

"Shifting the burden" and "argument from authority" are logical fallacies and not court judgments.If you are not prepared to use logic and reason and just spout nonsense then you will have some problems in political discussion groups.

I am a loyalist, I live in a loyalist community

So what?

that gives me an insight into how my community would react if a united ireland happened tomorrow (which is not going to happen so we are talking about a entirely fictional event),

A statement may be logical even if the premise if false.
And i already explained argument from authority.
I have no idea if you are loyalist or not just that you say you are. I you stated "all Loyalists hate the Pope" or if you said "not all Loyalists hate the Pope" other than your unsupported claim to represent Loyalist opinion how would I be able to determine whether you are making a true statement?

an example of would likely occur would be the riots of 2005 in Belfast. Of course you as an Irish republican may think you know my community better then me.

I never claimed to be an Irish Republican in this discussion. I suggested what the RIRA might think based on history. History is not the past. And I didn't say I supported their view. Stating reasons for violence and making justifications for it are different things.