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

ardle1

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?



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.

Of course innocent people will get caught up in these operations,, we all no that's what happens in war, you cant keep bringing those really unfortunate incident's up,,I think when those groups get a death toll(of innocent people) that even comes close to most armys,, well then maybe they should start to worry.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

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.



So what?



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?




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.

What is this? What nonsense is he spouting? he's a loyalist who's given his opinion. He knows other loyalists from his community so I'd be inclined to give it more weight than the average poster.

Its also backed up by loyalist rioting happening in response to other events; much smaller issues than a united Ireland by the way, both historically and in recent times.

ISAW

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What is this? What nonsense is he spouting? he's a loyalist who's given his opinion. He knows other loyalists from his community

So he may say. You have no idea if he is a loyalist or a plant and nor have I. Nor am in particularly interested in opinion. I am more interested in supported opinion... whether
there is a factual and reasonable basis to assume there will be widespread Loyalist paramilitary attacks should a United Ireland be declared.

so I'd be inclined to give it more weight than the average poster.

given no more than half a dozen so called loyalist posters the "average" my be somewhat unrepresentative.

Its also backed up by loyalist rioting happening in response to other events; much smaller issues than a united Ireland by the way, both historically and in recent times.

I dont think the anti Orange march riot in Dublin was necessarily anti Loyalist. And for the other perspective I don't think the Garvahey road debacle which which culminated killing of two children will ever escalate back to the level it was at. Nor do I think IRA activity will ever reach the level it was at. I doubt the support is there to fund train and hide Loyalist groups even to the level of the RIRA let alone PIRA.
One also has to consider the reason for violence. IRA violence is by and large ideologically driven i.e. dependent on the Idea of independence. Loyalist violence is sectarian and reactive e.g. against Catholics or as a reaction to Republican violence,
The widespread anti catholic base of the 1920s to 1970s which enables power strikes, marches, lockdowns etc. are not likely nowadays and not supported by the Crown as part of the establishment.

So I'm not convinced the historic or recent conditions or ideological basis will be there in the future to enable Loyalist paramilitary attacks in Ireland.

KeithAFC

History is not the past

Its not? Ok..

ISAW

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its not? Ok..

No it is not! History is a map of the past. the past is the territory. The map is not the territory.
THe Japanses and the Americans have different histories of Pearl Harbour but a raid did happen there in the past.
Loyalists and Republicans have different histories, different stories about the past.

Noreen1

Judgement Day wrote: »

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

What "wicked" Brits? Do you mean those currently alive, who had no part in the injustices perpetrated years ago? That would hardly be logical, would it? I never used the term grudge, nor did I say I held a grudge against "The Brits",neither did I use the term "wicked" Brits!!

I have nothing against British people in general. That does not mean that I consider the invasion of my country all those years ago to have been justified, or morally acceptable - neither, however, does it mean that I have anything against the ordinary British people at the time, who had no part in the decision making process. I'm pretty firmly in favour of blaming those who are responsible, not innocent parties who had/have nothing to do with the problem.

If, on the other hand, you mean the nastier version of landlord (some of them were decent) who used to exist - then, if they were around today, I'd like a few words with them, certainly!

Let me put it this way, if you traced your family history, and found that your ancestors had been impoverished, starved, unjustly imprisoned, and in one case, murdered in cold blood - would you think kindly of those who perpetrated these atrocities, or would you think that those responsible should have had a case to answer?

Or, to put it another way, is the invasion of a Country, and the murder of it's citizens, morally acceptable, or not?

KeithAFC

ISAW wrote: »

No it is not! History is a map of the past. the past is the territory. The map is not the territory.
THe Japanses and the Americans have different histories of Pearl Harbour but a raid did happen there in the past.
Loyalists and Republicans have different histories, different stories about the past.

I know. But history IS the past. Doesn't matter which way you look at that history, it is in the past.

alphabeat

i hope they plan to go after fianna fail and the greens , who sold out the country underneath us all.

ISAW

KeithAFC wrote: »

I know. But history IS the past. Doesn't matter which way you look at that history, it is in the past.

No it isn't keith! I have just shown you how it isnt! history is a story an interpretation. The Map is not the territory. the History is the interpretation that exists in the present! The past is what existed in the past. history can be revised and change the past cant.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

So he may say. You have no idea if he is a loyalist or a plant and nor have I. Nor am in particularly interested in opinion. I am more interested in supported opinion... whether
there is a factual and reasonable basis to assume there will be widespread Loyalist paramilitary attacks should a United Ireland be declared.

Junder has been around long enough to convince me he's not a troll and you don't get paid to be on here so I don't buy the plant idea. Anyway what he actually saïd:

junder wrote:

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,

You don't need to provide proof if you're saying ''I am sure.../In my opinion...'' on a vbulletin board. It isn't some official debating chamber - and opinions from people who have more extended knowledge should be welcomed not attacked.

given no more than half a dozen so called loyalist posters the "average" my be somewhat unrepresentative.

Don't know what you're saying here.

And for the other perspective I don't think the Garvahey road debacle which which culminated killing of two children will ever escalate back to the level it was at. Nor do I think IRA activity will ever reach the level it was at.

It is pretty much impossible to know. Though far more recently there have been riots (with arms involved) in loyalist communities

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/12/northernireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_feud

A few months ago there was hundreds of thousands worth of damage aftersome HET raids. Buses set alight and men with handguns. bobby Moffat shot dead by UVF during the summer. I don't think the people behind these kind of things are going to sit on their hands when a united Ireland happens.

I doubt the support is there to fund train and hide Loyalist groups even to the level of the RIRA let alone PIRA.

One also has to consider the reason for violence. IRA violence is by and large ideologically driven i.e. dependent on the Idea of independence. Loyalist violence is sectarian and reactive e.g. against Catholics or as a reaction to Republican violence,

Two things here, as you said loyalist attacks were mostly on civillians with a small percentage on IRA/Sinn Fein. What training do you need to walk into an Irish bar with a machine gun?

Furthermore many loyalists are already trained from being in the British Army. They might not see a point in fighting for on her majesty's service if her majesty abandons them. It is possible the loyalist focus may shift to an independent state, be it the 6 counties or a smaller version.

I'm not for a second suggesting we should forget about a united Ireland because of loyalist retaliation, but at the same time I am not going to deny retaliation is likely

KeithAFC

ISAW wrote: »

No it isn't keith! I have just shown you how it isnt! history is a story an interpretation. The Map is not the territory. the History is the interpretation that exists in the present! The past is what existed in the past. history can be revised and change the past cant.

When people say, that is history, they mean the past. The past is history. Glad that is sorted.

KeithAFC

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Junder has been around long enough to convince me he's not a troll and you don't get paid to be on here so I don't buy the plant idea. Anyway what he actually saïd:



You don't need to provide proof if you're saying ''I am sure.../In my opinion...'' on a vbulletin board. It isn't some official debating chamber - and opinions from people who have more extended knowledge should be welcomed not attacked.



Don't know what you're saying here.




It is pretty much impossible to know. Though far more recently there have been riots (with arms involved) in loyalist communities

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/12/northernireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_feud

A few months ago there was hundreds of thousands worth of damage aftersome HET raids. Buses set alight and men with handguns. bobby Moffat shot dead by UVF during the summer. I don't think the people behind these kind of things are going to sit on their hands when a united Ireland happens.





Two things here, as you said loyalist attacks were mostly on civillians with a small percentage on IRA/Sinn Fein. What training do you need to walk into an Irish bar with a machine gun?

Furthermore many loyalists are already trained from being in the British Army. They might not see a point in fighting for on her majesty's service if her majesty abandons them. It is possible the loyalist focus may shift to an independent state, be it the 6 counties or a smaller version.

I'm not for a second suggesting we should forget about a united Ireland because of loyalist retaliation, but at the same time I am not going to deny retaliation is likely

It would be a call all over Ulster.

cardwizzard

Nonsense Keith. Most Unionists are peaceful just like most nationalists are. May have views but don't do much.

danbohan

KeithAFC wrote: »

It would be a call all over Ulster.

or they could do like up to 100,000 british loyalists did after american independence and go live in uk

KeithAFC

cardwizzard wrote: »

Nonsense Keith. Most Unionists are peaceful just like most nationalists are. May have views but don't do much.

No one said anything differently. But the point is if there is a call over Ulster to join say the UVF or UDA etc, you are going to get people who will join such ranks.

And you can't deny there would not be violence if such groups recruited many members which i have no doubt they would get.

ISAW

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Junder has been around long enough to convince me he's not a troll and you don't get paid to be on here so I don't buy the plant idea. Anyway what he actually saïd:

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,

You don't need to provide proof if you're saying ''I am sure.../In my opinion...'' on a vbulletin board. It isn't some official debating chamber - and opinions from people who have more extended knowledge should be welcomed not attacked.

I didn't attack it . i dismissed it because it has no convincing evidence.

And it was not passed by a "slim" majority like Lisbon say. Or like Northern Ireland was ruled for 50 years.

Don't know what you're saying here.

I am saying that there don't seem to be many Loyalist posters and how does one know what they say is representative of what most Loyalists believe?

A few months ago there was hundreds of thousands worth of damage aftersome HET raids. Buses set alight and men with handguns. bobby Moffat shot dead by UVF during the summer. I don't think the people behind these kind of things are going to sit on their hands when a united Ireland happens.

Nor the RIRA when it doesnt happen. But RIRA are tiny compared to PIRA.

Two things here, as you said loyalist attacks were mostly on civillians with a small percentage on IRA/Sinn Fein. What training do you need to walk into an Irish bar with a machine gun?

About as much as some people in the US have. But that does not make the US subservient to the "militia" movement.

Furthermore many loyalists are already trained from being in the British Army.

As were many Republicans. But one also requires to motivate them to join paramilitary groups and the public backing.

They might not see a point in fighting for on her majesty's service if her majesty abandons them. It is possible the loyalist focus may shift to an independent state, be it the 6 counties or a smaller version.

Even less likely then a United Ireland. It isn't even an option in the GFA.

I'm not for a second suggesting we should forget about a united Ireland because of loyalist retaliation, but at the same time I am not going to deny retaliation is likely

I would think it likely no more than the level of the RIRA.

cardwizzard

KeithAFC wrote: »

No one said anything differently. But the point is if there is a call over Ulster to join say the UVF or UDA etc, you are going to get people who will join such ranks.

And you can't deny there would not be violence if such groups recruited many members which i have no doubt they would get.

I honestly don't think so. I think the youth on both sides don't care much and its just old heads on both sides who keep it going. Now you will always get a few CIRA etc both 99.5% on both sides don't care.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

I didn't attack it . i dismissed it because it has no convincing evidence.

And it was not passed by a "slim" majority like Lisbon say. Or like Northern Ireland was ruled for 50 years.



I am saying that there don't seem to be many Loyalist posters and how does one know what they say is representative of what most Loyalists believe?



Nor the RIRA when it doesnt happen. But RIRA are tiny compared to PIRA.



About as much as some people in the US have. But that does not make the US subservient to the "militia" movement.



As were many Republicans. But one also requires to motivate them to join paramilitary groups and the public backing.



Even less likely then a United Ireland. It isn't even an option in the GFA.



I would think it likely no more than the level of the RIRA.

I don't think we're on the same level here. As I said in the last post I'm not trying to argue it would be enough violence to abandon the idea of a united Ireland I just agree with the comment that there would be widespread violence.

At the beginning there would be mass riots in places like Belfast Portadown Ballymena etc... depending on how those are handled could have a huge impact on the future support. Then there would be a campaign something along the lines of the current militant republicans. Maybe bigger maybe smaller. The amount of deaths would depend heavily on whether they target security forces or random Catholics like in the troubles. There's so many variables it is impossible to predict

Also it wasnt me who said it but the poster was correct in saying the GFA was passed by a slim majority within the unionist community. Polls showed just over half of them voted in favour whereas the vast majority of nationalists voted yes.

ISAW

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

At the beginning there would be mass riots in places like Belfast Portadown Ballymena etc... depending on how those are handled could have a huge impact on the future support. Then there would be a campaign something along the lines of the current militant republicans. Maybe bigger maybe smaller.

How big . Based on what?

Also it wasnt me who said it but the poster was correct in saying the GFA was passed by a slim majority within the unionist community. Polls showed just over half of them voted in favour whereas the vast majority of nationalists voted yes.

Oh I'm sorry I thought Unionists agreed with a democratic vote. Now it appears they only agree if a majority of Unionists agree. "Ulster says NO!" actually means "a majority of a minority population who are about fifty percent of the voting population of six of the nine counties of Ulster say no!"

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

How big . Based on what?

Like I said - impossible to gauge. Many variables such as when it will happen. Eg much more likely to be bigger if a united Ireland happened in 2020 compared to if it happens in 2050. As well as what happens in the immediate aftermath which is impossible to speculate on. Based on events over the past 45 years.

Oh I'm sorry I thought Unionists agreed with a democratic vote. Now it appears they only agree if a majority of Unionists agree. "Ulster says NO!" actually means "a majority of a minority population who are about fifty percent of the voting population of six of the nine counties of Ulster say no!"

That's moving the goalposts. I am simply stating the facts. I do not agree or support what I believe is likely to happen .

junder

ISAW wrote: »

So he may say. You have no idea if he is a loyalist or a plant and nor have I. Nor am in particularly interested in opinion. I am more interested in supported opinion... whether
there is a factual and reasonable basis to assume there will be widespread Loyalist paramilitary attacks should a United Ireland be declared.



given no more than half a dozen so called loyalist posters the "average" my be somewhat unrepresentative.



I dont think the anti Orange march riot in Dublin was necessarily anti Loyalist. And for the other perspective I don't think the Garvahey road debacle which which culminated killing of two children will ever escalate back to the level it was at. Nor do I think IRA activity will ever reach the level it was at. I doubt the support is there to fund train and hide Loyalist groups even to the level of the RIRA let alone PIRA.
One also has to consider the reason for violence. IRA violence is by and large ideologically driven i.e. dependent on the Idea of independence. Loyalist violence is sectarian and reactive e.g. against Catholics or as a reaction to Republican violence,
The widespread anti catholic base of the 1920s to 1970s which enables power strikes, marches, lockdowns etc. are not likely nowadays and not supported by the Crown as part of the establishment.

So I'm not convinced the historic or recent conditions or ideological basis will be there in the future to enable Loyalist paramilitary attacks in Ireland.

Semantics, the last defence of your average Irish republican. As I pointed out this site is not a court of law so again I have to point out that there is no burden on me to prove anything unless I care wether or not you believe me which as we have already established I don't. I have offered nothing more then an opinion nothing more nothing less, you can believe me or not, that us your prerogative and I care not how you choose to exercise that prerogative. However one would have thought if you were in anyway genuine about a achieving an united Ireland you would be very keen to find out from loyalists on this site like myself who believe that as things stand my community (note I said community not paramiltarys) will not want to be part of a united Ireland if it happened tomorrow and would most likely react with wide scale disruption which could manifest itself in riots of the sort that happened in 2005, which according to both itv and BBC are the worst riots to date in northern Ireland. Now a united Ireland is not going to happen Tomorrow, nor is it likely to happen for the foreseeable future, so there is still time to try and convince the loyalist/unionist community of the merits of a united Ireland instead of proving as you yourself are doing, that republicans are not actully interested in a united Ireland at all, they are only interested in the removal of the border.

Noreen1

junder wrote: »

Now a united Ireland is not going to happen Tomorrow, nor is it likely to happen for the foreseeable future, so there is still time to try and convince the loyalist/unionist community of the merits of a united Ireland

Fair point

instead of proving as you yourself are doing, that republicans are not actully interested in a united Ireland at all, they are only interested in the removal of the border.

Do you spend any time in the Republic?
I'm asking, because, whenever I cross "The Border", the only thought in my mind is to remember the different speed limit!:D

Whether you're Nationalist or of the Unionist tradition (yes, there are a few members of the Orange order living in my area) - most people just get on with the business of living as neighbours.

In all fairness, it's true to say that a very small minority, on both sides, can be bitter. eg: Somone referred to the Garvaghy road standoff earlier in the thread. One local member of the Orange order flew an Orange flag for the duration of that standoff. It's probably fair to say that some people were mildly irritated by that - not because anyone questioned his wish to belong to the orange order - but because no-one could understand why he felt any need to assert his family tradition in an area where everyone already knew and accepted his background, and where he was treated no differently to anyone else. The overall reaction was one of extreme puzzlement, and mild offence (as in, we thuoght he was part of this community, but he obviously doesn't think so - what did we do, that he wants to raise a barrier?) so it's probably fair to say that we just don't "get" the whole Unionist/Orange flag thing.

In 40+ years, that is the only "incident" I can think of, in my area. I'd say that makes us pretty united, wouldn't you?

ISAW

junder wrote: »

I have to point out that there is no burden on me to prove anything

I agree. which means that as you are unwilling to support it, your opinion may carry as much weight as "unicorns and pixies are behind all the trouble in N Ireland"

I have offered nothing more then an opinion nothing more nothing less, you can believe me or not, that us your prerogative

Indeed. So the unicorn theory is about as likely as your opinion?

However one would have thought if you were in anyway genuine about a achieving an united Ireland you would be very keen to find out from loyalists on this site like myself who believe that as things stand my community (note I said community not paramiltarys) will not want to be part of a united Ireland if it happened tomorrow and would most likely react with wide scale disruption which could manifest itself in riots of the sort that happened in 2005, which according to both itv and BBC are the worst riots to date in northern Ireland.

I am keen to listen to your opinion. I am keenly interested that your opinion is that you or people you support would condone and /or take part in violence should a United Ireland happen. I have no evidence other than your unsupported opinion other than comparing 2005 riots to a united Ireland.

In fact in 2005 the IRA and LVF both stood down. the riots centered around Orange marches - something I dont view as being banned in a United Ireland. Only it would not be the Queen's highway on which they March but the peoples' highway.

Now a united Ireland is not going to happen Tomorrow, nor is it likely to happen for the foreseeable future, so there is still time to try and convince the loyalist/unionist community of the merits of a united Ireland instead of proving as you yourself are doing, that republicans are not actully interested in a united Ireland at all, they are only interested in the removal of the border.

By "united Ireland" I referred to the all Ireland government of Ireland as outlined as an option in the GFA. I assume the philosophy of RIRA are along these lines even though they don't accept the GFA. I would think they don't accept it as an option but want it as a mandatory beginning although I could be wrong.

KeithAFC

The RIRA want everything British out. Including me. They should move into politics and stop trying to attack the British element in Northern Ireland.

cardwizzard

Me me me.

KeithAFC

A good programme on the other day called Born Fighting. If the RIRA think they can defeat people with that culture and history, good luck to them. They must be having a laugh.

Liamario

If you don't give them any attention or acknowledgement, they'll quickly disappear. Let the authorities deal with them and stop reporting any of their shenanigans in the media.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liamario wrote: »

If you don't give them any attention or acknowledgement, they'll quickly disappear. Let the authorities deal with them and stop reporting any of their shenanigans in the media.

And in public they must only be referred to as "Those who cannot be mentioned"

You can't keep them out of the papers when they put the people of north Belfast out of their homes for three days.

ISAW

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RIRA want everything British out. Including me. They should move into politics and stop trying to attack the British element in Northern Ireland.

And your evidence that that is what they want is?

As far as i know RIRA just want British rule out of Ireland. They are quite happy to accept British people as long as the laws are made by an Irish Parliament and the taxes paid to the Irish state and spent by them. If the British state wants to chip in I am sure they are welcome to do so. RIRA are not marxist as far as I know. Im open to correction.

KeithAFC

ISAW wrote: »

And your evidence that that is what they want is?

As far as i know RIRA just want British rule out of Ireland. They are quite happy to accept British people as long as the laws are made by an Irish Parliament and the taxes paid to the Irish state and spent by them. If the British state wants to chip in I am sure they are welcome to do so. RIRA are not marxist as far as I know. Im open to correction.

Do you know how many people consider themselves British in Northern Ireland and will not just sit back and watch these people try to blow everyone away? The British flag will fly high and they can't accept it. A war on the state is a war on the loyalist people as far as im concerned.