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

Einhard

ISAW wrote: »

Please learn the difference between "reasons" given for violence and "justification" for violence.

Sometimes there's a very thin line indeed between the two...

OhNoYouDidn't

Einhard wrote: »

Sometimes there's a very thin line indeed between the two...

No there isn't.

Its a uniqiue trait of this forum that anyone who steps up and offers an opinion on the dissidents reason for being is labelled a dissident. Doesn't happen anywhere else and doesn't happen in relation to any other topic

Its childish, divisive and plain rude.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

Sometimes there's a very thin line indeed between the two...

Thats bollocks tbh, if I talked about the reasons for Germany invading Poland would I be justifying them?

RMD

"Those who actively engaged in the occupation of Ireland and those who assist this occupation are the enemies of the Irish people,"

The hypocrisy of this bull****. 2 lads just doing their job, delivering pizza and they were both nearly killed. People going about their job on a day to day basis aren't the enemy of the Irish people, disillusioned dissident retards are.

Last thing I and the vast majority of people North and South would like to see is another decade or 2 of tit-for-tat killings and bomb campaigns.

JustinDee

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats bollocks tbh, if I talked about the reasons for Germany invading Poland would I be justifying them?

No, in the tradition of these internet chat thingies, you'd be justifying the Soviets by not mentioning their part in the invasion . . .

I'll get me coat.

OhNoYouDidn't

RMD wrote: »

Last thing I and the vast majority of people North and South would like to see is another decade or 2 of tit-for-tat killings and bomb campaigns.

And you don't think thats the whole fcuking point? The entire reason for an armed campaign?

I wish people would think about what they type.

ISAW

gbee wrote: »

The blight years devastated our population, estimates vary some say down to 4 million from 12 million.

This is a common misconception. Famine is caused in the main not by agricultural practice but by economics politics and war.

The Idea that potato blight was the cause of the starvation is bunkum! Yes potatoes were a staple but famines had been happening regularly for over a century in Ireland and those in charge did little or nothing to arrest this. In fact what they did was made themselves rich while peasants starved to death. You cant have a famine when you are exporting food! Starvation is what they had!

The British were slow to react as blight was common in Ireland and crop failures a regular event. The British did not create the blight but the problems were compounded by Ireland exporting grain for profit.

Who brought the potato to Ireland in the first place? And why? hint: Plantation.

It's a fine line, but Britain did not force this export of food, the Union of England and Ireland was some 50 years old and trade was prosperous for all. Especially in the North.

Nonsense. The union was instigated by British because the Gladstone Irish Parliament even though it was the Stormont of its day was still not enough on the side of the rich British overlords so they bought off what they cound not beat off and dissolved the independent autonomous parliament!
But the fassity of your argument is proved by the fact that starvation had happened in the seventeenth century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine_%281740%E2%80%931741%29
of similar magnitude to the better-known Great Famine of 1845–1852. Unlike the famine of the 1840s, which was caused in part by a fungal infection in the potato crop and, separately, extreme government regulations, that of 1740–41 was due to extremely cold and then rainy weather in successive years, resulting in a series of poor harvests. Hunger compounded a range of fatal diseases.

Where does that leave you "union" when such Union didn't exist at the time?
And where does it leave your "blight"?
You seem to paint a picture of unlucky Irish and the famine being bad luck rather than neglect and exploitation!

The loss of labour lead to the rapid development and adoption of machines for agriculture, a process that has had a far longer ranging impact on our Island.

From the old "war is really a good thing to keep down the population" mindset?

Wolfe Tone

Lads, what has the famine to do with the RIRA?

JustinDee

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Lads, what has the famine to do with the RIRA?

Sweet eff all. Its nothing but a straw to cling to.
Exemplifies their delusion perfectly.

Einhard

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No there isn't.

Its a uniqiue trait of this forum that anyone who steps up and offers an opinion on the dissidents reason for being is labelled a dissident. Doesn't happen anywhere else and doesn't happen in relation to any other topic

Its childish, divisive and plain rude.

There's also a childish trait on this forum that presumes that everything posted is specically directed at oneself. Obviously we need to understand the reasoning of the dissidents, but there's a thin line between that, and using conditions to justify or negate their activities. And that's a line that some Republicans have trouble distinguishing. I'm sure you'd dispute the notion that Republicanism is entirely homogenous, so perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to assume that I was talking about all Republicans, and all attempts at explaining the situation. The fact I used "sometimes" should really have been a clue in the matter...

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats bollocks tbh, if I talked about the reasons for Germany invading Poland would I be justifying them?

I wasn't referring to you. There is though, a tendency amongst some in Republican circles, to justify through explanation.

Einhard

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And you don't think thats the whole fcuking point? The entire reason for an armed campaign?

I wish people would think about what they type.

I'm trying to de-tox my way out of my Xmas splurge and have given up the caffeine, so maybe I'm a tad slow this morn, but what does this post mean? Are you saying that the entire purpose of the armed campaign was to avoid an armed campaign? Apologies in the likely event that I'm wrong...

djpbarry

danbohan wrote: »

the fact is part of this island is still occupied by Britain...

Nope – Ireland relinquished its claim on Northern Ireland upon the ratification of the Good Friday Agreement.

danbohan wrote: »

a vast swathe of the population in that part of the island consider themselves Irish and wish for reunification of the island...

And an even larger number wish to remain part of the UK.

danbohan wrote: »

...those people would also probably consider pearse and connally as heros and not terrorists as you do...

Heaven forbid people might have different opinions.

danbohan wrote: »

...now you claim they are British and that you are Irish , i dont think so

Resorting to childish name-calling already are we? Ok, I’m done with this thread.

ISAW

gbee wrote: »

No, it's you who put a very simplistic view on things by saying that the British committed genocide against the Irish in the 1860's by exporting food and leaving the Irish to die.

Eh? Do you mean 1840s or 1820s or 1740s maybe? 1860s is a bit after the fact.

The truth is not simplistic at all. If the Catholic families were not so large there would not have been a ready labour market, a labour market eager for support as it could not sustain itself.

Ludicrous! the old "catholics have to many kids" excuse. Sure the same is said in Africa today. You seem to fail to see why people had large families and why they do so in such regions today. Hint:mortality
you also seem not to recognise that starvation is caused by economics and war and not by agriculture. the irish had been getting along fine for several thoudand years before a foreign entity took over the whole country and exported the resources to make themselves rich.

Again straight out of the "war is a good thing to regulate the population" mindset. Of course the people promoting the mindset are rarely the people doing the dying or suffering.

There is better farm land in the English mainland and much more of it ~ but not the people to work it. It was not in Britain's interests to have had this series of famines.

So it is for the English and not for any other kingdom or duchy such as Scotland or Wales?
Well the Welsh and Scottish knew they were under the boot as well of course but we are glad you admit it.

They could have done more, and in light of the importance of the grain, coming only some 30 years after European slavery has been abolished we are looking at a European picture here.

Try again! 1740s ! they had a century to prepare! And at one point ther were more white Irish slaves working the English colonies in the Carribean than there were of any other population except American natives!

The famine years spanned two decades and ultimately changed the world.

the famine years spanned two centuries and the British just kept planting and taking!

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

There's also a childish trait on this forum that presumes that everything posted is specically directed at oneself. Obviously we need to understand the reasoning of the dissidents, but there's a thin line between that, and using conditions to justify or negate their activities. And that's a line that some Republicans have trouble distinguishing. I'm sure you'd dispute the notion that Republicanism is entirely homogenous, so perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to assume that I was talking about all Republicans, and all attempts at explaining the situation. The fact I used "sometimes" should really have been a clue in the matter...

On this board it seems you are the one with the problem.

I wasn't referring to you. There is though, a tendency amongst some in Republican circles, to justify through explanation.

You have done so in the past, can we expect a repeat?

dlofnep

Einhard wrote: »

Sometimes there's a very thin line indeed between the two...

There isn't in fairness. All too often people are accused on this forum for justifying an event by providing context for the said event. It's rarely worth even entertaining with a response.

gbee

ISAW wrote: »

From the old "war is really a good thing to keep down the population" mindset?

History happened. It's complex and has roots far beyond our little island and earlier in history as both of us have mentioned.

There is no need to pigeon hole a 'mindset' in an effort to discredit me.

After all, it was a 'lucky' coincidence that the American Civil War took some two million people out of the scene, thus making room for the burgeoning Irish immigrants to scrape out of the ghetto and .... eventually supply the money that brought most of the arms from Germany, Israel, Lebanon, Libya etc that cost so much lives in the Irish struggles in recent times.

Now mindset me that!

ISAW

Einhard wrote: »

The RIRA don't believe in democracy, as evinced by their very existence.

I have to point out a problem in Republican theory here.

The IRA up to the Good Friday Agreement argued that the peopole of Ireland supported armed struggle and that they had not expressed their opinion of an end to it.

After the all Ireland vote they said "well we accept the voice of the Irish people"

The dissident Republicans said "but the majority of Irtish people voted for an United Ireland" in other words they dont view the minority view of Unionists as having a veto aon what the majorioty of Irish people want. They view this no different than they view 1916 where a minority of Unionists wanted foirst nine and then six counties.

The Problem for Sinn Fein is that ( ill use Republican terminology) in accepting the GFA they accept that the minority of Irish people in an artificial statelet have a veto over the majority Irish opinion. In other words they recognise the majority unionist opinion in a gerrymandered part of the Island.

So, therefore, I'd find it hard to believe that they yearn for democracy. As for the other part, I find it hard to believe that a bunch of thugs who threaten the rest of us, and hold us hostage to violence, really care about anybody in the community, let alone their ideological opposites.

But they would say they represent democracy as most people want a united Ireland.

OhNoYouDidn't

Einhard wrote: »

I'm trying to de-tox my way out of my Xmas splurge and have given up the caffeine, so maybe I'm a tad slow this morn, but what does this post mean? Are you saying that the entire purpose of the armed campaign was to avoid an armed campaign? Apologies in the likely event that I'm wrong...

The idea that the RIRA might reconsider planing bombs and shooting people if they only just realised it would inconvience people is so banal its unreal.

The whole point is that the governments don't want a large scalre return to violence and as such are more likely to make concessions if the Cokes can achieve a critical mass.

phantom_lord

What do these chaps realistically expect to achieve exactly?

gbee

phantom_lord wrote: »

What do these chaps realistically expect to achieve exactly?

Fear!

JustinDee

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The idea that the RIRA might reconsider planing bombs and shooting people if they only just realised it would inconvience people is so banal its unreal
The whole point is that the governments don't want a large scalre return to violence and as such are more likely to make concessions if the Cokes can achieve a critical mass

It has nothing to do with "inconvenience"!
Poor taste belittlement of opposition to this crowd's deluded rhetoric and deeds.

OhNoYouDidn't

djpbarry wrote: »

Nope – Ireland relinquished its claim on Northern Ireland upon the ratification of the Good Friday Agreement.

Bull. A huge number of people voted for the GFA specifically because it put a formal structure in place for unification.


Article 2
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3
1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

gbee

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Bull. A huge number of people voted for the GFA specifically because it put a formal structure in place for unification. .

That was my understanding too.

Liamario

I think the best thing for everyone to do is to not draw attention to these tools. And criminal activity which thu claim responsibilty for should not be associated with them.
The less you talk about or acknowledge their existence, the sooner they'll disappear.

gbee

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Article 2
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage..

This was defeated in a referendum. It facilitated a massive influx immigrants and has been over turned.

ISAW

gbee wrote: »

History happened. It's complex and has roots far beyond our little island and earlier in history as both of us have mentioned.

Wrong! The past happened! History is only a map of the past. It is not the territory.

There is no need to pigeon hole a 'mindset' in an effort to discredit me.

It is your argument if anything I am discrediting. I don't indulge in ad hominem.

After all, it was a 'lucky' coincidence that the American Civil War took some two million people out of the scene, thus making room for the burgeoning Irish immigrants to scrape out of the ghetto and .... eventually supply the money that brought most of the arms from Germany, Israel, Lebanon, Libya etc that cost so much lives in the Irish struggles in recent times.

Now mindset me that!

Well just more of the same isn't it? the Irish were "lucky" to get involved in wars elsewhere.

In fact the Irish had been fighting British and other peoples wars for centuries. In the late seventeenth century I believe about half the entire British Military was Irish. I woulod have to go and get the paper but I think ( from memory) it was around 1698 it not it was 1798 and the figure was 48 per cent.

http://books.google.com/books?id=MPZiWhhAmXAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+Military+History+of+Ireland&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=us8hTeuXKcPRhAfjjLG3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The elizabethans called it the "land of ire"
44 local uprisings and over 200 military engagements up to 1798 ( page3 above book)

dlofnep

phantom_lord wrote: »

What do these chaps realistically expect to achieve exactly?

Denormalisation in the short term, and end to partition in the long term. Whether it's realistic or not is another question.

ISAW

gbee wrote: »

This was defeated in a referendum.

No it was not! it was ammended. the position up to that time remains in effect. The position subsequent to it is that Irish citizenship requires one to have one parent Irish or to be living there for five years


This is a change to article 9 and not article 2

old Article 9

1. 1° On the coming into operation of this Constitution any person who was a citizen of Saorstát Éireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution shall become and be a citizen of Ireland.

2° The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be determined in accordance with law.'

New:

2. 1° Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.
2° This section shall not apply to persons born before the date of the enactment of this section.

After the 27th ammendment Article 2 reads:

Article 2
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

NOT defeated in a referendum as you claimed!

RMD

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And you don't think thats the whole fcuking point? The entire reason for an armed campaign?

I wish people would think about what they type.

1. Chill the **** out, you're getting far to angry and tense for a simple discussion on a forum.

2. They wont have any leeway until a bombing campaign starts, so this notion of claiming they'll up their campaign and all of sudden both governments will be all ears without seeing any action from RIRA is stupid.

3. Once they do start the bombing campaign / killings etc they'll get **** all public support and just further tarnish their name, everyone already knows RIRA to be a pack of scumbags anyway. I'd much prefer to see MI5 infiltrate these lads and shoot everyone of the backward fúcks before seeing them being brought to the negotiation table.

Noreen1

I hope that neither Republican or Loyalist groups return to violence.:eek:
I would hate to see even one more person, whatever their political persuasion, hurt/killed by any group with a political ideal.

Having said that - I would like to see a United Ireland, if only to see old injustices righted, insofar as these injustices can be righted.
Realistically, we can't bring back the dead, or undo old wrongs.
What we can, (and should, IMO) do, is avoid making the same mistakes again.

Violence has, in the past, brought fear, leading to hatred, to both Nationalist and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland. Hatred just led to more violence, and the vicious circle continued.........

The GFA brought the first real opportunity to resolve the conflict.
I would hate to see any group try to undermine the very real progress that the GFA has brought.
JMO.