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

proon4

JustinDee wrote: »

You think you know "what's true and what's not".
If you attempt to defend what they intend to do with nothing more than a contrarian, apathetic attitude then don't be surprised if your line is easily lumped in as bupkis.

The people of the island spoke and overwhelmingly so. A pocket of animals not liking this doesn't excuse them the right to ignore via a deluded misguided campaign of violence. They represent no-one but themselves. In short, they're attempting to usurp, through murder, the democratic wishes of an huge majority. That is Fascism and nothing else, fella.

Bullshid... the people of Ireland often spoke and it was ignored by the so called democrats...Lisbon 1 comes to mind.. So we had Lisbon 2... Wheres all these jobs and prosperity we were promised.. Democracy is as false as any other creed.. A ll that maters is truth,,, but we dont ever get that. I say again look to the past

gbee

proon4 wrote: »

Bullshid... the people of Ireland often spoke and it was ignored by the so called democrats...Lisbon 1 comes to mind.. So we had Lisbon 2... Wheres all these jobs and prosperity we were promised.. Democracy is as false as any other creed.. A ll that maters is truth,,, but we dont ever get that. I say again look to the past

I take this point, the government were even saying they'd keep coming back until it was passed.

I've maintained for a long time that we have two great myths in Ireland: A democracy and a low tax economy.

JustinDee

proon4 wrote: »

Bullshid... the people of Ireland often spoke and it was ignored by the so called democrats...Lisbon 1 comes to mind.. So we had Lisbon 2... Wheres all these jobs and prosperity we were promised.. Democracy is as false as any other creed.. A ll that maters is truth,,, but we dont ever get that. I say again look to the past

Sanctimonious jingoistic rubbish.
You're basically saying the people on this island know no better and that the deluded loons alleging to speak for them have a mandate to undo via violence what the people actually want.


.

ISAW

DaSilva wrote: »

I'm sorry, I was not trying to say they are exactly the same in all aspects, rather they are the same at their core.

How so?

[quoter]
If I understanding correctly, and please feel free to tell me I have misunderstood, you are saying an important difference is Qutb is religuosly motivated, the Red Brigade philosophically motivated and the RIRA is neither because they are doing it for the Irish nation. That is fine, it makes little difference to my argument. The RIRA's cause (helping the Irish nation) is considered more important than human life.
[/quote]

there is a difference with "God is telling me to do this" and "marx is telling me to do this" because the Irish nation can and does change its mind.

I agree, I don't think profiteering of some Nazis was the problem for most worldwide opponents to Nazism. Was this an attempt to rationalize the RIRA? I missed the point in that case.

The point being some maybe even most Nazis didnt go in for the theoryy about Jews or gypsies and just whet along with it because it suited them to get the Jews house for example.

What?

1. Examine the actsd
2. Accept their justificatyion ( not agree with it just accept it so you an look into it)
3. Examine other reasons
4. find the history of these reasons
5. present your findings to them and compare them to the justifications given by them

If you have a violent reason for violence and the reason is removes then the violence has no basis.

for example sayt the reason is "Ireland should be united" then confronted with "if ireland was united would you accept that there is no reason for RIRA and disband?"

It may be someone says "but it would not be a socialist Ireland" in which case their reason isnt uniting the country since even if that was achieved it wouldn t be enough.

Here is in my opinion the fundamental flaw in most armed struggles. The RIRA is saying they want to help the people of this island, and to do this they will kill people of this island.

So do you think any bombs dropped or armies fighting in WWII were flawed? Or do you only think the armies you support are not flawed?

ISAW

proon4 wrote: »

Bullshid... the people of Ireland often spoke and it was ignored by the so called democrats...Lisbon 1 comes to mind..

Which was NOT ignored. Lisbon could not be legally put into force until the Irish people agreed by majority vote. Funny how you onlyy seem to agree with the majority when the result suits you.

A ll that maters is truth,,, but we dont ever get that. I say again look to the past

But you have a direct line to God or the truth? Foirgive me if I don't happen to believe you.

cc4life

For which ever one of you mentioned the Nazis first I have bad news for you!!

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1989 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

It really annoys me when people do that

Wolfe Tone

cc4life wrote: »

For which ever one of you mentioned the Nazis first I have bad news for you!!

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1989 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

It really annoys me when people do that

I have never heard that in all the time I have been on the internet.

lugha

JustinDee wrote: »

Sanctimonious jingoistic rubbish.
You're basically saying the people on this island know no better and that the deluded loons alleging to speak for them have a mandate to undo via violence what the people actually want.

Regrettably, the deluded loons have a point. We have forgiven, even elevated as God-like heroes, people who in the past presumed to speak for the Irish with no mandate, sometimes demonstrably so.

Gerry Adams might be asked some awkward questions when he runs in Louth in March, but I doubt if he will be asked how, (if at all!), his views have changed from the time when he supported a group who purported to be the true government of Ireland when they demonstrably only had the support of a tiny fraction of the Irish people. And of course we had our friends from 1916.

Whatever other charge can be made against the dissidents by us, the one that they do not have a mandate rings a bit hollow given the deified status of Pearse and co and the continuing respectable to high ratings Adams gets.

lugha

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I have never heard that in all the time I have been on the internet.

Now, now M. You were a newbie once too!

ISAW

cc4life wrote: »

For which ever one of you mentioned the Nazis first I have bad news for you!!
Godwin's law

It isn't news and I have heard of it before. In fact the British military were germane to the discussion and comparisons to Nazi Germany are apt.

ISAW

lugha wrote: »

Regrettably, the deluded loons have a point. We have forgiven, even elevated as God-like heroes, people who in the past presumed to speak for the Irish with no mandate, sometimes demonstrably so.

How do you expect anyone to get a mandate when a group of people take their land dissolve their parliament and make it illegal for Catholics ( about 9-0 per cent of the population at the time) to vote?

Whatever other charge can be made against the dissidents by us, the one that they do not have a mandate rings a bit hollow given the deified status of Pearse and co and the continuing respectable to high ratings Adams gets.

Fianna Fail are also a republican party and trace their roots to the same Sinn Fein that Sinn Fein do. As do Fine Gael for that matter.

KeithAFC

As the old saying goes around these parts, prepared for peace, ready for war.

BNI

Thousands of people have died for this and where are we? Does anyone remember any of their names if they are not related to them. How many million believed they had a cause, in world war II or Vietnam or Iraq and in the end the only way to win was not to play.

If you want to create a single nation on this Island everybody has to get on

Jonah42

KeithAFC wrote: »

As the old saying goes around these parts, prepared for peace, ready for war.

Deal drugs in the meantime.

Einhard

Dotsey wrote: »

Arresting the PIRA never worked, they harnessed support and team spirit within the ranks behind bars. And internment actually got more people into the ranks than anything because many innocent men were locked up who were so insenced by this they joined up.
The RIRA will never have the support or the manpower the PIRA had. But this could make them more dangerous as they will be more eager to attract to attract attention and hopefully they kill as many drug dealers as possible, and anyone that says otherwise obviously doesnt live in an area that has been ruined by drugs

And you obviously have no respect for the rule of law.

For someone who I presume would call her/himself a Republican, you certainly have a remarkably blase approach to executions without trial. You can't condemn the Brits for targetting those they considered to be members of the IRA for internment, or even assassination, and then turn around and advocate that another group of society should be exterminated without trial by unelected gunmen.

bmaxi

ISAW wrote: »

No actually. I would think the RIRA position would be that it is sugfficient to remove any British rule over Ireland e.,g. government court systems police and military. British citizens are quite happy to live in Ireland. In fact they are the largest minority in Ireland north and south. They just would not be governed taxed or funded by Westminster.

I think it's a little naïve to suggest that removal of British rule would go unnoticed by the Unionist community. What if they object? We're dealing with a real live situation here, involving real live people.

KeithAFC

bmaxi wrote: »

I think it's a little naïve to suggest that removal of British rule would go unnoticed by the Unionist community. What if they object? We're dealing with a real live situation here, involving real live people.

The Volunteers would notice, no doubt about that.

lugha

ISAW wrote: »

How do you expect anyone to get a mandate when a group of people take their land dissolve their parliament and make it illegal for Catholics ( about 9-0 per cent of the population at the time) to vote?.

The Irish people did have a free and fair vote in the 1970s and 1980s and those that aspired to Irish unity overwhelmingly backed parties that sought to bring it about by peaceful means. Sinn Fein fielded candidates before the ceasefire and only got miniscule support. They did not have their people with them and they knew it. Hence their obnoxious notions of puppet administrations.

As for 1916, most accept that significant sympathy for the rebels only came after the British made martyrs of them, a mistake they made repeatedly since.

Liam Byrne

DaSilva wrote: »

Here is in my opinion the fundamental flaw in most armed struggles. The RIRA is saying they want to help the people of this island, and to do this they will kill people of this island.

+1

As a citizen of Ireland, the RIRA has never and will never help me by their actions.

Until they realise that they do not have a monopoly on "the cause" and that their actions are not the only option, then their supposed motivation is discredited.

ISAW

bmaxi wrote: »

I think it's a little naïve to suggest that removal of British rule would go unnoticed by the Unionist community. What if they object? We're dealing with a real live situation here, involving real live people.

Well so what? Unionists might not be happy but that has nothing to do with the RIRA reasons given for their violence.

Look for example at violence in teh past. PIRA violence was directed at Military targets. It would be difficult to maintain PIRA were secratian i.e that their targets were Protestants. Why. their reason for violence was attacking the British military and establishment figures. Granted it is likely establishment figures were more likely to be Protestant but they were not being attacked because iof that. Loyalist Paramilitaries were however clearly Sectarian. they attacked people civilians in particular because the were Catholic.

You can view the evidence in a crosstabulation here. Crosstabulate religion summary with orginisation . Note about 800 of 1700 IRA killings were of Protestants.Now look at UFF 128 Catholics, 18 Protestant, 1 other.

KeithAFC

ISAW wrote: »

Well so what? Unionists might not be happy but that has nothing to do with the RIRA reasons given for their violence.

Look for example at violence in teh past. PIRA violence was directed at Military targets. It would be difficult to maintain PIRA were secratian i.e that their targets were Protestants. Why. their reason for violence was attacking the British military and establishment figures. Granted it is likely establishment figures were more likely to be Protestant but they were not being attacked because iof that. Loyalist Paramilitaries were however clearly Sectarian. they attacked people civilians in particular because the were Catholic.

You can view the evidence in a crosstabulation here. Crosstabulate religion summary with orginisation . Note about 800 of 1700 IRA killings were of Protestants.Now look at UFF 128 Catholics, 18 Protestant, 1 other.

Its simply amazing how you can just ignore the IRA secterian murders when they commited A LOT of them. The Troubles was famous for secterian murders from both sides.

This re writting of history is annoying.

JustinDee

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its simply amazing how you can just ignore the IRA secterian murders when they commited A LOT of them. The Troubles was famous for secterian murders from both sides.

This re writting of history is annoying.

I wouldn't worry about it. Their next line is probably 'its all de famine's and de brits fault'. Rinse and repeat.

Noreen1

ISAW wrote: »

Yeah it isn't like they put Irish people in prison for decades for something they didn't do is it? Or enslaved them for being Catholic? Or prevented them from voting or gerrymandered constituencies or gave their own pals jobs and prevented the Irish from getting them or ignored their elected representatives in parliament when they brought up valid civil right cases ? And now they want to apologise for people who came about because of all this?

I do not condone violence.
However, the injustices quoted above are the reason I would like to see a United Ireland - by peaceful means.

The truth is, most people have an innate desire for justice.
Unfortunately, the lesson of any military conflict is that justice can never be achieved at the end of that conflict.
Innocent lives lost cannot be restored. Confiscated (stolen) land cannot be returned to its rightful owners generations later.

Just as the wrongs perpetrated by the British establishment left wounds that will never be forgotten - if the RIRA intensify their bombing campaign, the wounds they create will not be forgotten either.

The only way forward is by peaceful means IMHO.

bmaxi

ISAW wrote: »

Well so what? Unionists might not be happy but that has nothing to do with the RIRA reasons given for their violence.

Look for example at violence in teh past. PIRA violence was directed at Military targets. It would be difficult to maintain PIRA were secratian i.e that their targets were Protestants. Why. their reason for violence was attacking the British military and establishment figures. Granted it is likely establishment figures were more likely to be Protestant but they were not being attacked because iof that. Loyalist Paramilitaries were however clearly Sectarian. they attacked people civilians in particular because the were Catholic.

You can view the evidence in a crosstabulation here. Crosstabulate religion summary with orginisation . Note about 800 of 1700 IRA killings were of Protestants.Now look at UFF 128 Catholics, 18 Protestant, 1 other.

So in your world, provocation of the Unionist community into retaliation is acceptable. this supports my original stance that removal or subjugation of the Unionist community would be a part of the RIRA strategy.
Then you try to justify IRA killings by comparing them to the UFF, the UFF could probably counter that by saying supporters of the IRA were more likely to be Catholic and that made them "legitimate targets". Neither argument holds up, it's a twisted logic.
The fact remains that we have a situation in Northern Ireland which clearly is not ideal to either side but that's what compromise is all about. It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get to the point we are now and every time I see Martin Mc Guinness and Peter Robinson together, I marvel at what has been achieved.
Now we have this band of thugs who want to throw it all away, and for what, another thirty years of innocent deaths to get us back to the same place we are now?

junder

ISAW wrote: »

Well so what? Unionists might not be happy but that has nothing to do with the RIRA reasons given for their violence.

Look for example at violence in teh past. PIRA violence was directed at Military targets. It would be difficult to maintain PIRA were secratian i.e that their targets were Protestants. Why. their reason for violence was attacking the British military and establishment figures. Granted it is likely establishment figures were more likely to be Protestant but they were not being attacked because iof that. Loyalist Paramilitaries were however clearly Sectarian. they attacked people civilians in particular because the were Catholic.

You can view the evidence in a crosstabulation here. Crosstabulate religion summary with orginisation . Note about 800 of 1700 IRA killings were of Protestants.Now look at UFF 128 Catholics, 18 Protestant, 1 other.

lan Black recalls the banter between the 12 men on the minibus as they made their way home from Glenanne textile factory on that dark, rainy night. They were debating whether Manchester United or Leeds would challenge Liverpool for glory at the top of the English first division.

Then their vehicle was stopped on a deserted part of the road at Kingsmill by a group of men with combat jackets and blackened faces. The workers thought it was the British army.

"They ordered us out onto the road," Black says. "Even then, we didn't suspect anything. One man asked for the Catholic among us to step forward."

Fearing they'd been stopped by loyalists and the sole Catholic, Richard Hughes, was to be killed – his protestant colleague, Walter Chapman, whispered to Hughes to stay silent. But a man in combat jacket recognised Hughes and ordered him to "clear off down the road". Then the shooting started. "After the initial screams, there was silence," Black says. "It was all over in a minute." A total of 136 shots were fired. Despite being hit 18 times, Black survived.

Colin Worton's brother Kenneth (24) did not. "He left a wife and two young children," Worton says. "I don't know how the gunmen lived with themselves. They shot their victims first from three feet, then finished them off with a bullet to the head as they lay on the ground.

"Kenneth had no face left, it was blown away in the gunfire. You wouldn't do that to a dog. In war, both sides are meant to be evenly matched. But these men had nothing to fight with except their lunch boxes and flasks."

Colin Worton met Alan Black several times but has never been able to ask him about his brother's last moments. "I know it's wrong, but I resented that Alan lived and Kenneth didn't."

The HET report into Kingsmill is due imminently. The IRA figure behind the massacre is widely believed to be a man who lives in the Republic and is a major suspect in the Omagh bombing.

The IRA, officially on ceasefire, admitted the attack under the name of the Republican Action Force. Its claim that Kingsmill was in retaliation for the Reavey and O'Dowd killings is rejected by the Kingsmill families who believe the atrocity was planned much earlier.

Following Kingsmill, the Glenanne gang wanted massive retaliation on a Catholic school or convent but the Belfast UVF leadership prevented it, fearing further IRA retaliation. After the atrocity, loyalist sectarian killings in south Armagh ceased for some time.

But even republicans couldn't claim the dead weren't totally innocent. None were security force members, let alone paramilitaries. The night before the Reavey brothers were killed, they'd played darts with the two Chapman brothers who would themselves be murdered 48 hours later at Kingsmill. "When I was in the hospital morgue getting my brothers' bodies, the Kingsmill relatives arrived," recalls Eugene Reavey. "Our family knew them all. I offered my condolences. The Kingsmill victims weren't our enemies, they were our friends. They were ordinary decent people, just like us."

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news...xcept-their-l/
Reply

OhNoYouDidn't

junder wrote: »

Following Kingsmill, the Glenanne gang wanted massive retaliation on a Catholic school or convent but the Belfast UVF leadership prevented it, fearing further IRA retaliation. After the atrocity, loyalist sectarian killings in south Armagh ceased for some time.

Thats a very interesting line the Tribune left in....

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its simply amazing how you can just ignore the IRA secterian murders when they commited A LOT of them. The Troubles was famous for secterian murders from both sides.

This re writting of history is annoying.

In fairness if you look at both loyalist and republican killings the vast majority of loyalist attacks where simply sectarian. Kill all taigs. Whereas with the PIRA the majority of their operations where not.

Wolfe Tone

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats a very interesting line the Tribune left in....

There wouldnt be an election coming up would there?

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

In fairness if you look at both loyalist and republican killings the vast majority of loyalist attacks where simply sectarian. Kill all taigs. Whereas with the PIRA the majority of their operations where not.

Surely indiscriminate murder is actually even more objectionable than targetted murder ?

OhNoYouDidn't

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

There wouldnt be an election coming up would there?

Not quite what I meant. The Tribune are basically justifying the Kingsmill murders as it prevented further Loyalist attacks.

Wolfe Tone

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Not quite what I meant. The Tribune are basically justifying the Kingsmill murders as it prevented further Loyalist attacks.

I wouldnt read it quite like that.

Fratton Fred

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

In fairness if you look at both loyalist and republican killings the vast majority of loyalist attacks where simply sectarian. Kill all taigs. Whereas with the PIRA the majority of their operations where not.

why did the army council ban attacks in Celtic countries?

Can we presume that their motto was kill all English people?

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why did the army council ban attacks in Celtic countries?

Can we presume that their motto was kill all English people?

I didnt make up that motto did I?

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why did the army council ban attacks in Celtic countries?

Can we presume that their motto was kill all English people?

what was your paras motto fred ? , very touchy on this killing english people i see . perhaps the ira seen the welsh and the scots as people whose countries you the english had invaded , massacred its inhabitants , and ruled with fear and terror like you did in Ireland ,therefore it seems logical to attack the source of all celtic country's problem not the fellow celtic country's

Einhard

danbohan wrote: »

what was your paras motto fred ? , very touchy on this killing english people i see . perhaps the ira seen the welsh and the scots as people whose countries you the english had invaded , massacred its inhabitants , and ruled with fear and terror like you did in Ireland ,therefore it seems logical to attack the source of all celtic country's problem not the fellow celtic country's

Are you for real? England are the source of all the problems that "Celtic" nations have? That would be laughable if it wasn't so bloody tragic!

ISAW

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its simply amazing how you can just ignore the IRA secterian murders when they commited A LOT of them. The Troubles was famous for secterian murders from both sides.

This re writting of history is annoying.

I didnt ignore them! I just pointed out the stats.

IRA killed 334 catholic 795 Protestant and 1711 not from NI

UFF killed 128 Catholic 18 Protestant and 1 nfNI
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl
Now the 18 Protestants might have been infighting and feuding,. But even of they werent the seven to one ( 128:19) ratio of Catholics to others can be compared to the 795: 2045 i.e. 1:2 IRA ration of Protestants to others. i think the figures show which group is clearly killing based on religion.

ISAW

JustinDee wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it. Their next line is probably 'its all de famine's and de brits fault'. Rinse and repeat.

Don't you consider this a bit hypocritical when the poster was singling out IRA killings and forgetting about others? Or about why the IRA began doing such activities?

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

what was your paras motto fred ? , very touchy on this killing english people i see . perhaps the ira seen the welsh and the scots as people whose countries you the english had invaded , massacred its inhabitants , and ruled with fear and terror like you did in Ireland ,therefore it seems logical to attack the source of all celtic country's problem not the fellow celtic country's

In that case, they were as historically ignorant as you appear to be.

Remind me again when England invaded Scotland?

ISAW

Einhard wrote: »

Are you for real? England are the source of all the problems that "Celtic" nations have? That would be laughable if it wasn't so bloody tragic!

hummm let's see? What colonies did england have in the past and did they have problems as direct result of EWnglish presence? Ireland - problem . Scotland- probolems. Israel- problems. south africa. Rhodesia ( even had the gall to name the country after himself); Australia... there is a very long list of problems due to colonial military industrial presence.

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In that case, they were as historically ignorant as you appear to be.

Remind me again when England invaded Scotland?

how about 1296 fred , of course you english never invaded any country you were peace keepers , !!!

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

+1

As a citizen of Ireland, the RIRA has never and will never help me by their actions.

Until they realise that they do not have a monopoly on "the cause" and that their actions are not the only option, then their supposed motivation is discredited.

I agree. How do you help them to realise this?

JustinDee

ISAW wrote: »

Don't you consider this a bit hypocritical when the poster was singling out IRA killings and forgetting about others? Or about why the IRA began doing such activities?

No, I don't.
I've a blanket word that covers both sides of the sectarian divide during that time. Its the same word that I save for the ignorant loons in question in this thread. Its a four-lettered word and begins with 'c' and would get me banned if I used it

ISAW

Noreen1 wrote: »

I do not condone violence.

So you are against any country having an Army?

The only way forward is by peaceful means IMHO.

Well it may not be the only way but I agree it it the one worth trying.

ISAW

lugha wrote: »

The Irish people did have a free and fair vote in the 1970s and 1980s

No they didn't!

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/scarman.htm
Thursday 6 April 1972
The Scarman Tribunal Report (Cmd. 566) was published. The report was into the causes of violence during the summer of 1969. The report found that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had been seriously at fault on a number of occasions.

Normal free and fair elections?

ISAW

JustinDee wrote: »

No, I don't.
I've a blanket word that covers both sides of the sectarian divide during that time. Its the same word that I save for the ignorant loons in question in this thread. Its a four-lettered word and begins with 'c' and would get me banned if I used it

And you name calling makes your position right in spite of the historical and statistical evidence?

I have another word which is for someone who believes they are always right and won't shift no matter what actual facts are presented to them. That word is "bigot". You i assume have an open mind and are prepared to change you opinion based on available evidence?

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

how about 1296 fred , of course you english never invaded any country you were peace keepers , !!!

Aah, good old Dan and his anti English chip.

You really should read a history book sometime.

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah, good old Dan and his anti English chip.

You really should read a history book sometime.

no time fred , but your take on world history is much better , so tell me all about it in your own words , how brave english has been trying to survive against all them nasty celts, french , germans , prussians , russians , turks, kurds ,arabs ,africans , americans , spanish , argentianans , boers . jsus who have you lot not been fighting with , but of course it was not your fault ,all picking on the poor old poms they were !

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

no time fred , but your take on world history is much better , so tell me all about it in your own words , how brave english has been trying to survive against all them nasty celts, french , germans , prussians , russians , turks, kurds ,arabs ,africans , americans , spanish , argentianans , boers . jsus who have you lot not been fighting with , but of course it was not your fault ,all picking on the poor old poms they were !

What annoys you Dan, the fact we fought them, or the fact we kept on winning?

ISAW

bmaxi wrote: »

So in your world, provocation of the Unionist community into retaliation is acceptable.

No!
Please try to keep up.
In my world "the unionists might not like it" is a comment on what the unionists might think about something like a united ireland and nothing whatsoever about diffeent and separate reasons for why RIRA commit violent acts.

this supports my original stance that removal or subjugation of the Unionist community would be a part of the RIRA strategy.

as i see it
they dont recognise a unionist veto no more then they recognise a conemars veto or a travelling community veto. aS far as they view it RIRA think that what is done for ireland should be done for Ireland and the Unionists protestant, Catholics, GAA supporters, travelling community, gay community or whatever should have no right to stop what Irielan wants.

The point I am making is how do you convince them by reason that this is not a valid position. One way out for exxample is that a Republis is not a democracy by majority ( as the Unionsts are wont to think) but is a democracy regulated by law.

Then you try to justify IRA killings by comparing them to the UFF,

No I am only saying that the IRA reasons were DIFFERENT! REmember the underlying theory
remove the reasons for violence and you remove the violence


To remove Republican violence you have to appease their reasons the main reason was a united Ireland. The GFA appeased this reason since people can in the future vote for a united Ireland. The vast majority of Republican paramilitariests stopped because of that.

The UFF had different core reasons e.g secterianism so dealing with this issue will remove their reason.

the UFF could probably counter that by saying supporters of the IRA were more likely to be Catholic and that made them "legitimate targets".

Yes they could. Just as the IRA could say peoplein loyalist areas were more likely to be protestant .
I have done a stastical analysis of this in the past. I would begin by looking at population differences so say the population was 60/40 one migh expect a 60/40 split if IRa victims were picked at random. as it happens it is about 65/35 and this is fairly much like the population split in N Ireland.

this in effect makes my case for me since it explains the two to one civilian deaths difference for the provos but NOt the seven to one for the UFF!

Neither argument holds up, it's a twisted logic.

Clearly the stats are there for you to peruse. It isnt twisted. Ther is also qualatitive evidence. Loyalists leaders saying "burn catholics". Republicans leaders denying sectarian motives and preaching against it.
Please realise Im not claiming they are better . It isn't a judgement! Im just saying the reasons were not sectarian and loyalist groups were.

The fact remains that we have a situation in Northern Ireland which clearly is not ideal to either side but that's what compromise is all about. It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get to the point we are now and every time I see Martin Mc Guinness and Peter Robinson together, I marvel at what has been achieved.

Again - so what? such a marvellous achievment has nothing to do with the reasons for violence held by those who decided not to become part of this process. and it is those groups we are discussing.

Now we have this band of thugs who want to throw it all away, and for what, another thirty years of innocent deaths to get us back to the same place we are now?

Trite comments won't provide a solution.

ISAW

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What annoys you Dan, the fact we fought them, or the fact we kept on winning?

Actually the Scottish Irish Welsh Kurkis etc. fought the wars for the English aristos who sat on their arses and watched the unheroic dead feed the guns. And the Empire crumbled nevertheless.