Boards.ie Politics forum is a poor man's Politics.ie

Bottle_of_Smoke

yekahs wrote: »

I have to say I think that the new policy, if I have my head around it, is a very regressive step.

If we continue with the comparison of 1916 IRA and modern RIRA, I have argued before, and still believe that there is very little difference between the two. However under the new policy praising 1916 is fine, however simply condoning modern IRA is a bannable offence.

That is the complete opposite of what I think a politics board should be about. Forums like these (for me at least) are a place to come to challenge my beliefs, confront those who hold opposing views, and maybe learn a little about the other side. Suppressing a view, simply because it is in the minority is very regressive. The great thing about message boards is you can discuss emotive topics like NI, from the safety of a keyboard. Its something which I have an interest in, but I would never discuss down the pub, or in a social setting.

Completely agree. The big issue is people being accused of supporting RIRA when they don't. People who openly support RIRA should be criticised(well in my opinion anyway) but it is pointless in banning them.

bonkey

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Guess we better not be saying the men of 1916 were justified so.....

Here's how I see it...

First of all, there's a distinction to be made between history and current affairs. There's a fuzzy area somewhere between the two (e.g. the IRA's activities in the 70s, 80s, and 90s isn't current...but isn't quite history either.

We tend to view history in terms of its outcome, where current affairs (obviously) cannot be viewed in this way.

So when we view the actions of Collins et al, we look at a world which (in the Irish corner of it, at least) was shaped by their actions, but where those actions are (effectively) no longer current.

Aside - Republicans might disagree, and argue that the struggle for independence is sill ongoing, therefore Collins actions are still current - that could be an interesting discussion, perhaps suited to Political Theory.

To look at the point further, I'd like to take a seperate, partly-current, partly-historic set of events...that being the US activities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are people who believe that the US did the right thing in these countries...that intervention was justified, and that (although the situation is ongoing) it has been, is or will be worthwhile. I believe that such people have every right to argue such a position. However, if someone were then to start applauding atrocities like Abu Ghraib, they're crossing a line.

Similarly, there are people who believe the US is in the wrong...and that the resistence against them is perfectly justifiable. Again, I believe such people have every right to argue such a position. They could (in my book) even support actions taken against military targets. However, when they start applauding suicide bombers who kill a street full of innocents...they're probably crossing a line.

I also believe that while both of these groups of people have every right to support their position, and to disagree with each other, neither of them have the right to start putting words in the others mouth..."you support the US...which means you supported Abu Ghraib. You should be ashamed"..."you support the resistence, which are terrorists killing innocent civilians". They also don't have the right to start badgering someone for an answer to a question...and/or assume guilt because they didn't get an answer to their liking.

In pretty-much all of the trouble-laden topics, the simple reality is that other then opposing all sides, you have to give support to a group who have behaved unacceptably. There is a distinction between coming to terms with that and with supporting the unacceptable behaviour itself.

To come full circle...Collins was responsible for a lot of actions which would - in today's world - be considered atrocities. I don't applaud him for those at all. I understand why they were done, and accept the outcome that they contributed towards...but I would never support or applaud the atrocities themselves.

So from where I sit...I can discuss 1916. I can support the Republicans of the day in a manner that I believe no moderator of the Politics forum would want to censure me for. What I would not do, however, is say that atrocities were justified....because I honestly believe they were just that...atrocities.

Scofflaw

To come full circle...Collins was responsible for a lot of actions which would - in today's world - be considered atrocities. I don't applaud him for those at all. I understand why they were done, and accept the outcome that they contributed towards...but I would never support or applaud the atrocities themselves.

So from where I sit...I can discuss 1916. I can support the Republicans of the day in a manner that I believe no moderator of the Politics forum would want to censure me for. What I would not do, however, is say that atrocities were justified....because I honestly believe they were just that...atrocities.

To follow on from bonkey's point there - if you say:

X was a traitor/tout/informer/spy and deserved to die

then I don't care whether it's in reference to Jean McConville being shot by the PIRA, Detective Sergeant Smith of the ‘G’ Division being shot by Collins' Squad, or Michael Collins being shot by the IRA. You will be penalised whichever one it is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

I dont think it will work. Look at the dissident related threads where I attempted to discuss them in an objective way(as is being suggested is done with all violence now) and they hardly turned out perfect.

bonkey

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I dont think it will work. Look at the dissident related threads where I attempted to discuss them in an objective way(as is being suggested is done with all violence now) and they hardly turned out perfect.

Could you be more specific as to which are threads where you attempted to discuss violence objectively?

A quick search on threads you've contributed to in the Politics forum produces 250 results...so its not immediately obvious which are ones where you tried to be objective about violence, and which aren't.

I'm not trying to be smart here...I'd like to have a look and see what happened, as a (relatively) neutral observer.

For the record, I'm not looking for individual posts, nor a blow-by-blow recounting of how you (or anyone else) interpreted the posts. I appreciate that you're currently banned, but if you log out, you should be able to find one of these threads and get a link to it.

Wolfe Tone

Unfortunately I don't have enough time right now to go searching but basically they go along the lines of:

dissidents did x
objective analysis(usually simply saying the bombs were not there to kill civilians, which is true)
OMG SO THAT MAKES IT JUSTIFIED

cue pages of defending myself against claims I support the dissidents or the bombings.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056052349

I think this is an example, I dont have time to check it, but seen as I have it bookmarked and the title I assume it is an example of the above

FlutterinBantam

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't have enough time right now to go searching but basically they go along the lines of:

dissidents did x
objective analysis(usually simply saying the bombs were not there to kill civilians, which is true)
OMG SO THAT MAKES IT JUSTIFIED

cue pages of defending myself against claims I support the dissidents or the bombings.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056052349

I think this is an example, I dont have time to check it, but seen as I have it bookmarked and the title I assume it is an example of the above

Objective analysis:eek:

So I plant a car bomb in Grafton and clear out a load of civilians and my defense is that I meant to kill security forces:eek:

Most people wouldn't buy that one.

Poccington

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Objective analysis:eek:

So I plant a car bomb in Grafton and clear out a load of civilians and my defense is that I meant to kill security forces:eek:

Most people wouldn't buy that one.

Why are you posting here?

You seriously don't actually add anything to a discussion, other than attempt to wind up certain posters.

It's very tiresome.

nesf

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't have enough time right now to go searching but basically they go along the lines of:

dissidents did x
objective analysis(usually simply saying the bombs were not there to kill civilians, which is true)
OMG SO THAT MAKES IT JUSTIFIED

cue pages of defending myself against claims I support the dissidents or the bombings.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056052349

I think this is an example, I dont have time to check it, but seen as I have it bookmarked and the title I assume it is an example of the above

You didn't so much give objective analysis there as you effectively said "it's ok to set off bombs so long as you phone in warnings." That is condoning the bombings and supporting them in general, not necessarily bombings by dissidents.

The thing is many people, including myself, would view any kind of bombing to be unjustifiable regardless of warnings given though I would have a lot more respect for a group that gave warnings as opposed to those that don't give warnings because at least the former are making some effort to minimise civilian casualties.

An objective analysis would have been: "Dissidents continue with activities because they believe the peace brokered was unacceptable." This is a markedly different statement to "The peace brokered was unacceptable, that's why the dissidents continue with their activities." Your objective analysis was your first post in that thread, the problem occurred because of your second post because you appeared to be condoning dissident actions "because they phoned in warnings."

Wolfe Tone

What I said was that they did not intend to kill civilians with the bomb(which is obvious), I never said it was ok.

Anyway, I would say that this attack shows a willingness of the dissidents to actually back up their words with actions. We all remember a few weeks ago when they said they would target banks? Well now they have.

Seems to be a clear attempt to gather support from the growing number of disillusioned socialist republicans. And it can easily be seen that many members of the public would either support an attack on the banks, or at least not shed any tears over a banks destruction.

Clearly the dissidents in question did not intend to kill anyone, ample warning was given, everyone was evacuated. This lends further weight to my theory that the dissidents have absolutely no aim under any circumstances to either harm or kill innocent civilians. Seemingly the dissidents have embarked on a campaign to gather public support. This attack coupled with the increase in "policing" and the dealing with of drug dealers clearly illustrates that.

Thats pretty objective and accurate I feel. In this instance the bomb was detonated outside a bank in the dead of night following a phoned in warning I believe.

nesf

I think it's too woolly on the justification side of things. i.e. from your wording I'd interpret your post as focusing on warning being the important thing and presupposing that bombing was justifiable. A single line in that post saying "Assuming that someone can feel bombings with warnings are ok:" would have cleared up any misconceptions about your point. By not mentioning it you imply that statement and that in itself implies that you believe this is ok and thus condone bombings if they come with warnings.

What you didn't say is almost as important as what you did say when it comes to how people will interpret your posts.


Conversely your first post is extremely hard to misinterpret. You simply lay out a logical statement: "They didn't sign up for the GFA so therefore, they continue their actions." No reasonable person could interpret that as condoning not signing up for the GFA or indeed showing any opinion about it either way.

Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What I said was that they did not intend to kill civilians with the bomb(which is obvious), I never said it was ok.



Thats pretty objective and accurate I feel. In this instance the bomb was detonated outside a bank in the dead of night following a phoned in warning I believe.

Again, the problem is that the post very clearly says "bombing is acceptable" - sure, with various provisos. That's a line you've taken on multiple occasions, and when bombings have resulted in civilian deaths, your view has still clearly been that the bombing itself was acceptable - that it's regrettable that for whatever reason the warning given was not sufficient to prevent civilian deaths, but that no blame attaches to those who actually planted the device in the first place, because they did their bit by phoning in the warning.

It's not unlike letting a mad dog into a children's playground, and believing you're clear in conscience because you stood at the playground gates and shouted "mad dog! clear the playground!" before letting the dog in. It's very regrettable that a child who failed to heed the warning got savaged, but, you know, clear warning was given.

You cannot justify potentially or actually indiscriminate lethal actions, voluntarily and deliberately undertaken by any organisation in pursuit of its particular aims, by claiming that "every effort" has been made to minimise the possibility of 'innocent' casualties - because every effort has not been made. Bombs are indiscriminate. They will kill or injure whoever is nearby when they go off, completely unselectively. They are not precise, and they are not always reliable. The only safe bomb is no bomb.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

The bomb was detonated in the dead of night after a warning, the clear intent was to destroy the building, not kill people, you can surely see that. At no point did I say bombing a bank was acceptable, what I did was say what they did, and why.

It would be grossly innacurate to say that the bombing was intended to kill people. It was intended to blow up the bank and win support of those pissed off with the whole banking thing. Thats what I pointed out, simple as.

RDM_83 again

Scofflaw wrote: »

You cannot justify potentially or actually indiscriminate lethal actions, voluntarily and deliberately undertaken by any organisation in pursuit of its particular aims, by claiming that "every effort" has been made to minimise the possibility of 'innocent' casualties - because every effort has not been made.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Whats an Organization, does this view only apply to illegal organizations or are national armies included in this definition as anybody that watches Internet videos knows how far avoidance of civilian casualties actually goes.

If it does refer to illegal organizations, is this within Ireland, UK, EU what? if running by the US state dept list does that mean if a US Congressman came on here supporting Mujahedin-e Khalq (a listed organisation which they have voted support in) you'd infract them?

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The bomb was detonated in the dead of night after a warning, the clear intent was to destroy the building, not kill people, you can surely see that. At no point did I say bombing a bank was acceptable, what I did was say what they did, and why.

It would be grossly innacurate to say that the bombing was intended to kill people. It was intended to blow up the bank and win support of those pissed off with the whole banking thing. Thats what I pointed out, simple as.

So, if somebody had been caught up in it, would it still be okay?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats an Organization, does this view only apply to illegal organizations or are national armies included in this definition as anybody that watches Internet videos knows how far avoidance of civilian casualties actually goes.

If it does refer to illegal organizations, is this within Ireland, UK, EU what? if running by the US state dept list does that mean if a US Congressman came on here supporting Mujahedin-e Khalq (a listed organisation which they have voted support in) you'd infract them?

If someone came onto the forum celebrating the bombing of Dresden, or Hiroshima, or the Blitz, my response would be the same. Killings by Palestinians, killings by the IDF, killings by the US forces in Iraq, killings by Iraqi resistance, killings by the Taliban...don't care, really - the kind of mindset that believes killing is justified in pursuit of one's goals is the same whatever the organisation. The failure to treat other people as really people is the essential problem.

See, Jean McConville wasn't "a tout". She was Jean McConville. Being able to put her in a box marked 'tout' and close the lid is wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

So, if somebody had been caught up in it, would it still be okay?

Are you actually serious in asking that question?

RDM_83 again

I agree with your beliefs and it would be nice if the forum was ran like that but that answer doesn't reveal anything about the way the forum will be ran realistically.

Are you seriously saying that from now on if somebody says "I believe the Atomic bombings of Japan were necessary and justified" will be treated the same as somebody that says "I believe the bloody friday bombings were necessary and justified"

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

If someone came onto the forum celebrating the bombing of Dresden, or Hiroshima, or the Blitz, my response would be the same. Killings by Palestinians, killings by the IDF, killings by the US forces in Iraq, killings by Iraqi resistance, killings by the Taliban...don't care, really - the kind of mindset that believes killing is justified in pursuit of one's goals is the same whatever the organisation. The failure to treat other people as really people is the essential problem.

See, Jean McConville wasn't "a tout". She was Jean McConville. Being able to put her in a box marked 'tout' and close the lid is wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What if they argued hiroshima was necessary? That should be allowed in my opinion.


What you are doing is seemingly banning people from debating controversial things which involve violence simply because the debate will be heated.

There will always be some sort of violence in world politics, people will take sides, whether that be in wars, uprisings in Egypt etc It seems daft that you are insisting that people hide behind wordplay and not take sides.


And on Jean McConville it certainly was relevant to the debate what she actually was, a simple housewife or a paid British agent.

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Are you actually serious in asking that question?

Yes.

If somebody, despite warnings, was caught up in it, would that be okay.

To give a better example of what I'm getting at, was Omagh okay? There was a warning there, wasn't there?

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

Yes.

If somebody, despite warnings, was caught up in it, would that be okay.

To give a better example of what I'm getting at, was Omagh okay? There was a warning there, wasn't there?

But I never said the bombing of the bank was ok did I? In fact I said it was wrong, as I have said about every dissident republican activity.

GuanYin

And it seems we've gone a little off topic, I wonder how that happened.

WT, if you are going to make this thread about your banning, I think the admins should move it to the DR forum.

nesf

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What if they argued hiroshima was necessary? That should be allowed in my opinion.

Depends, there are two ways of stating it:

1) The killing of all those people was wrong but the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary because it ended up saving more lives by bringing the war to an end early.

2) Those civilians were part of a State at war and thus were legitimate targets so killing them was ok, also Hiroshima was necessary to end the war quickly.


Both defend Hiroshima, the former doesn't condone the killing of civilians but recognises the necessity of Hiroshima and presents a dilemma. The latter both recognises the necessity of Hiroshima and condones the killing of civilians in war.

Wolfe Tone

GuanYin wrote: »

And it seems we've gone a little off topic, I wonder how that happened.

WT, if you are going to make this thread about your banning, I think the admins should move it to the DR forum.

Not at all about my ban no, it seemingly was in breach of the rules, Im saying the rules themselves are not right.
For what its worth I will restrict myself to operating within the rules, whatever they may be, Im just stating my case, and giving my feedback.

Wolfe Tone

nesf wrote: »

Depends, there are two ways of stating it:

1) The killing of all those people was wrong but the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary because it ended up saving more lives by bringing the war to an end early.

2) Those civilians were part of a State at war and thus were legitimate targets so killing them was ok, also Hiroshima was necessary to end the war quickly.


Both defend Hiroshima, the former doesn't condone the killing of civilians but recognises the necessity of Hiroshima and presents a dilemma. The latter both recognises the necessity of Hiroshima and condones the killing of civilians in war.

So if one says the means where regrettable but they justified the end, all is well?


So PIRA activities were a necessary evil to get civil rights, peace process etc? Thats ok then?

RDM_83 again

nesf wrote: »

Depends, there are two ways of stating it:

1) The killing of all those people was wrong but the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary because it ended up saving more lives by bringing the war to an end early.

2) Those civilians were part of a State at war and thus were legitimate targets so killing them was ok, also Hiroshima was necessary to end the war quickly.


Both defend Hiroshima, the former doesn't condone the killing of civilians but recognises the necessity of Hiroshima and presents a dilemma. The latter both recognises the necessity of Hiroshima and condones the killing of civilians in war.

Would the first statement be acceptable if this were not the case.

e.g the Vietnam War was necessary as it prevented a domino effect in SE Asia?

or is any statement acceptable as long as the killing of civilians is condemned?I'm actually genuinely confused now as Scofflaw stated a blanket approach to all "celebrations" of violence.

Wolfe Tone

Im confused too if I am honest. Dont wanna post something which will get me banned when I return.

nesf

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

So if one says the means where regrettable but they justified the end, all is well?


So PIRA activities were a necessary evil to get civil rights, peace process etc? Thats ok then?

So long as there is an emphasis and agreement that it was indeed an evil that was done and that the end did not justify the means I'd have no problems with such a statement.

In general (I'd, this is not a moderator team decision but an indication of how I'm thinking about this at the moment) saying the means are wrong but the end is good is fine. Saying the ends justified the means is different to this! The good argument here is to present a dilemma: (to use the Hiroshima example) ending the war early is good, killing civilians is bad. Saying some good came out of Hiroshima does not mean you condone Hiroshima, you merely recognise that Hiroshima wasn't entirely negative in terms of consequences.


e.g. I can sympathise with some of the IRA's initial goals, e.g. civil rights for Catholics, while abhoring their methods and approach. I can admire and support the peace process while simultaneously decrying how it was reached. I can justifiably argue that the end was good but that the means were evil and leave it as a moral dilemma.


Edit: In simple terms I'm saying this. We do not require you to say the ends are evil because the means are evil. We merely ask you not to say the means weren't evil because the ends aren't evil. It's a philosophical logical position, the ends don't automatically justify the means, we ask you to preserve this statement and not argue as if it wasn't true. I do realise we're asking you to at least not disagree with the idea that bombings and murders are evil and this may run contrary to your beliefs at times but we ask the very same thing of people's shared opinions about politicians, e.g. I hold an extremely dim view of SF's economic policies and could say some extremely nasty things about SF politicians for espousing them however the rules require that I bite my tongue and don't do this. Or as a better example, you may believe politician X is corrupt. But there's no evidence for this. So we require you on the forum to not say he's corrupt and to not answer questions in such a way that implies that you think he is corrupt. We are suppressing your opinion in this case.

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

But I never said the bombing of the bank was ok did I? In fact I said it was wrong, as I have said about every dissident republican activity.

No. So the question is, what are you saying?

The bomb wasn't okay, yet you set up a thread saying ...........?