...and in the darkness bind them

helpdogscat

All I'd say is that all of you talking about terrorist scum are living in a state created by terrorist scum and appear to be happy to do so, I don't understand ?, if you felt so strongly as you appear to, surely it is time to move to the mainland ?

sceptre

helpdogscat wrote:

if you felt so strongly as you appear to, surely it is time to move to the mainland ?

Ah but there's nothing but [strike]Frenchies and Sauerkraut-eating loons[/strike]invading and marauding Saxons there

I assumed by "mainland" you meant the large island to the east of us, though I think of it as the continent myself]

Couldn't a happy agnostic/atheist like myself with a sortofCatholicish girlfriend move to Belfast for a better life and the best of both worlds and no accusations of being in a state set up or dominated by terrorists and no need to pay a TV licence? Isn't there a place in this cruel cruel world for that kind of thing?

helpdogscat

sceptre wrote:

I assumed by "mainland" you meant the large island to the east of us, though I think of it as the continent myself?

not me, the persona I have assumed, I am imagining myself as all proper, with a triple barrel name, a Sunday Indo under my oxster, and haughty indignation as my greatest weapon

Couldn't a happy agnostic/atheist like myself with a sortofCatholicish girlfriend move to Belfast for a better life and the best of both worlds and no accusations of being in a state set up or dominated by terrorists and no need to pay a TV licence? Isn't there a place in this cruel flag-ridden Ulster fry world for that kind of thing?

uh, its cold up there mate

bonkey

Necromancer wrote:

Your information is slightly out of date. This was the case certainly with the OIRA and for a while with the PIRA but since Adams joined the army council this position has been reversed, hence SF participation in the Dáil.

Your question was posed around a timeframe spanning from well before the position has reversed. A timeframe when - by this answer - the situation was exactly what I outlined (although I shouldn't have used the current tense in the answer)

Given that WW2 has already been mentioned, this logic would be akin to saying that the German atrocities in WW2 weren't actually anything unacceptable because if you look at Germany today its not aggressively againt those it took mortal exception to 50-odd years ago.

Well that would all depend on who you asked wouldnt it, whether you are talking about the leadership or the grass roots volunteers, the bulk of the oranisation for whom it was simply a matter of defence.

Not really. What the bulk of the organisation thought they were fighting for doesn't actually mean much in terms of casting judgement on the goals and strategies. Foot-soldiers do not form policy, generals do. You cant judge policy (in my opinion) on the basis of what those who followed it thought they were doing. You can only judge it on the basis of what it was intended to do. Indeed, if part of that policy involved duplicity, i.e. keeping from the grass-roots volunteers what the real aims were, and rather allowing them to believe something else.....that would suggest even more strongly that the grass-roots belief categorically did not reflect the aims, policies, etc. of the organisation.

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

I came to a level of agreement. NO.
...
There is very little to participate in
...

For a man who believe's there is so little to participate in, you seem to be terribly interested in participating. Indeed, I'd go further and say that you seem to be terribly interested not in participating, but in telling us why you're not interested in participating.

Enough. We get it already. If you're not interested in discussing the topic, then don't. Just leave it alone for those who are interested.

jc

jc

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

I hope you are kidding me. If it is a joke then it's a bad one. You need to brush up on your WWII history if you think the allies decided to assault Europe "for no reason". That is possibly the single dumbest statement I have ever read on the Internet. The Brits aren't jackbooted Nazis - although you would love them to be as it would help hatred spread quicker and easier.

Actually it wasn't a joke. In the respect that the Allies killed innocent civilians for NO REASON (yes, no reason. There is no justification for fire-bombing Dresden for four days straight.) they are like the IRA. that's the ONLY comparison I was trying to make.

Actually I wouldn't love the Brits to be jackbooted Nazis. I don't want Hatred spread quicker and easier. I have no hatred of the British, I only disagree with the way they've handled their occupation of Northern Ireland. And you trying to put words in my mouth and assign me motives that you have NO clue whether I actually have them is ridiculous. It only shows that your main rhetorical strategy is to resort to ad hominim attacks. It really doesn't help your position at all to use those kind of attacks. Let's debate on a purely intellectual plane shall we?

Sleepy

FTA69 wrote:

First of all you stated that the "IRA campaign displays few if any traits of a defensive action".

Well done, you quoted me correctly this time. The IRA began as a defensive organisation yes, I've agreed with you on that already. However, once they began planting car bombs, setting up mortar attacks and using incendiary devices they were no longer defensive. All three are offensive military tactics so I don't think they become defensive when used by terrorists. Or am I mistaken? :rolleyes:

Secondly, I ask you do you suscribe to the notion of "ownership of countries"? As when a stronger country dominates another does the weaker subject become the "property" of another?

It's been pretty much accepted since Roman times, yes.

What I see in that scenario is the right to self-determination being trampled, a concept later on in your post you state people "have a right to". If your answer to the above is "no" well the you are contradicting your support for the status quo in Ireland to remain.

Yes, people have a right to self-determination, exactly what you wish to deny the people of Northern Ireland. Or, those that don't agree with you at least.

"Irrelevant" was perhaps the worng word to use when refferring to Unionism, it is relevant as it forms 20% of the Irish nation but it certainly does not have the right to transcend the wish of the rest of country.

Get this into your head: the island of Ireland is not now, nor never has it been a single, unified, self-determining nation state. Northern Ireland has every right to ignore the wishes of the Republic of Ireland. We're a separate country to them. And in their country, that 20% of the population of the island of Ireland constitutes a slight majority. Irrelevant couldn't have been FURTHER from the right word!

Regards the Dáil, Britain was not the "legal" ruler of Ireland as we never elected them as our rulers did we? By your logic the USSR was the legal ruler of Afghanistan, Poland, Hungary and East Germany. Simply because a super-power dominates a region for centuries does not equate with it being right. The only legitimate government to claim jurisdiction over Ireland was the Dáil as that was the only body with a democratic mandate, again you are contradicting your own statement that "everyone had a right to self-determination."

No, we never elected them our leaders because when we invited them in (remember that, it was an Irishman that invited in the British?) the concept of democracy was unknown in this part of the world. Ireland was, by every map, international treaty or document written until the early part of the last century to be a part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, yes, Britain was the legal ruler of this Island.

Regards the IRA campaign, the question mark was a typo. Are you then denying that the British Army and RUC's role was to suppress the rebellious part of the colony? Or do you suscribe to the myth that the poor brits were piggy in the middle between the mad warring paddies?

The British Army's "Raison D'Etre" (your words not mine) is to protect the sovereignty of the British nation. The RUC's "Raison D'Etre" was to impose the law of the land in Northern Ireland. Again, I'll remind you that the British Army were initially brought into Northern Ireland in an attempt to end the pogroms being carried out by the Unionists. I'd also suggest that the IRA only became a major target for the British Army once the provos started going on the offensive. I love the way you SF'ers continuously point out the British Army's shoot-to-kill policy for IRA members, as if the IRA had a shoot-to-tickle policy with regards the army :rolleyes:

The British Army and RUC did indeed become forces trying to supress the 1 or 2% of the Northern population taking part in your "rebellion". This is however, irrelevant to your facetious argument that the IRA's campaign was defensive in nature. You cannot describe a campaing that involves planting bombs and incendiary devices, ambushing off-duty soldiers, terrorises civilians and non-combatants, robs banks, commits crimes, runs vigilante gangs and kidnaps for ransom as a "defensive" campaign. It's guerilla warfare combined with terrorism, crime and intimidation. It's about as far from it's origins as a defenderist movement as the organisation could have got.

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

Actually it wasn't a joke. In the respect that the Allies killed innocent civilians for NO REASON (yes, no reason. There is no justification for fire-bombing Dresden for four days straight.) they are like the IRA. that's the ONLY comparison I was trying to make.

Go study your WW2 History. In particular read up on the more recent studies of the Allies actions vis-a-vis Dresden. You might notice the phrase "Goebbels last great victory" bandied about.

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

Go study your WW2 History. In particular read up on the more recent studies of the Allies actions vis-a-vis Dresden. You might notice the phrase "Goebbels last great victory" bandied about.

Obviously you must have read up on this history, do you know of a good resource where I can find out more. Or are you willing to simply explain what you mean by that phrase?

Regardless of why Dresden was bombed, the point to which I was responding was one where the IRA is automatically labelled as illegitimate because they killed innocent civilians. My point was simply to say that if this is the only action that needs to be taken to be labelled illegitiamte, then every single army, including those of the Allies, mmust be illegitimate. That's it.... No one has responded to this point yet....

bonkey

gdiddy361 wrote:

My point was simply to say that if this is the only action that needs to be taken to be labelled illegitiamte, then every single army, including those of the Allies, mmust be illegitimate. That's it.... No one has responded to this point yet....

I'm unsure as to what you're trying to say though?

Are you saying that - should this comparison hold true - that we should consider all armies illegitimate on account of the atrocities they have performed?

Or are you saying that comitting atrocities is ok for armies to do, and that seeing as we accept it from established armies, we should also accept it from the IRA?

Personally, I'm all for condemning anyone who commits atrocities. If that involves admitting that our "heroes" of the past have done some terrible things, then fine....I'll take fewer heroes thanks.

One way or the other, the notion that "you haven't condemned X for this act, so then it shouldn't be condemnable when done by others" is not one I would generally favour. I would prefer to see standards raised to the highest level, not lowered to the lowest common denominator.

jc

Mad Cyril

Get this into your head: the island of Ireland is not now, nor never has it been a single, unified, self-determining nation state.

Incorrect.

gdiddy361

bonkey wrote:

I'm unsure as to what you're trying to say though?

Are you saying that - should this comparison hold true - that we should consider all armies illegitimate on account of the atrocities they have performed?

Or are you saying that comitting atrocities is ok for armies to do, and that seeing as we accept it from established armies, we should also accept it from the IRA?

Personally, I'm all for condemning anyone who commits atrocities. If that involves admitting that our "heroes" of the past have done some terrible things, then fine....I'll take fewer heroes thanks.

One way or the other, the notion that "you haven't condemned X for this act, so then it shouldn't be condemnable when done by others" is not one I would generally favour. I would prefer to see standards raised to the highest level, not lowered to the lowest common denominator.

jc

I too am unsure as to your point. My original post was in reply to someone who had answered with a resounding NO to the question of the IRA's legitamacy simply because they had killed innocent civilians. I assumed that he would hold the Allied armies in high esteem, an assumption that I thought was correct although I'm not so sure it was. I was simply pointing out that according to this logic all armies, even the heroic Allied armies of World War II, must be considered illegitimate.

This is not my personal opinion. I believe that collateral damage happens in war and that civilians will be killed. However, I do not support the targeting of innocent civilians whether it be by the IRA or the Alllied armies. War is hell, but that does not mean that it cannot be waged in a reasonable way.

However, the question that then arises is thus: Is the targeting of innoecnt civilians enough to render a whole cause or a whole army illegitimate.

I believe that it is not. I think that it is ridiculous to throw out all the legitimate warfare that the Allied armies fought because of atrocities just as it is ridiculous to do so for the IRA. Do I support these acts? No. Do I think that they are a death-nail to armies? No.

Sleepy

The Sunday Times Magazine ran a great article on Dresden last year, I'm afraid I can't link to it as the magazine doesn't feature in the Sunday Times Online archive (which is subscription based anyway). Essentially, the article detailed that the initial reports about Dresden were written by a Nazi sympathiser who got the "details" from the Nazi Propoganda department. Allegedly the figures of civilian deaths were multiplied massively and Dresden WAS actually producing arms (contrary to the claims of the original reports) and civilian workers or not, an arms factory is a legitimate target during war.

From most modern accounts Dresden was that rare occurance where the losers got to write the history books.

Sleepy

Mad Cyril wrote:

Incorrect.

Your name is quite accurate Mr Mad.

Care to elaborate and explain when the island of Ireland is was a single, unified, self-determining nation state? Or, as we've come to expect from Republicans, have you an inability to debate anything?

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

The Sunday Times Magazine ran a great article on Dresden last year, I'm afraid I can't link to it as the magazine doesn't feature in the Sunday Times Online archive (which is subscription based anyway). Essentially, the article detailed that the initial reports about Dresden were written by a Nazi sympathiser who got the "details" from the Nazi Propoganda department. Allegedly the figures of civilian deaths were multiplied massively and Dresden WAS actually producing arms (contrary to the claims of the original reports) and civilian workers or not, an arms factory is a legitimate target during war.

From most modern accounts Dresden was that rare occurance where the losers got to write the history books.

Thanks for correcting my historical mistake! I guess I was just spouting off what I had heard from God knows who...

Sleepy

Oh, there were civilian casualties, but Dresden was as legitimate a target as the Ruhr Valley.

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

Your name is quite accurate Mr Mad.

Care to elaborate and explain when the island of Ireland is was a single, unified, self-determining nation state? Or, as we've come to expect from Republicans, have you an inability to debate anything?

Not that I'm a Republican (heck, I'm not even from Ireland). But is there any reason to make a sweeping, closed-minded, bigoted generalization that Republicans cannot debate? I think that that is ridiculous. I've said it before and I'll say it again ad hominem attacks do no good other than to make the user look unintelligent.

OfflerCrocGod

helpdogscat wrote:

All I'd say is that all of you talking about terrorist scum are living in a state created by terrorist scum and appear to be happy to do so, I don't understand ?, if you felt so strongly as you appear to, surely it is time to move to the mainland ?

I'm not British. I wouldn't say our state is a very successful one since it's split in half thanks to the divisions that were excaberated by our terrorist liberators. Thank God that they gave us half a country, eh?

bonkey wrote:

For a man who believe's there is so little to participate in, you seem to be terribly interested in participating. Indeed, I'd go further and say that you seem to be terribly interested not in participating, but in telling us why you're not interested in participating. .....
Enough. We get it already. If you're not interested in discussing the topic, then don't. Just leave it alone for those who are interested.

Firstly the thread asked for the reader's opinion, I gave mine and I didn't really ask for a reply because I didn't see any useful discussion coming out of it. It was polarised from the begining, so I just gave my opinion and said nothing else. That's why I said there was very little to participate in but I was still going to reply to anyone who replied to - which is what I have done.

gdiddy361 wrote:

Actually it wasn't a joke. In the respect that the Allies killed innocent civilians for NO REASON (yes, no reason. There is no justification for fire-bombing Dresden for four days straight.) they are like the IRA. that's the ONLY comparison I was trying to make.

They are not the same. The IRA is not a democratic goverment it represents its own interests and it's not protecting anyone from some fascist threat I don't fear the British army and Ireland is in no danger from it so stop comparing these two situations.

Actually I wouldn't love the Brits to be jackbooted Nazis. I don't want Hatred spread quicker and easier. I have no hatred of the British, I only disagree with the way they've handled their occupation of Northern Ireland.

So blowing up random people including people who may support your cause is a good way of showing disagreement???!!! Thank God people don't resolve arguments the way you seem to support doing or we would be wiped off the face of the earth by now.

And you trying to put words in my mouth and assign me motives that you have NO clue whether I actually have them is ridiculous. It only shows that your main rhetorical strategy is to resort to ad hominim attacks. It really doesn't help your position at all to use those kind of attacks. Let's debate on a purely intellectual plane shall we?

So a killing or an assualt is not act of hatred? "I don't hate you...." Pulls trigger "...but you know? - it's just the way things are"

gdiddy361 wrote:

This is not my personal opinion. I believe that collateral damage happens in war and that civilians will be killed. However, I do not support the targeting of innocent civilians whether it be by the IRA or the Alllied armies. War is hell, but that does not mean that it cannot be waged in a reasonable way.

However, the question that then arises is thus: Is the targeting of innoecnt civilians enough to render a whole cause or a whole army illegitimate.

You misunderstand me I'm not saying that war is always wrong - or that it should never have civ casualties I am againts the actions of the IRA. I don't think that terrorist actions are the best way to get a solid, good goverment that has the interest of the people at heart. The IRA don't answer to the people, they don't give a f*ck if you die in one of their "actions" you will become an acceptable casualty. I'm wondering if your family would feel the same though? Anyway what is going on up North is not a war it's more criminal activities with a mafia like structure and a vague "aim". If they ever reach their goal of a united Ireland through force (not likely) we are going to have nationalist "freedom fighters" blowing Dublin up for their "cause". And the circle of terror continues......

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

Not that I'm a Republican (heck, I'm not even from Ireland). But is there any reason to make a sweeping, closed-minded, bigoted generalization that Republicans cannot debate? I think that that is ridiculous. I've said it before and I'll say it again ad hominem attacks do no good other than to make the user look unintelligent.

Because generalisations, while untrue in the singular can be accurate when dealing with a group as a whole. Irish republican's tend to be so indoctrinated into the dogma of Sinn Fein and the IRA and as such make poor debaters because they often can't see the hypocrisy or blatant nonsense of the propoganda they spout.

Mad Cyril

Care to elaborate and explain when the island of Ireland is was a single, unified, self-determining nation state? Or, as we've come to expect from Republicans, have you an inability to debate anything?

The debate is currently taking place on a seperate thread.

Irish republican's tend to be so indoctrinated into the dogma of Sinn Fein and the IRA and as such make poor debaters because they often can't see the hypocrisy or blatant nonsense of the propoganda they spout

I am not a Sinn Féin supporter.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

The Sunday Times Magazine ran a great article on Dresden last year, I'm afraid I can't link to it as the magazine doesn't feature in the Sunday Times Online archive (which is subscription based anyway). Essentially, the article detailed that the initial reports about Dresden were written by a Nazi sympathiser who got the "details" from the Nazi Propoganda department. Allegedly the figures of civilian deaths were multiplied massively and Dresden WAS actually producing arms (contrary to the claims of the original reports) and civilian workers or not, an arms factory is a legitimate target during war.

I suppose the Nazis were able to drum up this anti-Allied propoganda as well.

steviec

FTA69 wrote:

The fact that a local majority in the 6 Counties wish to retain the status quo is irrelevant

That attitude says it all about the IRA really. Why do people who's ancestors settled there further back in the past have the right to terrorise the majority of people simply because their ancestors arrived on the island from Britain in more recent times?

Sleepy

Sovtek, the details of your link merely prove that Dresden was a legitimate target. Civilians die in war. However, there is a massive difference between a legitimate war against a force such as the Nazi's in the 40's and the IRA's terror campaign in the north.

And before the RA heads here try to claim the IRA's campaign was a war, I'd divert them to the Geneva convention.

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

I'm not British. I wouldn't say our state is a very successful one since it's split in half thanks to the divisions that were excaberated by our terrorist liberators. Thank God that they gave us half a country, eh?Firstly the thread asked for the reader's opinion, I gave mine and I didn't really ask for a reply because I didn't see any useful discussion coming out of it. It was polarised from the begining, so I just gave my opinion and said nothing else. That's why I said there was very little to participate in but I was still going to reply to anyone who replied to - which is what I have done.They are not the same. The IRA is not a democratic goverment it represents its own interests and it's not protecting anyone from some fascist threat I don't fear the British army and Ireland is in no danger from it so stop comparing these two situations.So blowing up random people including people who may support your cause is a good way of showing disagreement???!!! Thank God people don't resolve arguments the way you seem to support doing or we would be wiped off the face of the earth by now.So a killing or an assualt is not act of hatred? "I don't hate you...." Pulls trigger "...but you know? - it's just the way things are"You misunderstand me I'm not saying that war is always wrong - or that it should never have civ casualties I am againts the actions of the IRA. I don't think that terrorist actions are the best way to get a solid, good goverment that has the interest of the people at heart. The IRA don't answer to the people, they don't give a f*ck if you die in one of their "actions" you will become an acceptable casualty. I'm wondering if your family would feel the same though? Anyway what is going on up North is not a war it's more criminal activities with a mafia like structure and a vague "aim". If they ever reach their goal of a united Ireland through force (not likely) we are going to have nationalist "freedom fighters" blowing Dublin up for their "cause". And the circle of terror continues......

"Terrorist liberators?" Would you rather be a British colony?

If you would read my posts you would see that I don't support the IRA's targeting of civilians. I simply think that it is hypocritical to say that the IRA's targeting of civilians is any worse than any other country's targeting of civilians. When you say that the IRA doesn't answer to the people and don't care if I die.... in that sentence the IRA could be easily substituted for the US Army, or British Army, or any other army. That is exactly my point. No army cares, the IRA is no different. Why the condmenation for the IRA, but not for other terroistic actions taken by more "legitimate" (in your opinion at least) armies?

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

Because generalisations, while untrue in the singular can be accurate when dealing with a group as a whole. Irish republican's tend to be so indoctrinated into the dogma of Sinn Fein and the IRA and as such make poor debaters because they often can't see the hypocrisy or blatant nonsense of the propoganda they spout.

Actually generalizations are inaccurate the majority of the time. Saying that all Republicans are unable to debate is just as incorrect and bigoted as saying that all African-Americans are poor. Now while I might not know as many Republicans as you, the interactions I have had with them have shown them to be very good debaters and very adeptly argue their positions for the IRA and/or armed struggle.

As to the indoctrination... couldn't you be just as indoctrinated against the IRA as they are for it, and thus cannot see the truth? Just a thought... the gate swings both ways....

FTA69

Sleepy wrote:

Well done, you quoted me correctly this time. The IRA began as a defensive organisation yes, I've agreed with you on that already. However, once they began planting car bombs, setting up mortar attacks and using incendiary devices they were no longer defensive. All three are offensive military tactics so I don't think they become defensive when used by terrorists. Or am I mistaken? :rolleyes:

It's been pretty much accepted since Roman times, yes.

Yes, people have a right to self-determination, exactly what you wish to deny the people of Northern Ireland. Or, those that don't agree with you at least.

Get this into your head: the island of Ireland is not now, nor never has it been a single, unified, self-determining nation state. Northern Ireland has every right to ignore the wishes of the Republic of Ireland. We're a separate country to them. And in their country, that 20% of the population of the island of Ireland constitutes a slight majority. Irrelevant couldn't have been FURTHER from the right word!

No, we never elected them our leaders because when we invited them in (remember that, it was an Irishman that invited in the British?) the concept of democracy was unknown in this part of the world. Ireland was, by every map, international treaty or document written until the early part of the last century to be a part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, yes, Britain was the legal ruler of this Island.

The British Army's "Raison D'Etre" (your words not mine) is to protect the sovereignty of the British nation. The RUC's "Raison D'Etre" was to impose the law of the land in Northern Ireland. Again, I'll remind you that the British Army were initially brought into Northern Ireland in an attempt to end the pogroms being carried out by the Unionists. I'd also suggest that the IRA only became a major target for the British Army once the provos started going on the offensive. I love the way you SF'ers continuously point out the British Army's shoot-to-kill policy for IRA members, as if the IRA had a shoot-to-tickle policy with regards the army :rolleyes:

The British Army and RUC did indeed become forces trying to supress the 1 or 2% of the Northern population taking part in your "rebellion". This is however, irrelevant to your facetious argument that the IRA's campaign was defensive in nature. You cannot describe a campaing that involves planting bombs and incendiary devices, ambushing off-duty soldiers, terrorises civilians and non-combatants, robs banks, commits crimes, runs vigilante gangs and kidnaps for ransom as a "defensive" campaign. It's guerilla warfare combined with terrorism, crime and intimidation. It's about as far from it's origins as a defenderist movement as the organisation could have got.

I never asked you how long colonialism has been around, I asked you do you consider it morally right? Colonialism is a direct contradiction to the princible of self-determination which you said you supported earlier on, ie nations decide for themselves through democratic vote instead of being administered unilaterally by a foreign power.

You also state that the 6 Counties have a right to self determination but how does this come about? How does one seperate a cohesive nation? Should there be a county-by-county vote? A townland-by-townland vote? A farm-by-farm vote? Only when a nation acts as a unit can any descision have any legitimacy. Remember, when the 6 County state was set up nobody's democratic wish (least of all the Irish people as expressed in 1918) was adhered to, it was simply created as a result of a colonial directive.

I am also not denying that Ireland was not written in maps, documents etc as "part of the UK", what I am saying though, is that this scenario existed against the wishes of the Irish people and that is the fact that matters.

Regarding the RUC and the British Army, there is no denying the RUC were set up to maintain the apparatus of the Northern state, hence their brutal repression of first the Civil Rights Movement and the later attempted suppression of the IRA campaign. The British Army were also sent here at the behest of a Unionist first minister to restore order, this they attempted to do at any cost and that is why they targeted the rebellious section of that state, which by the way, formed a far higher percentage than "1 or 2%".

OfflerCrocGod

gdiddy361 wrote:

"Terrorist liberators?" Would you rather be a British colony?

The few remaining colonies are places like Pitcairn Island and Gibraltar places which are very small or who don't want to go out into the big bad world on their own. Ireland is a lot more like Australia or Singapore quite capable of taking care of themselves (and also places were a terror campaign was not used to try and shove the Brits out......and look they appear to be whole countries) So as for pretending that at this stage we would still be a British colony in this day and age without the IRA......ye, sure; please say 'Hi' to my parallel self in your Universe.

If you would read my posts you would see that I don't support the IRA's targeting of civilians. I simply think that it is hypocritical to say that the IRA's targeting of civilians is any worse than any other country's targeting of civilians. When you say that the IRA doesn't answer to the people and don't care if I die.... in that sentence the IRA could be easily substituted for the US Army, or British Army, or any other army.

Sorry are you telling me that the US and Britain are not democratic countries? Those armies don't just decide one day to blow up a town centre just for the hell of it! They take orders from their elected leaders who the hell tells the IRA what to do?! Anyway the IRA is not an army they are just criminal gangs the anology is totally wrong.

That is exactly my point. No army cares, the IRA is no different. Why the condmenation for the IRA, but not for other terroistic actions taken by more "legitimate" (in your opinion at least) armies?

"legitimate" - WTF! these are armies of democratic nation states not f*cking banana republics what are those " " around legitimate for? Are you seriously telling me that you believe the IRA is a legitimate entity? Don't you understand that the IRA answer to no one? That they are an entirely independant, militaristic and criminal organization whose victims, according to you, should be tolerated because they fight for [STRIKE]the freedom to do what they want[/STRIKE] freedom. Look around you man this is not the Lebanon it's the f*cking EU, it's the 21th century not the 16th. There are far better ways to achive your aims just ask Mr Mahatma G.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

Telling it like it is.

Redleslie2

Slaughtering protestants = :mad:
Slaughtering iraqis =
Slaughtering ww2 german civilians =

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

The few remaining colonies are places like Pitcairn Island and Gibraltar places which are very small or who don't want to go out into the big bad world on their own. Ireland is a lot more like Australia or Singapore quite capable of taking care of themselves (and also places were a terror campaign was not used to try and shove the Brits out......and look they appear to be whole countries) So as for pretending that at this stage we would still be a British colony in this day and age without the IRA......ye, sure; please say 'Hi' to my parallel self in your Universe.Sorry are you telling me that the US and Britain are not democratic countries? Those armies don't just decide one day to blow up a town centre just for the hell of it! They take orders from their elected leaders who the hell tells the IRA what to do?! Anyway the IRA is not an army they are just criminal gangs the anology is totally wrong."legitimate" - WTF! these are armies of democratic nation states not f*cking banana republics what are those " " around legitimate for? Are you seriously telling me that you believe the IRA is a legitimate entity? Don't you understand that the IRA answer to no one? That they are an entirely independant, militaristic and criminal organization whose victims, according to you, should be tolerated because they fight for [STRIKE]the freedom to do what they want[/STRIKE] freedom. Look around you man this is not the Lebanon it's the f*cking EU, it's the 21th century not the 16th. There are far better ways to achive your aims just ask Mr Mahatma G.Telling it like it is.

I'm not arguing that the IRA is "legitimate," I don't even want to go to that argument seeing the ire this other one has brought up. My only point is that it seems like anyone who is arguing against the IRA is bringing up the point that they kill innocent civilians. I'm only trying to show that that is not really a valid argument for many "militaristic entities" kill innocent civilians.

As for the IRA being a criminal gang, that may or may not be true. However, most criminal gangs do not fight for an ideology or any cause greater than themselves. I really don't see how the IRA could be construed as being a criminal gang. Terrorists, most likely. However, one should be able to see where the IRA originally got their impetus. It's no secret that the Northern Ireland of the 1960s was not a cheery place for Nationalists. Whether the IRA is following the impetus that started it is another question.

OfflerCrocGod

gdiddy361 wrote:

I'm not arguing that the IRA is "legitimate," I don't even want to go to that argument seeing the ire this other one has brought up. My only point is that it seems like anyone who is arguing against the IRA is bringing up the point that they kill innocent civilians. I'm only trying to show that that is not really a valid argument for many "militaristic entities" kill innocent civilians.

So what you are saying is that if you claim to be a militaristic entity and state you have a higher aim and then go on a killing spree to try and attain that aim.....any innocent civilians that are killed during your spree are meaningless and are not reason enough to condemn your organization - "because sure everyone has collateral damage". Right. I'm setting up the IAMA (Irish Anti-Mcdonalds Army) to liberate Ireland from the evil of the Mcdonalds fast-food outlet, I'll be bombing random outlets and if anyone is killed by my actions, "tough luck" is all I can say. You get civilian casualties in every "war" what do you expect?!

As for the IRA being a criminal gang, that may or may not be true. However, most criminal gangs do not fight for an ideology or any cause greater than themselves. I really don't see how the IRA could be construed as being a criminal gang. Terrorists, most likely. However, one should be able to see where the IRA originally got their impetus. It's no secret that the Northern Ireland of the 1960s was not a cheery place for Nationalists. Whether the IRA is following the impetus that started it is another question.

From Police Chief Magazine.

The IRA was one of the first groups to begin using cigarettes to fund their activities. Investigations by the Gardaí (Irish National Police), the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Scotland Yard, and U.K. Customs have led to seizures of cigarettes worth millions of dollars, as well as arms and explosives associated with the cigarette trafficking schemes. The IRA involvement in the illicit cigarette trade was due to the rise in taxes on cigarettes in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and most of northern Europe. By illicitly trafficking in cigarettes, and thereby avoiding the taxes and import duties, the IRA would be able to make an enormous profit. Current estimates place the amount of money made from the trafficking of illicit cigarettes by the three primary factions of the IRA, the Provisional IRA, Real IRA, and the Continuity IRA, at more than $100 million in just the past five years. According to police figures, the Provisional IRA is the biggest fundraiser generating $8.3 million to $13.2 million annually. This is compared to the Real IRA, which raises $8.3 million annually, as well as the Loyalist Volunteer Force, which raises $3.3 million and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), which raises $2.5 million annually. A senior police officer in Northern Ireland stated that the Real IRA now resembles a criminal organization that sometimes carries out acts of terrorism rather than a terrorist group that has to dabble in crime

"May or may not" Jesus man these people are the Irish mafiosi! I'm not the only one who thinks so either:

John Bruton wrote:

I profoundly believe that democracy is something that can be taken for granted in no European state. We have seen how the Mafia ate away at the heart of Italian democracy, until a few brave magistrates took them on. The IRA is a Mafia. It works in secret, is accountable to no one, and uses violence.

The only difference is that the Mafia killed proportionately far less people than did the IRA.

They are fighting for a higher aim alright; they are fighting for the almighty € - and they don't care what laws they have to break or whom they kill. As for the 1960's if the country hadn't been ripped apart there would have been a united not divided Ireland and the whole issue of the Troubles would have never occured. It's a cycle of violence, it's not something that just came out of nowhere.

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

So what you are saying is that if you claim to be a militaristic entity and state you have a higher aim and then go on a killing spree to try and attain that aim.....any innocent civilians that are killed during your spree are meaningless and are not reason enough to condemn your organization - "because sure everyone has collateral damage". Right. I'm setting up the IAMA (Irish Anti-Mcdonalds Army) to liberate Ireland from the evil of the Mcdonalds fast-food outlet, I'll be bombing random outlets and if anyone is killed by my actions, "tough luck" is all I can say. You get civilian casualties in every "war" what do you expect?!From Police Chief Magazine."May or may not" Jesus man these people are the Irish mafiosi! I'm not the only one who thinks so either: They are fighting for a higher aim alright; they are fighting for the almighty € - and they don't care what laws they have to break or whom they kill. As for the 1960's if the country hadn't been ripped apart there would have been a united not divided Ireland and the whole issue of the Troubles would have never occured. It's a cycle of violence, it's not something that just came out of nowhere.

Geez man. It's ridiculous how much you run circles around what I'm saying. My point is that simply the killing of innocent civilians is not enough to condmen a cause. PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS NEXT PART. Using your logic, all armies must be evil because they all kill civilians. Do you not see this?

As to your quote, the bolded sentence is clearly referring to the Real IRA. I know nothing about nor do I support the RIRA. I am referring to the pre-GFA IRA.

OfflerCrocGod

gdiddy361 wrote:

Geez man. It's ridiculous how much you run circles around what I'm saying. My point is that simply the killing of innocent civilians is not enough to condmen a cause.

Madness.

PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS NEXT PART. Using your logic, all armies must be evil because they all kill civilians. Do you not see this?

The IRA is not a real army, I don't know how often I have to say this! They are terrorist ("freedom fighters" if it makes you happier) not the legitimate defenders of our country - they answer to no one and have their own private aims, they are funded by crime; stop calling them an Army, it's insulting to our real one.

As to your quote, the bolded sentence is clearly referring to the Real IRA. I know nothing about nor do I support the RIRA. I am referring to the pre-GFA IRA.

Oh Christ, well that clears it all up then; the RIRA just materialized out of thin air the moment the GFA came into being. No point in continuing this frankly because you believe that violence is acceptable in the North I don't and we are not going to change each others minds.

FTA69

So your incorruptible evidence for decrying Óglaigh na hÉireann as a mafia is a magazine associated with the police? Hardly impartial, if I held up An Phoblacht as a source would it be accepted?

Nobody is denying the IRA engaged in either bank robberies or smuggling but the motive behind those actions was to fund a war for liberation, as opposed to the Mafia which is an organisation whose sole aim is to make money. The IRA in the 1920s were not adverse to the odd train robbery, were they mafiosos as well?

Your assertions that the IRA is simply driven by money sums up your wholly ignorant position. How often do mafiosos starve themselves to death for a political ideal? Since when did the mafia dedicate themselves to a political motive that involved imprisonment, harrasment and death with absolutely no wage or compensation?

Out of curiosity, what experience do you have with the IRA son? How many IRA Volunteers do you know? Surely lots considering you claim to have them absolutely sussed in terms of their goals, motives and operational tactics?

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Madness.The IRA is not a real army, I don't know how often I have to say this! They are terrorist ("freedom fighters" if it makes you happier) not the legitimate defenders of our country - they answer to no one and have their own private aims, they are funded by crime; stop calling them an Army, it's insulting to our real one.Oh Christ, well that clears it all up then; the RIRA just materialized out of thin air the moment the GFA came into being. No point in continuing this frankly because you believe that violence is acceptable in the North I don't and we are not going to change each others minds.

Well that's a very mature point to make, we won't in fact change each other's minds.

One thing I am wondering though. When you said madness were you referring to the fact that I said killing innocent civilians is not enough to condemn a cause?

OfflerCrocGod

FTA69 wrote:

So your incorruptible evidence for decrying Óglaigh na hÉireann as a mafia is a magazine associated with the police? Hardly impartial, if I held up An Phoblacht as a source would it be accepted?

Ye imagine that an international police chiefs organization talking about crime gangs and mentioning the IRA - hardly worth taking it as a serious source is it? What would you take as a serious source, a postman's magazine?, Accountants Monthly?, Electricians Digest? When we are talking about criminal gangs the police are the ones who would know the least about such things, sure they probably make all this stuff up - just for the laugh.

FTA69 wrote:

Nobody is denying the IRA engaged in either bank robberies or smuggling

So we agree on something.

but the motive behind those actions was to fund a war for liberation, as opposed to the Mafia which is an organisation whose sole aim is to make money. The IRA in the 1920s were not adverse to the odd train robbery, were they mafiosos as well?

That's possibly how it started but now-a-days there is no real need for an IRA it's nothing more then a criminal gang. It's what the politicians do that determines the future of the North, so the IRA has been left with no "purpose" so they have just seamlessly moved into being a full time crime gang.

Your assertions that the IRA is simply driven by money sums up your wholly ignorant position. How often do mafiosos starve themselves to death for a political ideal? Since when did the mafia dedicate themselves to a political motive that involved imprisonment, harrasment and death with absolutely no wage or compensation?

A long time ago, I support that kind of non-violent action but that is not really what the IRA are about - they are about voilent action. That rare piece of peaceful protest was a great boost to the republican cause and it helped push the reps toward talks and the helped toward the GFA. If only the idiots behind the IRA had realised how powerful a non-violent movement was before they began their half assed attempt at winning power then maybe we wouldn't have the sh*t we have now in the North. There was always a criminal element in the IRA but today that's all that's left for them. Just because they claim to have a cause does not make their crimes moot, they are criminals, the law doesn't have an addendum saying "except for when you claim to be freedom fighters then it's OK".

Out of curiosity, what experience do you have with the IRA son? How many IRA Volunteers do you know? Surely lots considering you claim to have them absolutely sussed in terms of their goals, motives and operational tactics?

I know no Nazis or Islamists so surely any opinion I have of those groups is plain stupid, I'm sure they are just misunderstood and probably just want to spread love and happiness around the world. Excuse me while I kiss the sky.

gdiddy361 wrote:

One thing I am wondering though. When you said madness were you referring to the fact that I said killing innocent civilians is not enough to condemn a cause?

It really depends on whether you are answerable to anyone and the context - blowing up a pub full of drinkers who have done nothing to you for no reason other then a cause you are pushing yourself is simply not on. To preempt you - no the IRA is not comparable to the Allied armies and the brits are not Nazis so don't bring out your ridiculous WWII anology.

IRISHLILY24

I have been reading all the threads on this subject and just have a quick comment to make, I am no political major and dont have a ton of links at my disposal, all I have is my opinion and it is one that I stand by no matter how many people try to down-talk it.
I have no problem saying that I am a supporter of the "big picture" when it comes to the IRA. The initial cause that they fight for...I would stand by it everytime.
I do not support random acts of terrorism, such as bank jobs...but I do support the cause.
There will always be innocent people caught in the cross-fire...when hasnt there been in a war or fight for justice? It happens everyday, it is just part of the deal. I do feel sympathy for the innocents I really do, but I wouldnt trade thier lives for the cause that is being fought...
I am a believer in a united Ireland, in a country that is not divided and not ruled by any part of the UK or any other country.
A free country unto its own...

We all know that todays IRA is a different breed from that of our Hero's of 1916...but they are here carrying on the fight..for you, for thier countrymen , so that you may live in a country undivided. Some would say that is a cause worth fighting and dying for, I certainly would.
You may say, let the english keep the North, they want nothing to do with the Republic anyway...that is because they have been separated for too long. When the country is united again, they will once again be one with the republic and Ireland will be its own country...free from the Orange.

I understand that many find these remarks offensive and may become irate..that is your right. We all have the choice to believe in something, I choose to believe that we should support the cause, though sometimes misguided, and if they had a majority support perhaps a greater leader would step in and stop the non-sense that seems to be running through and making the papers and getting back to the business at hand.

That is all I have to say, and I think I have said enough.

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

It really depends on whether you are answerable to anyone and the context - blowing up a pub full of drinkers who have done nothing to you for no reason other then a cause you are pushing yourself is simply not on. To preempt you - no the IRA is not comparable to the Allied armies and the brits are not Nazis so don't bring out your ridiculous WWII anology.

I see your point. I won't use the "ridiculous" analogy, although it really isn't. So is it wrong for the British Army to fire upon innocent civilians who have done nothing to them? And conversely would you see a problem with the IRA targeting Army staff members/RUC staff members who did not carry a gun or have a combat role?

gdiddy361

IRISHLILY24 wrote:

I have been reading all the threads on this subject and just have a quick comment to make, I am no political major and dont have a ton of links at my disposal, all I have is my opinion and it is one that I stand by no matter how many people try to down-talk it.
I have no problem saying that I am a supporter of the "big picture" when it comes to the IRA. The initial cause that they fight for...I would stand by it everytime.
I do not support random acts of terrorism, such as bank jobs...but I do support the cause.
There will always be innocent people caught in the cross-fire...when hasnt there been in a war or fight for justice? It happens everyday, it is just part of the deal. I do feel sympathy for the innocents I really do, but I wouldnt trade thier lives for the cause that is being fought...
I am a believer in a united Ireland, in a country that is not divided and not ruled by any part of the UK or any other country.
A free country unto its own...

We all know that todays IRA is a different breed from that of our Hero's of 1916...but they are here carrying on the fight..for you, for thier countrymen , so that you may live in a country undivided. Some would say that is a cause worth fighting and dying for, I certainly would.
You may say, let the english keep the North, they want nothing to do with the Republic anyway...that is because they have been separated for too long. When the country is united again, they will once again be one with the republic and Ireland will be its own country...free from the Orange.

I understand that many find these remarks offensive and may become irate..that is your right. We all have the choice to believe in something, I choose to believe that we should support the cause, though sometimes misguided, and if they had a majority support perhaps a greater leader would step in and stop the non-sense that seems to be running through and making the papers and getting back to the business at hand.

That is all I have to say, and I think I have said enough.

Amen. You have summed up my position better than I could. I think it is better to debate these broad topics rather than argue about specifics.

bonkey

FTA69 wrote:

Your assertions that the IRA is simply driven by money sums up your wholly ignorant position. How often do mafiosos starve themselves to death for a political ideal? Since when did the mafia dedicate themselves to a political motive that involved imprisonment, harrasment and death with absolutely no wage or compensation?

Because as well all know, it is simply impossible to take people who fervently believe in what they are doing, and to make them believe they are working towards that aim, whilst in fact they are really serving a different plan of their "masters".

So because the footsoldiers believe one thing, we must believe that this is, in actual fact, what their commanders, leaders, decision makers, and so on also believe in. There's simply no other option.

Uh-huh.

I assume that in your world, the word "gullible" doesn't exist either?

jc

robinph

IRISHLILY24 wrote:

You may say, let the english keep the North, they want nothing to do with the Republic anyway...that is because they have been separated for too long. When the country is united again, they will once again be one with the republic and Ireland will be its own country...free from the Orange.

I'm pretty sure that the English dont want the North, or the Republic, and would be delighted to be shot of them. If they could then I'm sure they would just walk out and leave them to fight amongst themselves.

Sleepy

IRISHLILY24 wrote:

I have been reading all the threads on this subject and just have a quick comment to make, I am no political major and dont have a ton of links at my disposal, all I have is my opinion and it is one that I stand by no matter how many people try to down-talk it.
I have no problem saying that I am a supporter of the "big picture" when it comes to the IRA. The initial cause that they fight for...I would stand by it everytime.
I do not support random acts of terrorism, such as bank jobs...but I do support the cause.
There will always be innocent people caught in the cross-fire...when hasnt there been in a war or fight for justice? It happens everyday, it is just part of the deal. I do feel sympathy for the innocents I really do, but I wouldnt trade thier lives for the cause that is being fought...
I am a believer in a united Ireland, in a country that is not divided and not ruled by any part of the UK or any other country.
A free country unto its own...

We all know that todays IRA is a different breed from that of our Hero's of 1916...but they are here carrying on the fight..for you, for thier countrymen , so that you may live in a country undivided. Some would say that is a cause worth fighting and dying for, I certainly would.
You may say, let the english keep the North, they want nothing to do with the Republic anyway...that is because they have been separated for too long. When the country is united again, they will once again be one with the republic and Ireland will be its own country...free from the Orange.

I understand that many find these remarks offensive and may become irate..that is your right. We all have the choice to believe in something, I choose to believe that we should support the cause, though sometimes misguided, and if they had a majority support perhaps a greater leader would step in and stop the non-sense that seems to be running through and making the papers and getting back to the business at hand.

That is all I have to say, and I think I have said enough.

You're American aren't you?

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

Amen. You have summed up my position better than I could. I think it is better to debate these broad topics rather than argue about specifics.

Those "specifics" are people's lives.

gandalf

IRISHLILY24 wrote:

When the country is united again, they will once again be one with the republic and Ireland will be its own country...free from the Orange.

You see here is where you really do not understand things. The Orange is part of Ireland thats why the Tricolour is Green White and Orange. Its to signify people of both communities living in peace in Ireland. Green representing the Fenians/Nationalists, White for Peace & Orange for the Protestant/Orangemen.

Unfortunately some people are too blinkered to realise this.

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

You're American aren't you?

Why does this matter? It might mean that he is less informed, but it does not negate his opinion. It seems that you have opinions about American politics vis-a-vis Dubya, so why can't Americans have opinions about Irish politics vis-a-vis the IRA?

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

Those "specifics" are people's lives.

Yes, I realize this. My point was only that we seem to be going nowhere with the whole "conduct" part of the IRA. Why not debate more about the reason behind the organization?

I think it would make for more intellectual and less personal arguments. Just my opinion though....

Sleepy

Out of curiosity, what experience do you have with the IRA son? How many IRA Volunteers do you know? Surely lots considering you claim to have them absolutely sussed in terms of their goals, motives and operational tactics?

Okay, the question wasn't asked of me but I'm gonna answer it anyway. I've met a handful of IRA Activists both before and after the current ceasefire. Calling the "Volunteers" insults the memory of my Grandfather and many like him from the twenties so I'll ask you not to do it in my (virtual) presence again.

In terms of their goals, they seem quite naieve. They can't answer the simplest questions about how we'd pay for a United Ireland, they seem to be incredibly unquestioning of their leadership (except for when the leadership favour dropping arms) and quite frankly their goals tend to include a notion of ethnic cleansing of protestants being a good thing.

Their motives were actually very understandable. As one of them put it to me himself: "If you saw your father gunned down in front of you, wouldn't you get your hands and go after the b@stard that did it?". Bloodlust and Revenge seem to be the driving motives of the IRA. In a way it's reminiscent of the traveller's feuds tbh: bloody and pointless.

Finally, their operational tactics I found interesting. Whilst I disagree with their strategy of violence, the tactics were truly admirable. Note that I distinguish between the two. Tactically, the IRA were an extremely effective organisation in about 80/90% of their missions they were successful. As a fan of military history I can appreciate the cunning and ingenuity behind some of their strikes, that doesn't however mean I condone the actions themselves.

So, to sum up my feelings about the IRA activists I've met in a word: scary. Such tenacity and operational ability would be admirable in real soldiers, in a terrorist/criminal organisation it's bloody terrifying.

bonkey

gandalf wrote:

You see here is where you really do not understand things. The Orange is part of Ireland thats why the Tricolour is Green White and Orange. Its to signify people of both communities living in peace in Ireland. Green representing the Fenians/Nationalists, White for Peace & Orange for the Protestant/Orangemen.

Unfortunately some people are too blinkered to realise this.

You forget that part of the vision of a united Ireland would invovle changing the flag for that very reason Gandalf...

I mean....if the "Only Our Version of Freedom Matters" brigade can't accept the name of the R.o.I., the government of the R.o.I, and generally wont' accept the thinking of anyone who supports such things (which would include large swathes of the people of the R.o.I, if not the majority of them).......then what possible reason would they have to accept the flag or its meaning.

jc

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

Why does this matter? It might mean that he is less informed, but it does not negate his opinion. It seems that you have opinions about American politics vis-a-vis Dubya, so why can't Americans have opinions about Irish politics vis-a-vis the IRA?

My point would be that ill-informed Americans (that however much they like to think of themselves as Irish aren't) are indirectly responsible for an awful lot of the bloodshed in the north. Sure, it may be just money in the States, in the hands of the IRA however it's a lump of shrapnel ripping a child's face off.

bonkey

Sleepy wrote:

As one of them put it to me himself: "If you saw your father gunned down in front of you, wouldn't you get your hands and go after the b@stard that did it?".

The temptation would be almost overwhelming to ask the question back :

"But if my father was a unionist, and it was people like you who gunned him down, what should I do then? Go after you?

I guess they'd miss the point though.

jc

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

Yes, I realize this. My point was only that we seem to be going nowhere with the whole "conduct" part of the IRA. Why not debate more about the reason behind the organization?

I think it would make for more intellectual and less personal arguments. Just my opinion though....

No, it would make it an easier argument for Republicans. It makes it easy to justify Al Queda's actions too when you forget about the "specifics" of the couple of thousand lives they took on September 11th. The ends can never justify the means in any society that values justice and morality.

Sleepy

bonkey wrote:

The temptation would be almost overwhelming to ask the question back :

"But if my father was a unionist, and it was people like you who gunned him down, what should I do then? Go after you?

I guess they'd miss the point though.

jc

I'm afraid I actually thought of that, but didn't have the balls to say it.