...and in the darkness bind them

Rock Climber

That poor chap in Abbeylara was engaged by armed Gardaí because he had a gun.
Using your logic then how would you classify that episode Growler?
The law have to engage when they perceive a risk, thats common all over the world not just in NI or here regardless of the motivation of those posing the risk.

Sleepy

growler wrote:

If the IRA were criminals, then they should have been dealt with as such by the english , but they weren't, they were engaged as though they were a legitimate foreign enemy.

Need I remind you of the words "a crime is a crime is a crime"? How can you state that the IRA were not dealt with as criminals given that the poster boy for your cause martyred himself over POW status?

Sleepy

Necromancer wrote:

I think it had been agreed by all those (open minded ppl willing to discuss things rationally) that the answer to question one is yes.
The PIRA was founded as a defensive organisation and that there was a clear and present danger to be defended against which the security forces of NI were not doing anything about. If there are still (open minded ppl willing to discuss things rationally) in disagreement with this stop me.

I think most of us have conceeded that the initial actions of the provos were legitimate and defensive in nature. However, once they moved from this defensive role to that of agressor, that's where I personally find them a condemnable organisation.

This basically just saying that we agree with St. Augustine's Just War Theory." For St. Augustine the only reason for waging a war would be to defend the nation's peace against serious injury. He says, "'A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.'

That applies far more to exhonerate the British Army for their attrocities than it does the IRA for their terrorist activities, given that the former were the ones defending "the nation's peace against serious injury" (which was being caused by the latter).

So on to question 2.
I was planning on mentioning the Firebombing of dresdon and the dropping of the a bomb but I see I was bet to it. I would recommend that the link sovtec provided be read by everyone. To summerise: Dresdon was a military target, 100,000 ppl may not have dies, it may have only been 35,000 but *Dresdon was targeted as a whole, not just the factories.
*It was the intention of the allies, particularly Harris, that civilian casualties demoralize German troops.
*The weapons and tactics used in the bombing were designed to inflict maximum civilian casualties.
*dresdon was selected because it was defenceless.

Does this action render the entire war effort wrong?

I dont beleive it does. Dont equate this opinion with my believeing that the end justifies the means because I dont. I simply believe that these tragedies were not representitive of the war effort as a whole and thus should not detract from them.
Likewise there have been specific IRA actions that were cruel and inhumain with no military or strategic value, these should not in my opininion detract from "the cause" as a whole.

The IRA are not a legitimate Army, they have no national mandate from any sovereign state, nor the democratic backing of a nation. They cannot be compared to the allies of WW2 and the very comparison would grieviously offend those who fought for democracy in far more brutal circumstances than ever existed in the North.

In the past 100 years or so civilian to military casualties in war have moved from a ratio of 1:8 to 8:1.
43% of the PIRA's victums were civilians compared with 60% of the british armies according to this source http://www.newint.org/issue255/facts.htm
In the cold statistical analysis of things the IRA has a better record than the british army.

A fair and interesting point, but what of your splinter groups the RIRA and CIRA?

The arguement has been offered that the IRA are not a legitimate army unlike the Crown forces and that it isnt even a war.
If I pop over to www.dictionary.com we get the following definitions:

war ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

ar·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n. pl. ar·mies

A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.
often Army The entire military land forces of a country.
A tactical and administrative military unit consisting of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary forces.
A large group of people organized for a specific cause: the construction army that built the Panama Canal.
A multitude; a host: An army of waiters served at the banquet. See Synonyms at multitude.

On your own definitions: terrorism and elements of guerilla warfare do not equate to "open, armed... conflict". You'll also notice the emphasis in the definition regarding "nations" and "states". The IRA can claim to represent neither.

Again, the definition of the word army above includes the words "The entire military land forces of a country." The Irish Republic already has a legitimate, legal army thanks very much, we don't need balaclava wearing thugs to usurp it's position. Armies wear uniforms, serve nations and engage their enemy directly, they don't plant car bombs in areas guaranteed to inflict civilian casualties whilst they cower away in another part of the city (and if they do, they're charged with war crimes).

Another arguement was that they are not fighting for any cause.
Bonkey said that it doesnt matte what the bulk of ppl believe they are fighting for only what the objectives of their leaders are. I would disagree because it is a volunteer based army with proper structures and an anual army convention. Individual brigades have a lot of say in what activities they do or do not carry out.

Basing my arguments here entirely on one source, I realise I may be on shaky ground but in Ed Moloney's highly regarded "A Secret History of the IRA", it is quite clear that the army council has often been manipulated by the leadership to change policy away from what the foot soldiers wanted. Particularly in regards to Adams' admirable work in dragging the organisation to the negotiation table.

Another point made was that the legitimacy of the IRA is questionable since it carries out illegal fund rasing activities. A lot of rubbish was posted on this subject which I feel needs to be confronted.

The IRA is not involved in drug dealing.
No police report in either juristiction to my knowledge has ever suggested they are. I do remember reading about a volunteer who was disciplined for his involvement with a certain drug gang and another who tried to smuggle drugs on the same boat the IRA was running guns but both volunteers were dealt with severly. I also remember reading about US amry officers who were using military vehicles to transport coke with the intent to supply but nobody is going to argue that the US army is involved in drug dealing.
The IRA has a very clear position to drug dealing and is suspected of the assassination of many drug dealers including 4 since 2002.

Vigilatism is illegal for a reason. The IRA do not have the authority to pass judgement on the actions of others however high the moral high-ground they possess in relation to that issue. To argue otherwise would be to argue that I'm entirely within my rights to knee-cap active members of the IRA because membership of that organisation is just as illegal in this country as possession or smuggling of drugs.

Yes the IRA is involved in smuggling and counterfeiting (goods and money) and armed robery where the state (NI, RoI or GB) is generally the main victum.

And this is to be admired? When the IRA rob a bank, the bank's insurance premiums rise and consequently so do their charges. Big business don't suffer from these actions, their margins remain the same. It's the ordinary guy on the street who pays for these actions. If I wanted to support the IRA I'd give my money directly, that's my right and it's also my right to retain that money. It is not yours or the IRA's to make that decision for me.

Other sources of income include public loans (I think thats the right name but open to correction) which is basically just a contribution. This was a big money spinner in the US.
Donations from the likes of gadaffi.
And taxing criminals.

How this conflicts with the ligitimacy of their actions I dont know though. Certainly they are illegal activities, so is their war, then again so is the war in Iraq and the treatment of prisoners in GUITMO.
Their legitimacy comes from their justification in accordance with question one.

A justification that has passed it's expiry date over thirty years ago. There is NO legitimacy to criminal activities. If the IRA were such upstanding members of the community why not just turn the criminals over to the authorities instead of using them like contractors to carry out their crimes for a cut?

PS That all republicans are poor debaters is rediculous, I believe I am carrying myself quite well and I would also like to point out that most Irish ppl who have excercised their vote have voted for the republican party.
That most "shinners" are incapable of debating is a popular myth spread by those who fear the rise of SF and are too closed minded to debate with them.

Most bigots make poor debaters because they are incapable of accepting a point when it's been clearly demonstrated that they are wrong. A large proportion of republicans (in my experience) are extremely bigoted and therefore I make the inference that most are incapable of intelligent debate. I agree that you're carrying yourself quite well in this debate which is why I've taken the time to write such a long rebuttal of your posts. Unfortunately I find you're in the minority in this (as can be judged from the number of idiots diving into this thread to make single line, completely ignorant posts).

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

I agree that McCabe's killers should not be released, but I also think that Ahern has a point when he states that the early release could help the peace process, which obviously needs helping. Of course the IRA were shooting to kill. When I mentioned shoot-to-kill, I was mainly referring to Gibraltar. I know that the "she did it too" argument is not strong or valid, however, there IS something to be said against the murder of three unarmed civilians, even if they WERE part of a terrorist organization....

So, given that you acknowledge that they shouldn't be released how can you stand by whilst your representative party campaigns so ignorantly for their release?

By your previous arguments the IRA were a legitimate army (which I still disagree with) but if you view them as such, how can you call members of the organisation civilians?

[sorry for triple posting but I had to separate these posts to get them past the 10K limit]

growler

[QUOTE=Sleepy How can you state that the IRA were not dealt with as criminals given that the poster boy for your cause martyred himself over POW status?[/QUOTE]

because of the many instances where IRA members, suspected members or unfortunate innocents in the wrong place were simply assassinated by the British and because of internment, trials without jury, supergrass evidence and collusion with loyalist paramilitaries all of which bypassed the normal legal means of dealing with criminality.

Sleepy

growler wrote:

Sleepy wrote:

How can you state that the IRA were not dealt with as criminals given that the poster boy for your cause martyred himself over POW status?

because of the many instances where IRA members, suspected members or unfortunate innocents in the wrong place were simply assassinated by the British and because of internment, trials without jury, supergrass evidence and collusion with loyalist paramilitaries all of which bypassed the normal legal means of dealing with criminality.

So essentially, the IRA wanted to be treated as regular criminals when it suited their purpose and granted POW status when arrested? Sounds a bit simple to me...

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

So, given that you acknowledge that they shouldn't be released how can you stand by whilst your representative party campaigns so ignorantly for their release?

By your previous arguments the IRA were a legitimate army (which I still disagree with) but if you view them as such, how can you call members of the organisation civilians?

[sorry for triple posting but I had to separate these posts to get them past the 10K limit]

You are very right about the civilians. They were not that was bad wording on my part. However, they were unarmed. Is it in accordance with Geneva Convention to shoot unarmed soldiers in the back after they have surrendered?

What do you suggest I do about the McCabe killers? I'm not an Irish citizen. Although I do support SF, that does not mean I agree with all of their positions. I am a Democrat here in the States, but I disagree with the party when it comes to partial-birth abortion, for example.

bonkey

gdiddy361 wrote:

However, they were unarmed. Is it in accordance with Geneva Convention to shoot unarmed soldiers in the back after they have surrendered?

I don't think either side have a moral high-ground to preach about regarding the Geneva Convention. I don't think anyone here will deny that the British conduct has been far from ideal, but give that its questionable as to how much of all of this was reciprocal escalation, but undeniable that some of it was, its hardly a justification.

jc

BCB

Rock Climber wrote:

What a load of complete and utter rubbish.
Who made up that saying anyway and how many people agree with it, thats the yardstick in a democracy-agreement.
Less than 5% of the people of the island were behind the IRA and I'm being generous in that figure.
The reason why Ireland wasn't at peace for over 30 years was because the IRA carried out an illegal war better known as terrorism
None of the inequities given as the reason for this terrorism would have survived membership of the E.U
Anti terrorist legislation, internment , h blocks, none of that would have happened.
None of the extreme inter community bitterness would have survived to the extent that it did either.
Furthermore what do ye have to show for all the terror, we still have the united kingdom of Gt Britain and Northern Ireland in existance.
The co-operation /all Ireland institutions would have eventually came about anyway as people would have got on and seen that it was practical.

What a wasted 30 years.

How do you know less than 5% were behind the IRA?It was definetly a higher figure than that..anyway its easy for free staters to pass judgement isnt it and critise the IRA when they dont have to live in the North..it would be a different story if they lived in West Belfast/Derry or South Armagh,the guerilla war the IRA carried out might have been "illegal" in the eyes of the law but for the Republican people in the North Of Ireland who have been subjected to decades of anguish and grief inflicted by the British and Loyalists it was more than justified..it was Revolution and that has happened all over the world like in Palestine,etc,etc,IRELAND UNFREE SHALL NEVER BE AT PEACE

billy the squid

BCB wrote:

How do you know less than 5% were behind the IRA?It was definetly a higher figure than that..

I don't know about the 5 percent figure you speak of but there is evidence that there is very little support for the tactics of the likes of the IRA UVF INLA, peoples front of judea or what ever little groups are up there in the north. remember the white ribbon campaign, and then there were the election results for the Good Friday Agreement, the creation of the Alliance party, and that womens movement in the north (the name of which escapes me)

The carry on of some people in the north can only be called childish, whether it be Sinn fein and the IRA refusing to provide evidence to their opponants of decommissioning, or wether its a bunch of orange men sitting outside a church for twelve months because they cannot display their jingoistic attitude in a part of the north that they are not welcome.

The truth of the matter is that alot of people in the south (myself included) see more promise coming from brussels than we do from belfast, why, because the ones causing all the trouble in belfast are acting childishly, and namecalling those who have opposing views.

anyway its easy for free staters to pass judgement isnt it and critise the IRA when they dont have to live in the North

See what I mean. I am living in the republic of Ireland. Saorstat Eireann died in 1949 when the Republic of Ireland left the brittish commonwealth. The fact that you cannot use the name of our country is a demonstration of your ignorance. To call the republic of Irelnad "The free state" is trying to make out that the south is still part of the commonwealth, it is not.

it would be a different story if they lived in West Belfast/Derry or South Armagh

Adare is only up the road from me and the Island field, where most of the IRAs guns are ending up, is visible from my house.

the guerilla war the IRA carried out might have been "illegal" in the eyes of the law but for the Republican people in the North Of Ireland who have been subjected to decades of anguish and grief inflicted by the British and Loyalists it was more than justified.

Alot of the troubles of the north were brought about because there were individuals, both republican and Unionist, planting bombs all over the place. The brittish army were welcomed into the north by catholics when they went their, and what thanks did they get, the likes of the IRA started killing them.

it was Revolution and that has happened all over the world like in Palestine,etc,etc

Palestine lies in ruins and the acts of the PLO and islamic jihad accomplished nothing.

IRELAND UNFREE SHALL NEVER BE AT PEACE

:rolleyes:

sceptre

BCB wrote:

free staters

Cute, here we go again.

bonkey

BCB wrote:

How do you know less than 5% were behind the IRA?It was definetly a higher figure than that..

Well, given that you're going on over on your own board about how you and your alter-ego ran rings about us and had us by the balls with your arguments, I'm sure you'll have no problems actually supplying a reference to back this claim up then, will you?

anyway its easy for free staters to pass judgement isnt it and critise the IRA when they dont have to live in the North. It would be a different story if they lived in West Belfast/Derry or South Armagh,

Tell me then why the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the North of Ireland voted in favour of the GFA and supported peace and compromise over a continuation of violence by the IRA? Because they though that the killing was the way forward? Because they thought the IRA were doing the right thing?

the guerilla war the IRA carried out might have been "illegal" in the eyes of the law

So as well as apparently involving an inability to refer to some nations by their correct names, Republicanism apparently also means that you have a problem with the meaning of the word illegal, and the use of the definitive in preference to the uncertain when using your verbs describing something about which there was no question...

...look I think this might be easier all round if you either spoke the version of English that is standardised all over the world (dare I say 'The Queen's English'?), or send us some sort of dictionary so that we can interepret what words mean when you use them in different contexts.

I mean...maybe when you say the IRA didn't commit terrorism but rather a guerrilla war, thats because in the version of languag eyou use, guerrilla war and terrorism mean different things, or - indeed - switched meanings with each other. No?

but for the Republican people in the North Of Ireland who have been subjected to decades of anguish and grief inflicted by the British and Loyalists it was more than justified

Which is why they voted for peace and compromise over continued violence and absolutist positions....something that seems to have slipped some people by. Wasn't it your Jonny68 alter-ego who insisted the war would continue until we had 32 counties and a soclialist government? Are you going to tell me that this is supported by those living in the North as well because they've suffered under Unionists? Supported by them even though the vote concerning the GFA was an overwhelming cry against such absolutist goals?

IRELAND UNFREE SHALL NEVER BE AT PEACE

Regardless of the wishes of :

1) The majority of the people living in the country, as the GFA vote indicated
2) the majority of the Republicans living in the country, as the GFA vote indicated.
3) The majority of the Republicans living in the North of Ireland, as the GFA vote indicated.

Apparently, in this context, "unfree" actually means "not unified under the rule of a domestic,socialist government".

So are you just making sure that no-one is in any confusion here about the fact that the IRA and its supporters have no respect for democracy and the democratic process whatsoever, or is there something more subtle behind all of this which is supposed to cast you in a more appealing light and make us understand that this demonstration of lack of any respect for democracy is a good thing?

(Aside: another situation showing why I really think that the aforementioned dictionary would help us. Any chance?)


jc

FTA69

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

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.

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.

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".

No, a police magazine is not an acceptable source because it is blatantly biased. One cannot take the perspective of one participant in a conflict and claim it as gospel when it denigrates its opponents. Would me holding up An Phoblacht as a source be bipartisan? Would FOX news coverage on the Iraq war be considered neutral? No it wouldn't, and the cops are most definitely not neutral on the subject of the IRA. You ask do they "make it up for the laugh"? No they don't, they fabricate things as part of their propaganda war as they have always done, like when they released a new story claiming Aidan McAnespie was shot by a richochet bullet when he really was shot more than 15 times by the British Army in Tyrone.

Regards, crime and criminality, you again refer to the IRA as a "criminal gang", just because an army is on ceasefire does not mean there is an inevitable transition into "crime", as Gerry Adams pointed out on the Late Late last night, did Eamonn De Valera or Seán Lemass become criminals? No they did not, the IRA remains organised, disciplined and under command, there is no money to be made from being an IRA Volunteer.

Now instead of labelling the IRA "idiots" (which they clearly are not) perhaps you could answer my question on the subject of the Hunger Strikers, did Bobby Sands and his 9 comrades starve themselves to death for money or criminality? Did they have the makeup of a criminal in your eyes? Think of the sacrifice and struggle made by those men before you denigrate Republicans as simply being out for money.

FTA69

bonkey wrote:

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

The IRA has a democratic structure (although pressing conditions often prevented this from being developed to perhaps the way it should have been). People ususally elect those in command and the leadership is put in place at a General Army Convention by majority vote among representatives of grassroots Volunteers. The leaders are in effect, the Volunteers themselves. There is no scenario of "godfathers" and "footsoldiers" or whatever terms you learned from the Sopranos that you want to apply.

There is no gullability involved in the IRA either, people who joined the IRA for adventure or youthful enthusiasm etc soon discovered the harsh realities of imprisonment, harrasment, war, being away from your family sleeping in a ditch, death or the death of your comrades/family/friends. People imersed in this quickly became hardened and very politicised (especially in jail) and thought for themselves. In short, they were not naieve idiots being led along by manipulative elders.

FTA69

Sleepy wrote:

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.

First of all IRA Volunteers are just that, volunteers, they are politically motivated civilians who for a time in their lives took up arms in a climate of military repression and occupation. They did this by their own choice and recieved no wage etc as a result of their actions ie they "volunteered". To address the use of the title itself, IRA members always had that title from 1916 to 2004 and I don't really understand your grievance regarding the term to be honest.

Indeed there are many IRA members who joined the Army because of personal trauma etc but I really don't think that makes them any less credible than someone from Waterford or Dublin who joined as a result of their academic politics alone. Many IRA activists found themselves in a war zone and they decided to take the step to defend their people/country or however you want to phrase it. At first many might be filled with rage or bloodlust but as one progresses in the Movement one's politics begin to develop and a more educated and intelligent assesment of the situation is made. The IRA campaign was not abstract and random expressions of anger, it was as a result of the political conflict which has many mitigating factors besides revenge etc.

You raise an interesting point about them being ill-informed on the subject of the conflict but try posing your questions to Laurence McKeown or Danny Morrison and you would not be met with blank looks or stutters, there are differences between people in every organisation, besides not everybody is articulate or able to express their views in a clear manner, it doesn't make them naieve though.

bonkey

FTA69 wrote:

The IRA has a democratic structure

Having previously been told in another thread that the IRA won't accept to terms such as photographic evidence of decomissioning because of some hardliners who simply refuse to take it, I find myself in somewhat of a quandry.

How do we reconcile these two statements? One says that a small group of hardliners are forcing a path to be walked, regardless of the wishes of the majority, and the other says its a democratic organisation.

It would seem that there's two options:

1) The original grounds re: hardliners was slightly misleading in that its not "some hardliners", but rather the majority of a democratic structure....which then begs the question as to who, exactly, the peace-wanting majority who democratically decided peace and compromise was the way forward. Or is there some way that a "hardliner" can also be someone in favour of peace and compromise?

2) The IRA is not truly democratic despite how it may seem, as a entrenched minority who absolutely refuse to budge on an issue can force a decision to be made in a certain direction.

Or were those explanations regarding the problems of the whole photgraphic evidence of decomissioning just plain wrong???

jc

BCB

billy the squid wrote:

but there is evidence that there is very little support for the tactics of the likes of the IRA UVF INLA

thats bull****..the IRA enjoyed massive support in Republican areas as did the UVF in Loyalist areas..the INLA at one time also enjoyed big support but feuding in their ranks in the 1980`s put an end to that

.

The truth of the matter is that alot of people in the south (myself included) see more promise coming from brussels than we do from belfast, why, because the ones causing all the trouble in belfast are acting childishly, and namecalling those who have opposing views.

Sinn Fein are not the ones acting childishly here it is Paisley and his bigoted party...

See what I mean. I am living in the republic of Ireland. Saorstat Eireann died in 1949 when the Republic of Ireland left the brittish commonwealth. The fact that you cannot use the name of our country is a demonstration of your ignorance. To call the republic of Irelnad "The free state" is trying to make out that the south is still part of the commonwealth, it is not.

The free state is EXACTLY that..it is NOT under British occupation whereas the North is therefore the "Republic of Ireland" is a "free state"

Adare is only up the road from me and the Island field, where most of the IRAs guns are ending up, is visible from my house.

your point being??

The brittish army were welcomed into the north by catholics when they went their, and what thanks did they get, the likes of the IRA started killing them.

Yes the British Army were initially welcomed into the North by Catholics who seen them as protecters of their areas..but they soon found out the truth about them..bloody Sunday amongst other atrocities..need i go on........

Palestine lies in ruins and the acts of the PLO and islamic jihad accomplished nothing.

thats the biggest crock of **** ive ever heard..Palestine lies in ruins because the bastard Israeli Army are responsible for it..dont you know anything about the war over there?it seems not......


:rolleyes:

FTA69

I can tell you now that regarding the issue of photographs there is no case of an "entrenched minority of hardliners" calling the shots, the majority of the Republican Movement are completely opposed to such an initiative and rightly so.

Also, because one is against photographic publications of arms beyond use it does not mean they are against "peace", it means they are against the hijacking of a peace process and the attempted humiliation of Republicans.

bonkey

FTA69 wrote:

Ithe majority of the Republican Movement are completely opposed to such an initiative and rightly so.

And so we get back to asking, once again, why "rightly so" ???

What is their righteous logic for refusing to supply photo's? Yup...its still that they're afraid of being mocked by Unionists.

Also, because one is against photographic publications of arms beyond use it does not mean they are against "peace", it means they are against the hijacking of a peace process and the attempted humiliation of Republicans.

It doesn't mean they are against peace, no. It just shows how little peace actually means to them. It means they rank the need to avoid possible humiliation as more important than the possible obtention of peace/compromise/progress.

Think about it. Here's people who, over the past decades have been willing to kill and die, to terrorise and to rebel. They've gone to prison, and on the run. They've been villified at one time or another by every single group in our society except their own most ardent supporters. Adn they've borne all of this in the name of achieving what they believe in .

We're being told that its a democratic group, so the majority have now decided to put violence behind them, and to co-operate in the process of seeking a peaceful compromise solution - to working towards a better (but different than envisaged) future. And they're willing to do all of this as long as they can't be called names over decomissioning photographs.

Maybe I just don't know enough heroes and how they behave, but I woulda thought that being called names by Unionists was :

1) par for the course for any Republican. (Haven't we been told that if we were ridiculed, etc like Republicans in the North are, we'd support the IRA too)
2) nothing new under the sun (see point 1)
3) a small price to pay for achieving a peace that one is allegedly comitted to (maybe I'm wrong...but if you're willing to die to obtain your goals, surely you should be willing to be called names to obtain them instead)
4) an even smaller price to pay to show the hypocracy of the Unionists when they turn around and invent new artificial reasons to stall the process subsequent to this demand beind met, which could ultimately add more weight to the Republican negotiating position in the inevitable further rounds.

Having said all of that.....there's a cynical part of me which says that I'm being too charitable with my explanation, and that he reason the IRA don't want to have quantitative evidence released is because people would laugh....not at their having decomissioned, but rather at what they claimed constituted complete disarmament.

But I'm sure its because I don't live in the North of Ireland that I can't understand how fundamentally different it would be to be mocked and ridiculed by Unionists over decomissioning photos as opposed to the mocking and ridiculing I'd receive from Unionists over refusing to supply photos added to the list of everything else they've been using to mock and ridicule Republicans with. And clearly such a fundamental difference (of being mocked and ridiculed, as opposed to being mocked and ridiculed) is of more importance than progress towards lasting peace, reached through compromise, as wanted by the majority of people in this country (whichever way you choose to define that to suit your own political agenda).

jc

Sleepy

FTA69 wrote:

Regards, crime and criminality, you again refer to the IRA as a "criminal gang", just because an army is on ceasefire does not mean there is an inevitable transition into "crime", as Gerry Adams pointed out on the Late Late last night, did Eamonn De Valera or Seán Lemass become criminals? No they did not, the IRA remains organised, disciplined and under command, there is no money to be made from being an IRA Volunteer.

The IRA are a criminal gang as they are an organisation that is illegal. They are not an army as they do not wear a uniform. We've pointed this out to you many times now. Gerry Adams made an eejit of himself on the Late Late as clearly pointed out by that otherwise rag the Sunday Independant. If the IRA were disciplined why did they murder Garda McCabe?

did Bobby Sands and his 9 comrades starve themselves to death for money or criminality?

I'll give you that point, Sands didn't die for money, he died for ignorance and stupidity. Anyone stupid enough to die over his clothing deserved his death.

FTA69 wrote:

To address the use of the title itself, IRA members always had that title from 1916 to 2004 and I don't really understand your grievance regarding the term to be honest.

Because the IRA of 1916 were a FAR different organisation than the Provos.

Indeed there are many IRA members who joined the Army because of personal trauma etc but I really don't think that makes them any less credible than someone from Waterford or Dublin who joined as a result of their academic politics alone.

It makes them slightly more forgiveable, because they at least have more than bigotry driving their actions.

as one progresses in the Movement one's politics begin to develop and a more educated and intelligent assesment of the situation is made.

So basically, you're saying that all IRA terrorists eventually get sense and quit?

You raise an interesting point about them being ill-informed on the subject of the conflict but try posing your questions to Laurence McKeown or Danny Morrison and you would not be met with blank looks or stutters, there are differences between people in every organisation, besides not everybody is articulate or able to express their views in a clear manner, it doesn't make them naieve though.

Well, in the absence of Laurence McKeown or Danny Morrison, why don't you justify the use of the men who haven't the intelligence to understand what they're fighting for?

Sleepy

BCB wrote:

thats bull****..the IRA enjoyed massive support in Republican areas

What about the other 95% of the North?

Sinn Fein are not the ones acting childishly here it is Paisley and his bigoted party...

So Sinn Fein do understand the meaning of the word bigotry? :eek:

The free state is EXACTLY that..it is NOT under British occupation whereas the North is therefore the "Republic of Ireland" is a "free state"

your point being??

No, the Republic of Ireland is a free state. The North of Ireland would be by now if your party and your counterpart in the bigoted terrorism you've endorsed would have grown up and accepted power-sharing decades ago.

Yes the British Army were initially welcomed into the North by Catholics who seen them as protecters of their areas..but they soon found out the truth about them..bloody Sunday amongst other atrocities..need i go on........

Please don't, we've enough bigots here thanks.

thats the biggest crock of **** ive ever heard..Palestine lies in ruins because the bastard Israeli Army are responsible for it..dont you know anything about the war over there?it seems not......

Completely irrelevant, we're discussing Irish terrorists, not the situation in the middle east.

Sleepy

Can we leave the decomissioning argument to the thread dedicated to it?

growler

Originally Posted by Sleepy "They are not an army as they do not wear a uniform. We've pointed this out to you many times now"

you keep bringing this up but I am utterly baffled as to why it is relevant to this discussion, obviously you would have rathered that all the militant nationalists formed up in trenches in south armagh so that they could have bombs dropped on them or wore a distinctive uniform to further facilitate shoot to kill ops.

Originally Posted by Sleepy "Sands didn't die for money, he died for ignorance and stupidity. Anyone stupid enough to die over his clothing deserved his death"

Of course the 30000 in Fermanagh who voted for Bobby Sands were clearly signalling their support for unashamed stupidity and ignorance then. I find it quite disturbing that you can so easily dismiss such an act of courage in one's covictions and trivialise it to being an argument about "clothes" , hopefully you understand it was about more than clothing.

Sleepy

growler wrote:

you keep bringing this up but I am utterly baffled as to why it is relevant to this discussion, obviously you would have rathered that all the militant nationalists formed up in trenches in south armagh so that they could have bombs dropped on them or wore a distinctive uniform to further facilitate shoot to kill ops.

Honestly, yeah, I'd have been thrilled if all the terrorists, both unionist and republican had dug trenches in a field somewhere away from civilians and blown each other to kingdom come. I think the vast majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland would have been far happier to live their lives in peace too.

Of course the 30000 in Fermanagh who voted for Bobby Sands were clearly signalling their support for unashamed stupidity and ignorance then. I find it quite disturbing that you can so easily dismiss such an act of courage in one's covictions and trivialise it to being an argument about "clothes" , hopefully you understand it was about more than clothing.

Sands was on hunger-strike over his status as a prisoner. Given that the IRA weren't a legitimate army, I feel that I would have had to agreed with the British government of the day that they were nothing more than criminals and as such didn't deserve POW status. The entire terrorist campaign run by the IRA was both stupid and ignorant and it is only since the leadership got some small bit of sense and stopped killing people that any meaningful progress has been made. If they'd downed arms thirty years ago, we'd be a lot further along in that process and a lot less innocents would have died. JFK proved that unilateral moves worked during the Cuban Missile Crisis of over three decades ago. If the IRA had been intelligent enough to spot this, there'd have been no need for such senseless killing on both sides.

growler

Are you seriously making a comparison between the USA v's USSR and the IRA v's British ?

Hardly fair for numerous reasons, the most obvious being the parity of their respective military forces. If the IRA had developed WDM then such a discussion might well have been the way forward.

While I admire your excellent hindsight vision of what might have been , the history of the north showed that the unionist majority were quite happy to preserve that status quo which ensured their positions of power at the expense of their catholic neighbours, personally I believe that without the IRA's involvement that status quo would not have changed for a very long time.

Sleepy

No I'm comparing the various terrorists of the north's conflicts. And by all accounts, the IRA would have been the stronger of the two forces...

Without the IRA's involvement countless people: Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Republican, would still be alive.

Apartheid fell in South Africa without violence, the Cold War ended without violence, the middle east used violence and is still a hot bed, nothing positive happened in the north until the violence ended

History has continually shown us that terrorism achieves nothing except death and the deepening of the bigotry and hatred that caused it in the first place. So how can you claim that the IRA's campaign was anything but an ignorant, misguided and ultimately pointless?

growler

Sleepy wrote:

No I'm comparing the various terrorists of the north's conflicts. And by all accounts, the IRA would have been the stronger of the two forces...

Without the IRA's involvement countless people: Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Republican, would still be alive.

Apartheid fell in South Africa without violence, the Cold War ended without violence, the middle east used violence and is still a hot bed, nothing positive happened in the north until the violence ended

History has continually shown us that terrorism achieves nothing except death and the deepening of the bigotry and hatred that caused it in the first place. So how can you claim that the IRA's campaign was anything but an ignorant, misguided and ultimately pointless?

Apartheid in South Africa did not fall without violence, labelled as terrorism by the ruling regime, naturally the ANC didn't see themselves as terrorists , they saw themselves as freedom fighters , rebels with a just cause , guerillas fighting to overthrow an oppressive regime, much the same as the IRA.

The Cold War wasn't free of violence, however much of the state sponsored violence wasn't "claimed" by either side.


"History has continually shown us that terrorism achieves nothing except death and the deepening of the bigotry and hatred that caused it in the first place"

except for many historic instances where it has successfully ovethrown unjust occupiers or regimes that did not enjoy popular support: Cuba, Afghanistan, America etc.

BCB

[QUOTE=Sleepy

]What about the other 95% of the North?

So you think Republicans only account for 5% of the population of the North?if you do then your even more stupid than i thought.......

So Sinn Fein do understand the meaning of the word bigotry? :eek:

meaning what exactly?

No, the Republic of Ireland is a free state. The North of Ireland would be by now if your party and your counterpart in the bigoted terrorism you've endorsed would have grown up and accepted power-sharing decades ago.

why the hell should Sinn Fein have accepted power sharing years ago?it wasnt an option..and anyway do you think unionists would`ve agreed to something like that while there was a guerilla war happening?The Provos almost on many occasions succeded in bringing about a United Ireland and i cant help thinking if the war would`ve continued instead of this GFA thats turned into a farce then maybe just maybe the British Goverment would`ve washed their hands of the North Of Ireland.....

Please don't, we've enough bigots here thanks.

whatever....

Completely irrelevant, we're discussing Irish terrorists, not the situation in the middle east

.[/QUOTE]
The IRA are NOT i repeat NOT terrorists,they are Guerilla freedom fighters end of......... :mad:

BCB

Sleepy wrote:

Sands was on hunger-strike over his status as a prisoner. Given that the IRA weren't a legitimate army, I feel that I would have had to agreed with the British government of the day that they were nothing more than criminals and as such didn't deserve POW status. The entire terrorist campaign run by the IRA was both stupid and ignorant and it is only since the leadership got some small bit of sense and stopped killing people that any meaningful progress has been made.

.

How dare you insult the name of Bobby Sands..where you around at that time?if you were you will remember that he was elected to the British Parliament topping the poll with over 30,000 votes..you will also remember that his death caused worldwide revulsion against the British..there was demonstrations worldwide in response to his death..im talking hundreds of thousands of people..Bobby Sands also had a street named after him in Iran..he died a martyr..how dare you call him a criminal.it sickens me people like you insulting Irish martyrs like Sands and his nine brave companions who were murdered by Thatcher..id love you to go up to West Belfast or any nationalist area in the North and start saying something like that..you digust me........
:mad:

bonkey

BCB wrote:

The IRA are NOT i repeat NOT terrorists,they are Guerilla freedom fighters end of......... :mad:

Do you deny that they have carried out acts of terrorism?

jc