...and in the darkness bind them

cdebru

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

cdebru, the Irish people have already told you what they think of the "need" for an armed struggle in the referendum for the GF agreement - they are of the opinion there isn't one. The situation will never have to be reviewed - the people have spoken.

Of course, since republican supporters have no interest in supporting the wishes of the people, I know you won't.

the people speak on many things and it does not mean the situation can not change

divorce abortion etc

it could also be argued that the Irish people spoke in 1918 why did that have to be reviewed
because the situation changed

billy the squid

cdebru wrote:

the people speak on many things and it does not mean the situation can not change

divorce abortion etc

it could also be argued that the Irish people spoke in 1918 why did that have to be reviewed
because the situation changed

so lets keep blowing **** up until we get our way and nevermind what the majority says right?

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

Well, see, I did read that. The problem is that I had difficulty believing that this is what you actually meant....that you believe the entire solution is simply for teh British government and their army to leave.

Let me ask you a couple of hypothetical questions...

If the governments of Ireland and the UK were to decide that the best solution was to give Northern Ireland its independance, and did so, would that be good enough for it all to be over? No unification. No chance of unification. A new nation. That would end it?

And If this was good enough for Republicans but not for Unionists, who continued with their campaigns of violence...would it still be over for the Republcians? No retribution? No "defending" their own?

Or if unification did occur, but Unionist groups took up where the Republican's left off and went on their own campaign of terror in the name of achieving the government they wanted....would the IRA stand by and allow the Republican public to be freely attacked because they had achieved what they wanted?

And so on....

You see, I don't believe that any Republican seriously believes that all it takes is for the British government to leave. It takes that, plus a whole lot of other stuff.....most of which generally boils down to "and Ireland is reunited, accompanied either with "and the Unionists accept it" or "and the unionists 'go home'".

jc

that is what the good friday agreement is all about finding institutions that everyone can live with and in which everyones rights will be observed
irrespective of wether it is in the UK or a united Ireland

I do not want unionists to leave Ireland and common sense will tell you that if 50% plus one decide to join a united Ireland that would not be a particularly stable situation without the institutions set up by the GFA
if the institutions set up by the GFA work then nationalists should be able to live in safety in a six counties that are part of the UK as should Unionists when the six counties become part of a united Ireland

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

so lets keep blowing **** up until we get our way and nevermind what the majority says right?

that is not what I said I said I don't believe that armed struggle is needed at this time
however if britain reneged on its agreement not to have any selfish interest in Ireland and refused to leave or tried to repartition the country then the need for armed struggle would have to be reviewed

so Until the british army have left Ireland for good the definitive Its all over cannot be said
however I believe that the current Phase of armed conflict is over and the IRA should disarm and disband
I hope this clarifies it for you

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

however if britain reneged on its agreement not to have any selfish interest in Ireland and refused to leave or tried to repartition the country then the need for armed struggle would have to be reviewed

By the IRA or you or both?
As an Irishman and a member of the overwhelming majority community that stands against such nonsense in the 21st century,I'd fully expect anyone advocating/participating/supporting a return to bombing and shooting if they don't get what they want to go to jail.
Best place for criminals really away from the ordinary decent law abiding citizens.

bonkey

cdebru wrote:

that is what the good friday agreement is all about finding institutions that everyone can live with and in which everyones rights will be observed irrespective of wether it is in the UK or a united Ireland

But you still say it will only be over when teh British government and their army leave....so its ont irrespective of who the government is.

You're still effectively saying "compromise is the solution, as long as we get what we want and they accept it".

I do not want unionists to leave Ireland

No...you want their governemnt to leave, and for them to meekly accept it.

I don't believe that armed struggle is needed at this time
however if britain reneged on its agreement not to have any selfish interest in Ireland and refused to leave or tried to repartition the country then the need for armed struggle would have to be reviewed

Woah...a moment ago it would be over when they left. Now, its only over as long as they don't refuse to leave or try to repartition the country

In short "it will be over when we get what we want, and the current cessation will last only until we decide we're not getting it".

if the institutions set up by the GFA work then nationalists should be able to live in safety in a six counties that are part of the UK as should Unionists when the six counties become part of a united Ireland

"When"??? The mere use of that word undermines the principles which the institutions you refer to are based on. Its yet more "it will all be fine, as long as we get what we want, and they accept it, and it doesn't take too long" speak...

jc

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

But you still say it will only be over when teh British government and their army leave....so its ont irrespective of who the government is.

yes it is
we have entered a deal were everyone agrees to use political means to further there beliefs if the british renege on the agreement then the use of force to remove them would have to be a possibility so until they have actually left no one can be sure they will not renege

bonkey wrote:

You're still effectively saying "compromise is the solution, as long as we get what we want and they accept it".

iam not effectively saying that I believe that the final outcome in the 6 counties will be a united Ireland I am entitled to that belief

bonkey wrote:

No...you want their governemnt to leave, and for them to meekly accept it.

so your suggesting if a majority of people in the six counties decide that the future is in a 32 county Ireland that unionist do not have to accept this

bonkey wrote:

Woah...a moment ago it would be over when they left. Now, its only over as long as they don't refuse to leave or try to repartition the country

what is inconsistent in that it is over when they have left it would not be over if they refused to leave against the will of the people of the 6 counties
or tried to repartition the six counties to create another unionist majority

bonkey wrote:

In short "it will be over when we get what we want, and the current cessation will last only until we decide we're not getting it".

no its over as long as everybody ie the british government keep their word

bonkey wrote:

"When"??? The mere use of that word undermines the principles which the institutions you refer to are based on. Its yet more "it will all be fine, as long as we get what we want, and they accept it, and it doesn't take too long" speak...

jc

so your saying that republicans and nationalist have to give up on the idea of a united Ireland
the unionist dont have a problem with nationalist s desire for a united Ireland why should you
I use the word when because I believe that it will happen

so your saying that republicans and nationalist have to give up on the idea of a united Ireland

I doubt he's saying that.
what I suspect he's saying is that they should respect the overwhelming majority opinion of the whole island that bombing and shooting is unacceptable and punishable with a prison sentence.

You seem to be advocating violence again even though the overwhelming majority disagree with it.
Not the way to go if you want middle Irelands votes but keep it up,I suspect your detractors here will be delighted at this exposé :rolleyes:

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

You seem to be advocating violence again even though the overwhelming majority disagree with it.
Not the way to go if you want middle Irelands votes but keep it up,I suspect your detractors here will be delighted at this exposé :rolleyes:

you seem to be unable to understand what i am saying but you seem quite content to put your own spin on it

there is no expose as i speak for no one but myself

i suggest you look up the word advocate and then tell me were i advocated violence

I explained situations in which the use of armed struggle would have to be reviewed. i did not argue that armed struggle is the way forward.personally I dont give a **** if sinn fein get middle Irelands vote there are many things i disagree with Sinn fein on and I have No overwhelming desire to see them in Government in the 26 counties.

You of course presume anyone who is a republican is a slave to Sinn Fein or any of their Splinters not so Iam afraid

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

tell me were i advocated violence

certainly.
Heres a direct quote from your post on this thread

cdebru wrote:

I don't believe that armed struggle is needed at this time
however if britain reneged on its agreement not to have any selfish interest in Ireland and refused to leave or tried to repartition the country then the need for armed struggle would have to be reviewed

There you go, you're saying the armed struggle is not needed at this time, but if Britain doesn't leave etc , the [current lack of use of] armed struggle would have to be reviewed.
You couldn't have been more plain in your advocation of violence/armed struggle if the outcome is not what you desire.

Honestly do you think four year old children read this forum because you give the impression that you think thats who your audience here is, such is the extent of your constant but transparent position shifting.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

certainly.
Heres a direct quote from your post on this thread

There you go, you're saying the armed struggle is not needed at this time, but if Britain doesn't leave etc , the [current lack of use of] armed struggle would have to be reviewed.
You couldn't have been more plain in your advocation of violence/armed struggle if the outcome is not what you desire..

No you have again missed the point if Britain were not to do what it has promised to do ie leave Ireland once the people of the six counties have asked them to then yes the armed struggle option would have to be reviewed

Earthman wrote:

Honestly do you think four year old children read this forum because you give the impression that you think thats who your audience here is, such is the extent of your constant but transparent position shifting.

that is not advocating violence and i suggest you again look up the meaning of advocate
I am not arguing for nor encouraging a return to armed struggle
I am merely stating a fact the armed struggle has ended because of the current situation ie britain declared that it had no selfish or strategic interest in ireland
If britain was to change its position ie say they have a selfish interest or strategic interest in ireland then the position on armed struggle would have to be reviewed.
now at the moment that seems unlikely but not impossible so therefore no one can say that armed struggle is over for good never to happen again.
the only time we will know for sure that britain will not change its stance in relation to Ireland is when they have left.


where has my position shifted point it out
that is what i stated at the beginning that is what iam stating now.


I think your problem is that you dont think armed struggle is legitimate under any circumstances
and if you feel like a four year old there is **** all i can do about that

A Dub in Glasgo

If you want to nail someone for advocating violence, look in the Iraq threads

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

No you have again missed the point if Britain were not to do what it has promised to do ie leave Ireland once the people of the six counties have asked them to then yes the armed struggle option would have to be reviewed

You appear to be clarifying what you said earlier, or returning again to the clarification you gave Bonkey- is this your definitive position then? Would the IRA ask the people of Ireland if they wanted the bombing and shooting to restart? I think we know what the overwhelming answer would be.
By the way it was always British policy to only have NI in the UK as long as a majority there wanted to be in it, it was even Mrs Thatchers oft stated policy.

I am merely stating a fact the armed struggle has ended because of the current situation ie britain declared that it had no selfish or strategic interest in ireland

Well if you go back and study your own post you will see that all in the one sentence you said: " I don't believe that armed struggle is needed at this time
however if britain reneged on its agreement not to have any selfish interest in Ireland and refused to leave or tried to repartition the country then the need for armed struggle would have to be reviewed"

You said I meaning clearly it's you thats saying your own view, you're not saying the IRA there,you're begining your sentence with the word I so the reader is taking it as your agreed view complete with the implications of an advocacy of violence in the absense of a British withdrawal contained therein.

Now unless you are the IRA, then you should have said the IRA instead of "I" there otherwise what you said means something completely different to what you appear to be clarifying as what you meant to say...

jbkenn

No you have again missed the point if Britain were not to do what it has promised to do ie leave Ireland once the people of the six counties have asked them to then yes the armed struggle option would have to be reviewed

There's a pleasant prospect

I think your problem is that you dont think armed struggle is legitimate under any circumstances

In the current context of E.U. partnership it never will be.
The world today is a very different place to what it was in 1969.

The U.K. government has, as you rightly say, no strategic or selfish interest in Northern Ireland, and, in partnership with the Irish Government has turned somersaults to try and accomodate a settlement between the various "parties" in Northern Ireland, to the point of the recent embarrasment, that was the press conference in Belfast, where both Prime Ministers had to put a brave face on what was, essentially, another ballsup. The political parties of Northern Ireland once again demonstrating their inability (for crass tribal reasons) to grasp the opportunity to bring their followers into the 21st century.

Northern Ireland is a failed political and economic entity, kept afloat on massive subsidies by the long suffering U.K. taxpayer, which despite the best efforts and support of the U.S., E.U. and the world community continues to squander the international goodwill towards it, as each "Historic" opportunity is let slip, the parties in Northern Ireland only confirm to the world at large, that, at this stage, they have still not attained the maturity to reach a civilised settlement.

Confirming that Northern Ireland, is nothing more than what it has always been a "wart on the ar$e of Europe"

jbkenn

Sleepy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If you want to nail someone for advocating violence, look in the Iraq threads

Why? Why go thousands of miles away to see something that's on your own doorstep?

Sleepy

FTA69 - now, after all that ranting, dogma, textual diarrhoea, irrationanlity and frankly búllsh:t from cdebru do you understand why I have a low opinion of Republican's as debaters.

Rarely have I seen someone with such an ability to blatantly ignore facts, the age we live in, points made against them and common sense.

cdebru, a suggestion: if you like guns and lust after blood so much. Take one, shoot yourself and you can martyr yourself "for the cause" because quite frankly, the vast majority of this island don't want you or your like here. The time for death and destruction on this island is over and unless republicans like you can grow up and behave sensibly like adults instead of like squabbling children you honestly would improve your organisations position by killing yourselves.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

Why? Why go thousands of miles away to see something that's on your own doorstep?

the Iraq threads don't live in Iraq.... they are on your doorstep

Sleepy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

the Iraq threads don't live in Iraq.... they are on your doorstep

Well, that makes it completely relevant to a thread discussing Irish terrorists :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

Somebody on here wanted to condemn a poster for advocating violence (when there was no evidence that he was). I pointed out that if the person wanted to nail someone for advocating violence, there were plenty of examples in the Iraq threads.

Self explanatory really :rolleyes:

Sleepy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Somebody on here wanted to condemn a poster for advocating violence (when there was no evidence that he was). I pointed out that if the person wanted to nail someone for advocating violence, there were plenty of examples in the Iraq threads.

Self explanatory really :rolleyes:

But by definition any supporter of Sinn Fein advocates violence. I fail to see why you think Iraq is relevant to this.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Somebody on here wanted to condemn a poster for advocating violence (when there was no evidence that he was).

I see you are ignoring the evidence clearly visible in black and white in front of you...
:rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

But by definition any supporter of Sinn Fein advocates violence. I fail to see why you think Iraq is relevant to this.

that is a ridiculous comment

Just as ridiculous as labelling any supporter of Bush advocates violence.

Are you a pacificist or do you agree with violence when it suits your political outlook?

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

I see you are ignoring the evidence clearly visible in black and white in front of you...
:rolleyes:

No I did not ignore that, I think he explained himself quite well here
:rolleyes:

No he didn't .
He didnt explain why he used the word I meaning himself.

Sleepy

Your question answers itself. Sinn Fein are the political wing of a terrorist organisation. Does the expression "the armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other" remind you of anything?

If you support Sinn Fein by definition you support the IRA. If you support the IRA you support the armed "struggle" i.e. violence.

So unless ridiculous is a euphymism for logic in republican rhetoric (which I don't doubt tbh), you're wrong.

FTA69

Sleepy wrote:

FTA69 - now, after all that ranting, dogma, textual diarrhoea, irrationanlity and frankly búllsh:t from cdebru do you understand why I have a low opinion of Republican's as debaters.

Rarely have I seen someone with such an ability to blatantly ignore facts, the age we live in, points made against them and common sense.

I haven't read his posts properly so I won't comment on them. Am I a "poor debater" in your eyes Sleepy. You may well think I am and that is your right, but remember that just because you decree something does not make it so.
There are inarticulate people with Republican views, just as there are the inarticulate people with views such as the ones you hold.

Besides, on Questions and Answers, Hearts and Minds, Prime Time etc, Republicans are rarely made to look foolish or unable to convey their position. I really don't understand where you are coming from.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

Does the expression "the armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other" remind you of anything?

It most certainly does, I believe the saying has now been replaced with 'The Ballot box in both hands' or have you not noticed the ceasefire over the last decade?

If you support Sinn Fein by definition you support the IRA. If you support the IRA you support the armed "struggle" i.e. violence.

Only according to you.

I would imagine that people support SF for many reasons and not all of them are to do with the 'armed struggle'. It is such a lazy argument you put forward, it is akin to me saying of Catholics, if you support the Catholic Church you must, by definition, support Paedophilia. Or if you support the Irish Government giving landing rights to the US, you must, by definition, support the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people including women and children in Iraq.

So unless ridiculous is a euphymism for logic in republican rhetoric (which I don't doubt tbh), you're wrong.

No, it is still a ridiculous comment

true

Originally Posted by Sleepy
Does the expression "the armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other" remind you of anything?


Yes , it reminds me that "the IRA still has'nt gone away you know". The keep the guns and semtex under the table, in bunkers, everywhere. If they were serious about peace they would decommission some, like the LVF did on TV.

I never voted for Paisley, but he is right on the IRA.

true

Originally Posted by Sleepy
Does the expression "the armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other" remind you of anything?


Yes, it reminds me that "the IRA still has'nt gone away you know". Its bombs and bullets and guns are still under the table. If it wanted peace, it would decommission some weapons like the LVF did on television.

Sleepy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It most certainly does, I believe the saying has now been replaced with 'The Ballot box in both hands' or have you not noticed the ceasefire over the last decade?

But can we take that seriously while the armalite is still slung over the shoulder so to speak?

Only according to you.

I would imagine that people support SF for many reasons and not all of them are to do with the 'armed struggle'. It is such a lazy argument you put forward, it is akin to me saying of Catholics, if you support the Catholic Church you must, by definition, support Paedophilia. Or if you support the Irish Government giving landing rights to the US, you must, by definition, support the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people including women and children in Iraq.

It's nothing like that. Sinn Fein is essentially a one-policy party, that policy being the unification of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Sure they prattle on about unworkable forms of socialism and have noticed a political vulnerability in Labour's traditional strongholds but that doesn't change the fact that the party is the "legitimate" front of the PIRA.

If you've read my posts on the Catholic Church you'd know I'm vehemently against the organisation, however even I can grant that the Paedophilia was conducted by quite a minority. Large numbers of core party members of Sinn Fein have been active in the IRA in the past. The party represent a terrorist organisation. To say you support Sinn Fein but not their violent counterparts is the height of stupidity.

No, it is still a ridiculous comment

If you say so...