Does SF/IRA actually want a conclusion to the peace process?

Sand

If SF/IRA carried out the bank robbery in the NIB it raises two issues - Can negotiations continue at all with a group that is effectively the Irish mafia - assuming it was a planned operation? Or even worse, if this was an unauthorised job by "retired" IRA men, can the SF/IRA leadership control their street thugs? The second is more likely, because how stupid/arrogant could it be to negotiate towards a peace deal and then plan a bank job that would blow it right open along side that?

There was an interesting piece by Anthony McIntyre, an ex IRA prisoner, in the Irish Times. I cant link it so the below is an imperfect summary of my own interpretation- buy it and read it I guess. It is his opinion that SF/IRA planned the operation, not in contradiction to their negotiations but as part of their overall strategy for the peace process and electoral success in Ireland, north and south of the border.

Effectively even if SF/IRA is proven to have carried out the raid the peace proccess will not be allowed to die. It is too important, far more important than the democratic principles that must be trampled on to lever SF/IRA into power on the streets AND in government. It is being talked about as a setback, a crisis but never a deathknell for the process.

And for as long as the peace proccess is dragged out SF/IRAs profile is raised far beyond that of any other party. They are one of the chief participants in negotiations between the British and Irish governments with regular trips to meet Tony Blair. Theyve wrangled trips to the white house and international attention out of this process. Adams has forged a public stature as a statesman from this wining and dining with the big boys on a world stage. And Sf has reaped the electoral dividends north and south.

Why in gods name would SF/IRA want to turn off their amazing PR tap until theyve wrung every last drop of political advanatage from it? Far from being disconcerted by the fall of the more moderate Trimble to the hardliner Paisley, it has made their strategy easier to accomplish - a willing partner in the tactic of inducing crises, delaying the process and putting off any binding final agreements. A final agreement would do away with the IRA and lets face it, a lot of SF/IRAs political power comes from the fact that if they dont get what they want theyll "go back to what they know best" as one Shinner put it.

As part of this strategy the IRA must not cease activity - it must keep up a level of activity to disturb the peace, upset the unionists and actually maintain a need for a peace process at all. The bank robbery hasnt killed the peace proccess, its kept it alive and on everyones mind. Its reinforced the need to tame the IRA and to do that we must deal with SF.

McIntyre predicts the peace proccess will not be concluded for years, until it is calculated that no further gain can be made from delaying the deal, as far as 2010, just in time for a potential Adams presidential run in 2011 when he can be Adams the Peacemaker, the new Nelson Mandela - what other candidate would stand a chance?

Ive got to say its an extremely cynical viewpoint - I just settled for SF/IRA believing correctly that they can do whatever the hell they like regardless of other considerations. Still, its very true that SF/IRA have benefitted enormously from the process rather than the prospect of a conclusion. Why would they want to endanger that? And IRA activity helps them reinforce the "or else!" aspect of their negotiating tactics.

A Dub in Glasgo

Is this the article?

FTA69

McIntyre's ramblings often border on fantasy and outright character assasination in his pursuit to discredit the Republican Movement in pursuit of his own personal vendetta. I recognise and acknowledge the part he played in the struggle, as well as his stretch in Long Kesh but his behaviour nowadays is shocking.

If the IRA were proven to have carried out this robbery I myself would recognise it was a blow to the process and I would not blame anyone for never trusting Republicans again. However, to cite it as a reason to exclude Sinn Féin permanently from any future progress is short-sighted and unrealistic. The British have flopped on many issues such as the continued prescence of British troops in this country, when an MI5/6 bug was found in the Sinn Féin offices Republicans did not walk away from this process. Regardless of my affiliation I think I'm correct in saying that too much has been invested in this process to see it wrecked over such an issue.

Capt'n Midnight

the way I see it is that SF put their head on the block with the denials and complaining about victimisation.

If they didn't know what happened they should have followed the "whatever you say, say nothing" advice. If they knew something then they lied.

So it's either incompetance or either type of ignorance, none of which bode well for trust later on.

For me it was the use of proxy bombings that put the IRA beyond the pale forever, nothing I've heard since has tempered that as too many times they have thrown away public sympathy and goodwill for the sake of a quick hit or a financial score.

Danegold ?

Slutmonkey57b

Danegeld indeed.

By "struggle" do you mean the struggle to relieve an 8 year old boy of his life outside a shopping centre in warrington? What an admirable struggle that must have been. It wasn't a "struggle" it was one of the worst terrorist campaigns in history, call it what it was.

If an ex-"Volunteer" is saying something that is "shocking" that doesn't mean it isn't accurate, now does it? And surely such an admirable gentleman has more right to speak ill of his masters than anyone else, given that he has more information on what the "Volunteers" are told to do and why? Ramblings bordering on fantasy and outright character assassination are pretty much standard fare on both sides of the fence up north from what I can tell.

What would be interesting is if rumours of a joint operation between former paramilitaries turn out to be true - a truthful approximation of what the situation is up north if ever there was one. Groups of scum banding together to attempt to make life unlivable for no particular reason other than that they can.

A Dub in Glasgo

If you click the article link, you will see the McIntyre is a spokesperson for the dissident republicans. You know, those republicans who want to end the GFA agreement and the ceasefire. They want to go back to the conflict in order to finish the job. It is obvious he is going to stick the knife into the provisional movement as they are his main opponents.

FTA69

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Danegeld indeed.

By "struggle" do you mean the struggle to relieve an 8 year old boy of his life outside a shopping centre in warrington? What an admirable struggle that must have been. It wasn't a "struggle" it was one of the worst terrorist campaigns in history, call it what it was.

I mean the struggle which was fought to remove a colonial and occupying power from this country, I see you cite Warrington as a reason why the Republican struggle was illigitimate. Could one cite the death of a German civilian in an effort to portray the fight against Hitler as immoral? Could one cite the death of a child in Barcelona as a reason to why the fight against Franco was wrong? People can point out microcosms of the war until the cows come home but it doesn't change the cold hard fact that civilians will inevitably die in wars. That however, does not undermine the righteousness of said war.

And surely such an admirable gentleman has more right to speak ill of his masters than anyone else, given that he has more information on what the "Volunteers" are told to do and why?

Admirable gentleman? If that wasn't sarcasm I would like to point out that by no means has McIntyre come around to your way of thinking at all. He is still a Republican and also opposed to he GFA, he also happens to be opposed to all things Sinn Féin as well which is my problem with him.

FTA69

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If you click the article link, you will see the McIntyre is a spokesperson for the dissident republicans. You know, those republicans who want to end the GFA agreement and the ceasefire. They want to go back to the conflict in order to finish the job. It is obvious he is going to stick the knife into the provisional movement as they are his main opponents.

As much as I disagree with the man what you just wrote above is complete ráiméis Dub. McIntyre is opposed to armed struggle at this time and has described the CIRA and RIRA as "akin to the Japanese soldiers still fighting in the Phillipenes into the 70s". He is a non-aligned Republican but you are correct in saying he loves to knife the provos.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote:

Could one cite the death of a German civilian in an effort to portray the fight against Hitler as immoral?

It's time to invoke Godwins Law here...

FTA69

Here's a law I like to call FTA69's law; "people frequently throw up diversions rather than address the issue at hand".

A Dub in Glasgo

FTA69 wrote:

As much as I disagree with the man what you just wrote above is complete ráiméis Dub. McIntyre is opposed to armed struggle at this time and has described the CIRA and RIRA as "akin to the Japanese soldiers still fighting in the Phillipenes into the 70s". He is a non-aligned Republican but you are correct in saying he loves to knife the provos.

Point taken

Sand

Is this the article?

No, it was in the Irish Times. It was subscribed content, and Im old skool when it comes to my newspapers unfortunately.

However, to cite it as a reason to exclude Sinn Féin permanently from any future progress is short-sighted and unrealistic. The British have flopped on many issues such as the continued prescence of British troops in this country, when an MI5/6 bug was found in the Sinn Féin offices Republicans did not walk away from this process. Regardless of my affiliation I think I'm correct in saying that too much has been invested in this process to see it wrecked over such an issue.

Would you agree then that your view that the peace proccess cannot be abandoned is a view common to most if not all participants ( even Big Ian wants his Stormont out of it ) and that SF/IRA can rely on that to offset the negative fallout from continued IRA activity - that they need to reinforce the requirement for a peace process that has been very good for SF/IRA?

If your view is a common one - and it is if were honest - then continued IRA activity, even as far as this bank raid, is not incompatible with a peace proccess strategy for SF/IRA, if theyre cynical enough.

the way I see it is that SF put their head on the block with the denials and complaining about victimisation.

Theyve suffered little or no negative fallout from lying about the Adare crowd ( They lied about it being an IRA job at some stage - either before or after ) and lying about the Colombia Three, or lying about their connection to the IRA whilst selling IRA branded merchandise in their shop. Each time theyve complained about victimisation by the media, securocrats and electioneering gimmicks. The public have bought it each time so far. If anything these crises help them, because they reinforce their image as the "anti-establishment" party, the marginalised party thats ready to fight for the little man, marginalised by the establishment. There nearly could be the temptation to induce crises to reap their benefits, seeing as the consequences are so slight.

I see you cite Warrington as a reason why the Republican struggle was illigitimate.

No, Warrington would be a *symptom* of why the Republican struggle was pursued by illegitimate means. Another symptom might be this. As an aside, the similarities between that "operation" and the NIB operation are striking.

Alex27

I have few questions here.

1.What is the purpose of IRA in our days?

2.Should IRA be a part of the peace negotiations?

FTA69

Sand wrote:

Would you agree then that your view that the peace proccess cannot be abandoned is a view common to most if not all participants ( even Big Ian wants his Stormont out of it ) and that SF/IRA can rely on that to offset the negative fallout from continued IRA activity - that they need to reinforce the requirement for a peace process that has been very good for SF/IRA?

Not necessarily Sand, you are in effect insinuating that the IRA is the sole reason for the various logjams in the peace process which is a fallacy to be honest. British remilitarisation, Loyalist death-squad pograms and Unionist rejectionism have as much a role in distrust and obstruction as the IRA do. The Republican Movement has suffered from this robbery, whether they did it or not and that is a fact.

If your view is a common one - and it is if were honest - then continued IRA activity, even as far as this bank raid, is not incompatible with a peace proccess strategy for SF/IRA, if theyre cynical enough.

Is British Army and RUC/PSNI persecution "incompatible" with a peace process? The IRA is explicit in its declaration of independence and existence ands remains an organisation as long as the reasons for its existence are present in Irish society. To reiterate myself, this process is not about the surrender or aquiescence of the IRA, they are equal partners in this and whether Fianna Fáil or the brits are in agreement to that is irrelavent, that's just how it is.

Theyve suffered little or no negative fallout from lying about the Adare crowd ( They lied about it being an IRA job at some stage - either before or after ) and lying about the Colombia Three, or lying about their connection to the IRA whilst selling IRA branded merchandise in their shop. Each time theyve complained about victimisation by the media, securocrats and electioneering gimmicks. The public have bought it each time so far. If anything these crises help them, because they reinforce their image as the "anti-establishment" party, the marginalised party thats ready to fight for the little man, marginalised by the establishment. There nearly could be the temptation to induce crises to reap their benefits, seeing as the consequences are so slight.

That's your analysis Sand, and that's your perogative but the Irish people and our electorate are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. Obviously they are happy enough with Sinn Féin's performance.

No, Warrington would be a *symptom* of why the Republican struggle was pursued by illegitimate means.

Similar incidents occured during every other war ever fought, it doesn't make the overall cause illigitamate though. This point is relevant regardless of people's opinions of the reasons for conflict.

Slutmonkey57b

What I was referring to with Warrington is that the correct name for the campaign is "Terrorism".

"Struggle" is what happens when two old grannies grab the last tin of baked beans on sale.

The legitimacy of the terrorist campaign is covered in other threads, we don't need to drag it in here. The reason I brought you up on the word is that I don't allow people to sanitise the actions of the IRA by choosing comforting language to cover it up. It wasn't a "struggle".

Here's a law I like to call FTA69's law; "people frequently throw up diversions rather than address the issue at hand".

Like rabbiting on about Hitler?

Even if McIntyre is trying to "stick the knife in" to the republicans, that still doesn't make his assessment inaccurate.

Sand is quite right here - and he is not trying to insinuate that SF and the IRA are the only logjams. But it is correct to say that both sides of the fence are currently holding the process to ransom to get away with whatever they want. Either we (by "we" I mean the citizens of the 'free state' and britain, and law-abiding people in general who have no interest in murder and drug running) let them do what they want, or they (The murderous assholes on both sides of the fence) will go back to killing us and terrorising us again.

Cork

What is the purpose of IRA in our days?

They have no purpose. But are reluctant to give up their criminality.

I think IRA weapons need decommissioning before SF can re-ener talks. I think the IRA also needs to rule out criminality.

SF will of course act the victim but these weapons should have been handed up at the time of IRA prisoner release.

mike65

To addres Sands initial question. I think for enough in the Provsional movement the process is what matters - not a conclusion. For years what the Provos have wanted they have got while the basic tenants of democracy, North and South have been weakened in an effort to keep the process going.

Its resonable to belive that the IRA is becoming a full-time "criminal" (as opposed to terrorist) organsisation.

While its taken an age the penny has finally dropped and it seems Gerry Adams can't get in touch with his mate Bertie at the drop of a hat any longer. This is a good thing for all of us.

Mike.

Sand

Not necessarily Sand, you are in effect insinuating that the IRA is the sole reason for the various logjams in the peace process which is a fallacy to be honest.

No, not the sole reason, there has been a reaction to Republican foot dragging in the Unionist camp where Big Ian is now the face of unionism instead of the more moderate Trimble. Big Ian has also gains more from the process rather the election - his support is based more on Unionists feeling that Trimble was weak and they need a hard bastard to stop SF/IRAs pattern of take, take, take and no give (you might disagree with the unionist perspective on how the peace process has gone, but then youre not unionist).

Ian is in the same boat as SF/IRA - hes gone from being a mocked, marginal figure to being wined and dined by all and sundry. I doubt hes any more willing to see an end to the process until hes utterly cemented DUP dominance over the UUP. The speech about humiliating the IRA was too cutting to be anything other than deliberate. SF/IRA took their cue from Ian and started whinging about the politics of humiliation - a wonderfully stage managed cross-community iniative to create a crises that benefits both players. Hence my referring to SF/IRA being delighted with the arrival of Ian on the scene as a willing participant in this supposed strategy for the peace process.

To reiterate myself, this process is not about the surrender or aquiescence of the IRA, they are equal partners in this and whether Fianna Fáil or the brits are in agreement to that is irrelavent, that's just how it is.

Certainly, if McIntyre is to be believed, the IRAs activity - not inactivity - indeed plays a major role in the SF/IRA strategy for the peace process. Its unfortunate that all the other participants are under the mistaken assumption that the peace process is about ending the IRA and loyalist terrorism - permently with no reservations.

Its resonable to belive that the IRA is becoming a full-time "criminal" (as opposed to terrorist) organsisation.

Yep, we are effectively talking about a group of people who are in the main poorly educated, extremely well armed, very comftable with committing extremely violent and vicious crimes, a high technical and planning capability, with a strong hold over the areas they operate in. Theyve financed themselves through smuggling and bank jobs for decades, and for as long the the "war" isnt declared over they can still rationalise the need to continue those lucrative activities - just in case, like. They also enjoy a certain immunity from police investigation due to their political links and the overwhelming fear of renewed terrorism. Effectively what happens to the IRA in peace is not going to have a good outcome - If they disband were talking a dozen different criminal gangs, if they stay together but "demobilise" then were talking a mafiaesque organisation. Either way, the future for Northern Ireland and the Republic is going to be very dark.

While its taken an age the penny has finally dropped and it seems Gerry Adams can't get in touch with his mate Bertie at the drop of a hat any longer. This is a good thing for all of us.

To be honest Im very pessimistic. While it would be nice to think that a new, tough line would be taken with SF/IRA ( Ask Bush and Co to do us a favour and freeze Irish Republican fundraising and lobbying in the U.S. for one thing ) its hard to see Bertie having the balls to stand up to Adams and co. Like a perpetually battered housewife he'll back holding hands with Adams all too soon. Adams and McGuinness know this too, so its fits with this supposed strategy they might have. Theres the perpetually proposed powersharing agreement without SF/IRA - realistically that cant work long term, but if Ahern and Blair were to signal they were going to look into the workability of that idea, it might scare SF/IRA into rethinking their way of dealing with the process.

What is for sure is while they might believe its not possible to have an agreement without them, we need to remember they cant go back to the good old days of terrorism - all those GFA prisoners would be banged right up again, splitting their movement - and lets not forget, the Republican communities are just as war weary as anyone else, more so since theyre on the "front line" - and all their electoral gains north and south of the border would be lost. Theres a level of bluff involved, but we have some leverage too and we shouldnt be afraid to use it.

Villain

Thread title "Does SF/IRA actually want a conclusion to the peace process? "

I can safely assure you SF do, the IRA on the other hand have a lot of divide and it will take a lot more work by SF to have them finally dispand.

Thats all I'm going to say on this thread, because quite frankly I'm fed up discussing the same things over and over.

FTA69

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

"Struggle" is what happens when two old grannies grab the last tin of baked beans on sale.

Struggle; the dictionary defines it as "make forceful or violent efforts to get free of restraint or constriction". The IRA campaign could accurately be described as fitting that definition.

Like rabbiting on about Hitler?

I made a simple analogy, the reaosn the Nazis are often the subject of these is because nearly all are in agreement regarding their absolute evil and as such this common ground enables one to make a point more easily, it is nothing to give out about.

Even if McIntyre is trying to "stick the knife in" to the republicans, that still doesn't make his assessment inaccurate.

No it doesn't, but neither is it an impartial or evidencial source. It is simply the opinion of a man who dislikes the Republican Movement very much.

Sand is quite right here - and he is not trying to insinuate that SF and the IRA are the only logjams. But it is correct to say that both sides of the fence are currently holding the process to ransom to get away with whatever they want. Either we (by "we" I mean the citizens of the 'free state' and britain, and law-abiding people in general who have no interest in murder and drug running) let them do what they want, or they (The murderous assholes on both sides of the fence) will go back to killing us and terrorising us again.

I don't think Sinn Féin's commitment to this process can be questioned to be honest, Sinn Féin's main short time goal is to secure the full implementation of the GFA, something which the Irish people voted on. I fail to see how that is holding people hostage.

FTA69

Sand wrote:

No, not the sole reason, there has been a reaction to Republican foot dragging in the Unionist camp where Big Ian is now the face of unionism instead of the more moderate Trimble. Big Ian has also gains more from the process rather the election - his support is based more on Unionists feeling that Trimble was weak and they need a hard bastard to stop SF/IRAs pattern of take, take, take and no give (you might disagree with the unionist perspective on how the peace process has gone, but then youre not unionist).

One doesn't have to be a Unionist to analyse their contibution or opinion of the peace process. The fact remains that the broad Unionist consensus is still inextricably linked to the old mantra of "a Protestant state for a Protestant people". They raise the bar on every demand they make, first it was decommisioning. We went from simply putting arms beyond use to having witnesses present. When that was allowed Paisley turned around and then announced he wanted photos. Trimble once cited Sinn Féin's liks with Batasuna in the Basque Country as a breach of the Cessation. It is never ending.

Ian is in the same boat as SF/IRA - hes gone from being a mocked, marginal figure to being wined and dined by all and sundry. I doubt hes any more willing to see an end to the process until hes utterly cemented DUP dominance over the UUP. The speech about humiliating the IRA was too cutting to be anything other than deliberate. SF/IRA took their cue from Ian and started whinging about the politics of humiliation - a wonderfully stage managed cross-community iniative to create a crises that benefits both players. Hence my referring to SF/IRA being delighted with the arrival of Ian on the scene as a willing participant in this supposed strategy for the peace process.

But how does this impasse benefit us Sand? While a logjam and vacuum remains in the politics of the Six Counties we are suffering. Our support leaches away and we look like we cannot provide for the Nationalist people. Sinn Féin's goal is the implementation of the GFA and the establishment of the Assembly, while that is not happening Sinn Féin are serving no purpose to their support base and that is a dangerous situtation for them.

Its unfortunate that all the other participants are under the mistaken assumption that the peace process is about ending the IRA and loyalist terrorism - permently with no reservations.

An absence of the IRA is not going to lead to automatic peace, that will only come about when the causes for conflict have been addressed ie an occupational military force and a bigoted partisan police force. The whole political scenario in the north must be overhauled and changed, I am of the opinion that the Irish people are not foolish enough to believe that this conflict was as a result of the IRA and Loyalist death-squads only.

Yep, we are effectively talking about a group of people who are in the main poorly educated,

What's your point? A person does not need 7 honours in his/her leaving or a Masters degree from University to be of any value Sand.

billy the squid

What's your point? A person does not need 7 honours in his/her leaving or a Masters degree from University to be of any value Sand.

1) Easier to indoctrinate

2) given that their income might be lower or even non existant, incentivising them would be cheaper.

3) the far fetched promise of a better life where someone more educated would be more skeptical.

4) the feeling of importance that comes with being a member of a group.

FTA69

billy the squid wrote:

1) Easier to indoctrinate

A person's subseptibility to indoctrination has little relevance to one's education. Look at those eejits in university who are members of the Socialist Worker's Party, they are real examples of indoctrination.

2) given that their income might be lower or even non existant, incentivising them would be cheaper.

A Volunteer's incentive comes from the situation surrounding them, as does everyone elses for that matter. This is not unique to Republicans or uneducated.

3) the far fetched promise of a better life where someone more educated would be more skeptical.

Oh yes, people with no education are all naieve fools... :rolleyes:

4) the feeling of importance that comes with being a member of a group

Education does not eliminate this, this a psych found in many people regardless of their social or educational standing.

Your condescending, patronising vitriol above has little bearing on what working class people with little formal education are like billy.

mycroft

FTA69 wrote:

A person's subseptibility to indoctrination has little relevance to one's education. Look at those eejits in university who are members of the Socialist Worker's Party, they are real examples of indoctrination.

The average life expectancy of a socialist workers party member is slighty longer than a house fly, most get fed up early on with the dogma and the paper selling.

Now kids raised from an early age on "the ballad of bobby sands" and "a nation once again" thats indoctrination. And FTA69 I was born in the north in the seventies my parents left when they saw kids young as five singing republican ballads, and were terrified what infulences would guide me. You can't buy the level of indoctrination of a child surrounded with republican ballads and imageary from a young age.

A Volunteer's incentive comes from the situation surrounding them, as does everyone elses for that matter. This is not unique to Republicans or uneducated.

Uh huh. And your hyprocracy is staggering condemning the behaviour of US troops. While the lads in the north are just the incarnation of the bloody Fianna. The princpile is the same the dehumanisation of your opposition.

Your condescending, patronising vitriol above has little bearing on what working class people with little formal education are like billy.

Uh huh care to read "killing rage?"

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

A person's subseptibility to indoctrination has little relevance to one's education. Look at those eejits in university who are members of the Socialist Worker's Party, they are real examples of indoctrination.

A child gets most of its beliefs from its parent or guardians. that is why we have unionists who still want to be a part of the United Kingdom why because their parents and grandparents wanted to remain part of the united kingdom. In the same way, nationalists of today get their beliefs from their parents and their grandparents. children are not born with an education they learn from their parents. they learn what is right and wrong and what is good and evil. Josef Goebels said once "If you tell someone a lie enough times they will start to believe it"

Now if a child who has not yet gone to even primary school or even learned a balanced history, is hearing nothing but "the brittish are worth killing" from his parents and their friends, then he/she is going to believe that it is the right thing to believe.

A Volunteer's incentive comes from the situation surrounding them, as does everyone elses for that matter. This is not unique to Republicans or uneducated.

The price of 20 smokes is a lot of money when you havent got it don't you think.

Oh yes, people with no education are all naieve fools... :rolleyes:

nope, they just don't know any better.

Education does not eliminate this, this a psych found in many people regardless of their social or educational standing.

I doubt very much that there are very many well heeled members of the republican movement. the IRA does not have the intelectuals and the thinkers the republican movement once had.

Your condescending, patronising vitriol above has little bearing on what working class people with little formal education are like billy.

I beg to differ, I was raised on a city council estate in Limerick, where there is more RSF RIRA PIRA and Brits out graffiti than you would find in a non council estate. what does that tell you

Why do you think that sinn fein calls itself a socialist party. it wants to apeal to those that have little or no income.

FTA69

It is true that people are often conditioned by their parents' views mycroft, but while this is true for Republicans it is the same for anything else as well. For instance a soccer-obsessed father will often result in a soccer-obsessed child etc. That is inevitable. But Republicanism is not a hand-me-down ideology either, take me for example, I am from a largely indifferent family but yet am a Republican with a well developed and informed view. People become Republicans when they see British troops on their streets, when they see their peers dying from plastic bullets or Loyalist death squads, it is experience as well as conditioning.

I condemn US troops for their actions and the purpose behind them, I do not begrudge the men and women (in the main) themselves.

I also read Killing Rage myself, I wasn't impressed to be honest. I never did have a liking for informers.

A Dub in Glasgo

billy the squid wrote:

1) Easier to indoctrinate

I suppose you reckon that the views of all the people lower than you do not matter as they are more likely to have been indoctrinated? I know plenty of highly educated people who have been 'indoctrinated' into groups of various persuasions

3) the far fetched promise of a better life where someone more educated would be more skeptical.

Better let all those highly educated guys know that they should stop believing in that big area in the sky that we are promsed is better

4) the feeling of importance that comes with being a member of a group.

Note that this can equally apply to any group including political party and internet discussion board.

FTA69

billy the squid wrote:

A child gets most of its beliefs from its parent or guardians. that is why we have unionists who still want to be a part of the United Kingdom why because their parents and grandparents wanted to remain part of the united kingdom. In the same way, nationalists of today get their beliefs from their parents and their grandparents. children are not born with an education they learn from their parents. they learn what is right and wrong and what is good and evil.

True enough, but as I said above they are also influenced by personal experiences.

Now if a child who has not yet gone to even primary school or even learned a balanced history, is hearing nothing but "the brittish are worth killing" from his parents and their friends, then he/she is going to believe that it is the right thing to believe.

But we are not discussing young kids, we are talking about adults. People who have had experience of the conflict themselves or the social conditions it creates.

The price of 20 smokes is a lot of money when you havent got it don't you think.

I don't know what you are getting at here.

nope, they just don't know any better.

More patronisation, people with little education are well able to make accurate judgements of situations, what people learn in school/college often ahs little bearance on everyday life anyway.

I doubt very much that there are very many well heeled members of the republican movement. the IRA does not have the intelectuals and the thinkers the republican movement once had.

I would say that the likes of Martin McGuinness, Danny Morrisson, Gerry Adams and Mitchel McLaughlin are intellectuals and thinkers billy. The Republican Movement is run by intelligent people, make no mistake.

I beg to differ, I was raised on a city council estate in Limerick, where there is more RSF RIRA PIRA and Brits out graffiti than you would find in a non council estate. what does that tell you

I don't know billy, what does it tell me?

Why do you think that sinn fein calls itself a socialist party.

Because it is one.

it wants to apeal to those that have little or no income.

True, we are a working class party consisting of working class activists. Our goals are explicit and we are not ashamed of them.

billy the squid

True enough, but as I said above they are also influenced by personal experiences.

RUC man tells you to move along, IRA recruiter offers you the opportunity to make a few quid, which would you choose if you had nothing.

as for personal experience, peer pressure can be a strong thing. I'll join cos all my friends are joining.

But we are not discussing young kids, we are talking about adults. People who have had experience of the conflict themselves or the social conditions it creates.

my point was that it would cost more for sinn fein to impress an adult with a large income who is comfortable than it would for them to turn the heads of some poor individuals who have no prospect of success because of their lack of qualifications.

Sand

The fact remains that the broad Unionist consensus is still inextricably linked to the old mantra of "a Protestant state for a Protestant people".

Maybe, given theyre British citizens they want the same standards in government that exist across the UK? They reasonably expect that participants in the political proccess that governs them should not retain the right to go back to violence, and maintain an armed and active terrorist group whilst doing so.

Thats reasonable. I know from SF/IRAs point of view its highly unreasonable, but a Unionist might well ask why exchange liberal democratic governance from Westminster for having an IRA Army Council member double jobbing between the Education portfolio and approving punishment beatings, recruitment, training, and arms procurements? SF/IRA refuse to even say that the war is over and done with for good, instead muttering vaguely about causes for conflict which sounds like an open ended wish-list to me. Their fears are reasonable, even if you wish to paint them as some evil desire to oppress Catholics.

But how does this impasse benefit us Sand?

Political exsposure, get to play the victim, reassure political base that everyones against them and they need a hard nosed SF/IRA to protect them, etc, etc. What would happen if SF/IRA actually completed the deal and the IRA simply ceased to be? Theyd get far fewer invites to meet heads of state and dictate terms to Governments for one thing.

What's your point? A person does not need 7 honours in his/her leaving or a Masters degree from University to be of any value Sand.

The poor education description was only one of many adjectives that can be applied to the typical Ra head, and is surely not worth the isolation and analysis it has received. All it means is that a poorly educated person has far less opportunities to earn serious money legally, so the temptation to turn to crime is greater.

mycroft

FTA69 wrote:

It is true that people are often conditioned by their parents' views mycroft, but while this is true for Republicans it is the same for anything else as well. For instance a soccer-obsessed father will often result in a soccer-obsessed child etc. That is inevitable. But Republicanism is not a hand-me-down ideology either, take me for example, I am from a largely indifferent family but yet am a Republican with a well developed and informed view. People become Republicans when they see British troops on their streets, when they see their peers dying from plastic bullets or Loyalist death squads, it is experience as well as conditioning.

Brillant. Sheer brillance you accuse the SWP of indoctrination and when I point out that repbulican doctrination from an early age you get all "nuture rather than nature" on us.

Why is that your cake? And you're going to have and eat it you say, remarkable,

I condemn US troops for their actions and the purpose behind them, I do not begrudge the men and women (in the main) themselves.

Well thats fierce decent of you, and the people killed by US troops must feel the same.

I also read Killing Rage myself, I wasn't impressed to be honest. I never did have a liking for informers.

And this is were my contempt of you, wanders into naked contempt. The author was a man who made the decision to join your glorious struggle, witnessed the blood and brutality and the contempt for life by IRA men, and walked away. He was murdered for his convictions. And you never have a likely for his ilk. Well from your position as a teenage armchair republican I can see how little your opinion of that man is worth.