A thread for "Republicans" Only

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

isnt it true the violence was introduced by the loyalist factions and the ruc when they attacked the civil rights marchers?

And ....

tomMK1 wrote:

didnt the like of bernadette devlin give out that the cicil rights movement accepted too little too quickly?

And ... do you have a point ...

tomMK1 wrote:

Outline to me please when 'terrorists' took over the nicra?

Outline to me please where I said they "took over the NICRA"?

tomMK1

ah, dont be answering my posts with 'and ..' .. go back and read them again if you dont get what Im saying .. this isnt primary school

"Outline to me please where I said they "took over the NICRA"?"

wasnt youre point that the civil rights marches would have work if this apparent terrorism hadnt happened?

the only word I had in quotes was 'terrorist' btw.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

this isnt primary school

You are right, it isn't so why don't you make points instead of just statements .. next you will be saying "and the red moon rises in the west... so there" :rolleyes:

what has the fact that loyalists attacked civil rights activist got to do with my point that the IRA set back the civil rights movement years?

tomMK1 wrote:

wasnt youre point that the civil rights marches would have work if this apparent terrorism hadnt happened?

Yes it was ... so how you go from that to the IRA "taking over" the NICRA is beyond me ..

tomMK1

well one point i'll make is that you seem to be making arguments out of nothing here. make points instead statements? I have been making points, you've just obviously inadvertently missed them

what has the fact that loyalists attacked civil rights activist got to do with my point that the IRA set back the civil rights movement years?

Yes it was ... so how you go from that to the IRA "taking over" the NICRA is beyond me ..

the theory used to be that the civil rights marches were fine until republican sources used the civil rights front to engage in sectarian war .. or terrorism as you might say. in th equotes above you blame the IRA for setting back the civil rights movement, then you suggest you dont think the IRA used the civil rights marchers.

I am confused....either the IRA did use the civil rights issue or they didnt. at the minute you seem to be saying they did and they didnt. Please clarify that for me, as I have no idea where you are coming from.

The Fish

supersheep wrote:

It's from the just war theory. When violence is futile, it can never be right. When it is not, then it has the potential to be right. Not is right, but has the potential to be right.
By saying it's ok as long as it's successful, you are distorting my words. I never said that. I usually do not agree with violence, but I am willing to

ys

The Fish

tomMK1 wrote:

well one point i'll make is that you seem to be making arguments out of nothing here. make points instead statements? I have beethey did and they didnt. Please clarify that for me, as I have no idea where you are coming from.

ikik

tomMK1

amazing replys them

Flukey

Whether the civil rights marches were hi-jacked or not, the thing is that there should never had been any need for them in the first place. Certain conditions led to them being required and many of those conditions survived through to the beginning of the peace process and some still do today. The way to tackle terrorism is to address the causes, not the perpatrators. The causes always pre-date the violence itself, so that is where you start to address the problem.

Going back further, if those sort of discriminations were not there in the first place, we would not have had the civil rights marches, never mind the violence. In effect the unionist powers created the IRA by the way they ran Northern Ireland prior to the troubles and they can get rid of them by changing their policies and running it on a proper basis. That has happened over the past 10 years or and it is not necessarily true to say it wouldn't have started without the 25 years of troubles. Don't forget that the seeds of the of the peace process began with contacts between nationalists and republicans - through Fr. Alex Reid, John Hume and Gerry Adams - with the unionists only coming on board later.

supersheep

Earthman wrote:

I think I've made my own position clear often enough on this and that is that I doubt the inequalities that were there in the 60's and 70's would have survived E.U membership.

The violence and bombing right through the 80's and early 90's by the IRA was completely senseless and certainly both unwarranted and un popular.

I'm new, so I hope you'll excuse me not having heard that... Yes, that does certainly make sense, it is likely the EU would have done something to prevent those injustices...
However, there was also a "national liberation" element to the movement, which could not have been aided by the EU. Peaceable protest was, and still is, unlikely to bring about a United Ireland - as is violent struggle, admittedly.
And Wicknight, some people may feel that the civil rights were worth a violent campaign...

jhegarty

Flukey wrote:

Whether the civil rights marches were hi-jacked or not, the thing is that there should never had been any need for them in the first place. Certain conditions led to them being required and many of those conditions survived through to the beginning of the peace process and some still do today. The way to tackle terrorism is to address the causes, not the perpatrators. The causes always pre-date the violence itself, so that is where you start to address the problem.

Going back further, if those sort of discriminations were not there in the first place, we would not have had the civil rights marches, never mind the violence. In effect the unionist powers created the IRA by the way they ran Northern Ireland prior to the troubles and they can get rid of them by changing their policies and running it on a proper basis. That has happened over the past 10 years or and it is not necessarily true to say it wouldn't have started without the 25 years of troubles. Don't forget that the seeds of the of the peace process began with contacts between nationalists and republicans - through Fr. Alex Reid, John Hume and Gerry Adams - with the unionists only coming on board later.

that right...

if someone has to get a gun out to get a vote , they will feel that they may as well use that gun the kick out that foreign government that denies them their vote...

Would they have ever had the guns out if it was one man, one vote ?

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

the theory used to be that the civil rights marches were fine until republican sources used the civil rights front to engage in sectarian war

Thats super ... wasn't my theory though .. I think Ian Pasiley came up with that one ... maybe you should stick to actually reading what I actually post :rolleyes:

tomMK1 wrote:

in th equotes above you blame the IRA for setting back the civil rights movement, then you suggest you dont think the IRA used the civil rights marchers.

I clarified for you a number of times that I never claim the NICRA was taken over by the IRA or any terrorist ... I asked you to show where I calmed it was and you couldn't ... again, what part of that do you not get? Are you going to continue to ignore what I have posted?

tomMK1 wrote:

Please clarify that for me, as I have no idea where you are coming from.

I never posted an opinion on whether the IRA did or did not "use" the civil rights movement. What posts are you reading??

Again ....

"Wasnt youre point that the civil rights marches would have work if this apparent terrorism hadnt happened?"
...
Yes it was ... so how you go from that to the IRA "taking over" the NICRA is beyond me ..

I think you (and maybe Rev. Pasiley) are the only ones who seem to have this theory about the NICRA being taken over and run by the IRA.

tomMK1

my apologies then. i accept that you believe the IRA set back the civil rights movement by ..err ... not being involved at all with it?

theres my problem. if you dont think the IRA had anything to do with the civil rights marches (which is what I think too) how did the IRA set back the civil rights marches? You DO think the IRA set back the civil rights marches dont you?

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

how did the IRA set back the civil rights marches?

By trying to blow up most of Northern Ireland and kill the government!!! :rolleyes:

The IRA gave the British government (you know, the ones who actually had to be convinced to help the Catholics .. like you said there was no constitution to protect their rights) a (possibly legitimate) excuse to completely ignore the plight of the N.I Catholics for decades. Not only that, but it caused a hardline position from the British government with regard to dealing with any form of protest even non-violent.

The only way the NICRA or any civil rights group can be successful is through good public relations. If they had managed to convince the British people (not the uninoists but the wider British people) that yes they were actually being abused then by simply the weight of public opinion they could have won rights. It happend in the USA, it happend in India, it even happend in South Africa. Remember this was the late 60s early 70s where civil rights was at the forefront of public debate.

But once the violence started, that was the end of that. The Irish civil rights campaigners were associated with Irish terrorist, not because they were "taken over" but simply because they called for the same thing and were both made up largely of Republicans. No British government, or even worse Unionists, was going to grant or even appear to be sympathetic to the plight of Irish catholics because they would appear to be sympathetic to the cause of Irish terrorism. No British government was going to be seen to bowing to the threats of terrorist, terrorists who wanted to kill them. And sympathey from the British public fell right off when it became clear that the IRA wanted to kill a lot of them. How do you get sympathey for your cause when you are also trying to bomb the people who actually control what happens to you.

When you start down the road of violence and terrorism you polarise both sides of the debate. Instead of moderates you get hardliners like Adams and Pasiley and Thatcher, who are more concerned about saving face and being hard-line than actually advancing the situation. You lose the ability for compramise. The only way things can move forward is through the wearing down of the resolve and will to resist of the British people. When they are so tired of the violence they might give in a bit. But history has taught us that that tactic takes decades, much longer than a non-peaceful

segaBOY

DID ANYONE READ WHAT HE ASKED????????????????????????????? ONLY REPUBLICANS AGREEING TO VIOLENCE!!!

Look Mike, if you are pissed at the Provos attitude join Republican Sinn Féin and support the Continuity IRA

segaBOY

The Provisionals were not terrorists but freedom fighters

http://www.residentgroups.fsnet.co.uk/greenbook.htm

I know this is from a loyalist site but I think everyone should have a read to better understand republican ideoligy

Zombrex

segaBOY wrote:

The Provisionals were not terrorists but freedom fighters

http://www.residentgroups.fsnet.co.uk/greenbook.htm

I know this is from a loyalist site but I think everyone should have a read to better understand republican ideoligy

The two are not mutally exclusive ... how ever you (or themselves) call them (freedom fighters, gurellas etc) the P-IRA are terrorists because they use terrorists tactics. They maybe freedom fighter terrorists but they are still terrorists, not because of what they call themselves but because of what they do and the tactics they use.

xtreem

???
Am i reading this right?
A moderator has posted a thread looking for people who support illegal activities??

Just checked the calendar..not April 1st.

If anyone was to post up similar stuff say
"Thread only for people who suppport racist attacks .."

it would be locked, they would be banned etc. etc.

HAS THERE BEEN A CHANGE TO FORUM RULES/POLICY ??

segaBOY

xtreem wrote:

???
Am i reading this right?
A moderator has posted a thread looking for people who support illegal activities??

Just checked the calendar..not April 1st.

If anyone was to post up similar stuff say
"Thread only for people who suppport racist attacks .."

it would be locked, they would be banned etc. etc.

HAS THERE BEEN A CHANGE TO FORUM RULES/POLICY ??

I do not believe Óglaigh na hÉireann or any organisation styling itself as the "IRA" are in anyway illegal once they accept the same principles outlined here:
http://www.residentgroups.fsnet.co.uk/greenbook.htm

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

By trying to blow up most of Northern Ireland and kill the government!!! :rolleyes:

The IRA gave the British government (you know, the ones who actually had to be convinced to help the Catholics .. like you said there was no constitution to protect their rights) a (possibly legitimate) excuse to completely ignore the plight of the N.I Catholics for decades. Not only that, but it caused a hardline position from the British government with regard to dealing with any form of protest even non-violent.

The only way the NICRA or any civil rights group can be successful is through good public relations. If they had managed to convince the British people (not the uninoists but the wider British people) that yes they were actually being abused then by simply the weight of public opinion they could have won rights. It happend in the USA, it happend in India, it even happend in South Africa. Remember this was the late 60s early 70s where civil rights was at the forefront of public debate.

But once the violence started, that was the end of that. The Irish civil rights campaigners were associated with Irish terrorist, not because they were "taken over" but simply because they called for the same thing and were both made up largely of Republicans. No British government, or even worse Unionists, was going to grant or even appear to be sympathetic to the plight of Irish catholics because they would appear to be sympathetic to the cause of Irish terrorism. No British government was going to be seen to bowing to the threats of terrorist, terrorists who wanted to kill them. And sympathey from the British public fell right off when it became clear that the IRA wanted to kill a lot of them. How do you get sympathey for your cause when you are also trying to bomb the people who actually control what happens to you.

When you start down the road of violence and terrorism you polarise both sides of the debate. Instead of moderates you get hardliners like Adams and Pasiley and Thatcher, who are more concerned about saving face and being hard-line than actually advancing the situation. You lose the ability for compramise. The only way things can move forward is through the wearing down of the resolve and will to resist of the British people. When they are so tired of the violence they might give in a bit. But history has taught us that that tactic takes decades, much longer than a non-peaceful

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/nicra/nicra781.htm - the civil rights movement began in the early 60s - the IRA didnt reappear until 1970. (one of the reasons why) they reappeared was because the civil rights marches were being attacked by loyalists and the security forces in the north. Maybe if that hadnt happened then things would have been different? catholics were meant to sit back and take the abuse I take it? Its unfortunate there was violence but you'd be talking a long long long long time before you convince me that the unionist government of those days would listen to a bunch of taigs talking. they hadnt taken any notice for decades so why would they sunddenly start giving a ****? answer - they wouldnt

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

The two are not mutally exclusive ... how ever you (or themselves) call them (freedom fighters, gurellas etc) the P-IRA are terrorists because they use terrorists tactics. They maybe freedom fighter terrorists but they are still terrorists, not because of what they call themselves but because of what they do and the tactics they use.

by the same rule i class the british army terrorists. and the RUC. And the RIR. And the PSNI. And the SAS. terrorists the lot of them.

jhegarty

tomMK1 wrote:

by the same rule i class the british army terrorists. and the RUC. And the RIR. And the PSNI. And the SAS. terrorists the lot of them.

From The Concise Oxford English Dictionary

terrorism:
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

-=-=-

I would say the british goverment and its agents used violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims during the civil rights era....

segaBOY

"The Irish Republican Army, as the legal representatives of the Irish people, are morally justified in carrying out a campaign of resistance against foreign occupation forces and domestic collaborators. All volunteers are and must feel morally justified in carrying out the dictates of the legal government; they as the Army are the legal and lawful Army of the Irish Republic which has been forced underground by overwhelming forces."

Well I believe if a volunteer trully believes this and acts in a manner which reflects this he IS NOT a member of an illegal organisation

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

by the same rule i class the british army terrorists. and the RUC. And the RIR. And the PSNI. And the SAS. terrorists the lot of them.

Neither the RUC, the PSNI, the British Army or the SAS needed to use terrorist tatics in the North because they have over-whelming military supperiority. They didn't need to force political change through the threat of violence because a) they could simply be violent to anyone that opposed them and b) they were the political system.

You really don't seem to be grasping what "terrorism" is. Not every evil, immoral act is terrorism, as I have said. Not every act of intimidation or every threat is an act of Terrorism.

Terrorism is a specific tactic mostly used by gurella organsations who are heavly out numbered or in a weak position militarialy. They have no hope of overpowering the opposition so instead they attempt to wear down the general popluation until they force political change. The tactic is to instill fear into the minds of the general population through the constant threat of violence and attacks. It isn't the actual attacks themselves, but the lasting effect they have on the population that is at the heart of the terrorist tactic. The attacks themselves are mostly unimportant militarily. But they are designed to cause the most fear.

segaBOY

Ha ha, just had to say this before I went on, http://www.ucc.ie/students/socs/sinnfein/index.html the students at UCC really need to learn how to use fadas (é), we're not french!!!!!!

horseflesh

segaBOY wrote:

"The Irish Republican Army, as the legal representatives of the Irish people, are morally justified in carrying out a campaign of resistance against foreign occupation forces and domestic collaborators. All volunteers are and must feel morally justified in carrying out the dictates of the legal government; they as the Army are the legal and lawful Army of the Irish Republic which has been forced underground by overwhelming forces."

Well I believe if a volunteer trully believes this and acts in a manner which reflects this he IS NOT a member of an illegal organisation

Are you taking the piss???
Hitler/Paul Pot/Saddam/whatever lunatic you want, all BELIEVED what they were doing was right, doesn't make them angels.

segaBOY

horseflesh wrote:

Are you taking the piss???
Hitler/Paul Pot/Saddam/whatever lunatic you want, all BELIEVED what they were doing was right, doesn't make them angels.

I believe this is/(was???) a just war for a just cause so I, and I know a lot of people will disagree, believe if a Volunteer acted as he first promised to act when joining the IRA he is/was not committing a crime, just my opinion

tomMK1

you dont seem to be grasping what the SAS and BA have been up to over the past 30 years ... they fit that oxford dictionary definition of terrorists down to a tee. Dont ask me for links, just check up on collusion, denials that the SAS were ever in the north and the reports of SAS members being arrested in the south. then look up that woman in tyrone about 15 years ago who was shot in her home by an undercover SAS team, or the three fellas outside Omagh in the mid 80s - theres lots of evidence to point to the fact that the british government has resorted to CIA type tactics to gain an upper hand .... which you would call terrorism.

i suppose the reply to that will be that they were operating on the same level as the IRA - which is precisely the point Im trying to make.

Wicknight wrote:

Neither the RUC, the PSNI, the British Army or the SAS needed to use terrorist tatics in the North because they have over-whelming military supperiority. They didn't need to force political change through the threat of violence because a) they could simply be violent to anyone that opposed them and b) they were the political system.

You really don't seem to be grasping what "terrorism" is. Not every evil, immoral act is terrorism, as I have said. Not every act of intimidation or every threat is an act of Terrorism.

Terrorism is a specific tactic mostly used by gurella organsations who are heavly out numbered or in a weak position militarialy. They have no hope of overpowering the opposition so instead they attempt to wear down the general popluation until they force political change. The tactic is to instill fear into the minds of the general population through the constant threat of violence and attacks. It isn't the actual attacks themselves, but the lasting effect they have on the population that is at the heart of the terrorist tactic. The attacks themselves are mostly unimportant militarily. But they are designed to cause the most fear.

tomMK1

horseflesh wrote:

Are you taking the piss???
Hitler/Paul Pot/Saddam/whatever lunatic you want, all BELIEVED what they were doing was right, doesn't make them angels.

you could also add Bush, Blair and many others to that list - doesnt really back up your point though.

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

you could also add Bush, Blair and many others to that list - doesnt really back up your point though.

Yes it does. You could add thousands of names if you really wanted to. 1000 wrongs still doesn't make a right though.

What gives the Provos the right to claim to be "the legal representatives of the Irish people"?
All this "legal and lawful Army" claptrap really pisses me off.

Zombrex

segaBOY wrote:

"The Irish Republican Army, as the legal representatives of the Irish people

Actually they aren't .. just because someone stands up and says "I represent Irish people" doesn't mean they actually do. The modern IRA has never represented Ireland, north or south.

segaBOY wrote:

All volunteers are and must feel morally justified in carrying out the dictates of the legal government;

The legal government of the Republic of Ireland does not recongise the IRA as a legitiamate army, they are illegal criminals.

segaBOY wrote:

Well I believe if a volunteer trully believes this and acts in a manner which reflects this he IS NOT a member of an illegal organisation

Well it doesn't really matter what the IRA man believes, he can believe he is the son of God, doesn't mean he is.