A thread for "Republicans" Only

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

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.

No I wouldn't ... for a start most of the illegal actions done by the British military in N.I was all done in secret and behind the scenes, which by the very nature means it isn't terrorism because for terrorism to work as a tactic you have to make sure you have as wide an audience as possible.

Again you seem to be confusing all illegal/immoral military actions such as assinations with terrorism.

For a terrorist act to be a terrorist act, by definition, it must be committed in the open or at least in the full knowledge of those it is supposed to influence. For example when the IRA killed an informant and then denied they did, that was not a terrorist act because it did not serve the purpose of intimating the wider population for political gain through terror. It was an assination, its purpose was to stop the informant from speaking, and indirectly act as a warning to others. But the vast vast majority of people in Britian were not informing for the BA, nor would they ever, so killing an informer then saying they didn't had no intimating effect on the wider population at large.

That is not to say that it wasn't immoral/illegal and just plain wrong, but it was not a terrorist action. Blowing up the business district of London, now that is a terrorist action.

If you show me an incident in Iraq or N.I where the British government carried out an act of random violence (i.e. it didn't serve a purpose except to kill and terrorise) in an effort to terrorise the population at large, for political gain/change through the threat of further random violence I will say it was a terrorist action.

tomMK1

thats a tad pedantic. so its terrorism if the IRA do it, and a legal military organisation if the brits do it ..very good.

This is what it boils down to ..no real argument, just a 'Im right you';re wrong' scenario. thats no good.

Again you seem to be confusing all illegal/immoral military actions such as assinations with terrorism

I mean my god - assassinations dont terrorise?

call a spade a spade and be done with it as Im now aware you seem to believe the BA have a right to do covert illegal things but the IRA cant. It seems ones a terrorist and the other is outside the law, no matter how illogical that is. No amount of waffle gets past that realisation.

horseflesh wrote:

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

you're absolutely right there

horseflesh

Wicknight wrote:

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.


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



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.

Well said.......

tomMK1

the IRA didnt recognise the irish government, so where does that leave us?

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

If you show me an incident in Iraq or N.I where the British government carried out an act of random violence (i.e. it didn't serve a purpose except to kill and terrorise) in an effort to terrorise the population at large, for political gain/change through the threat of further random violence I will say it was a terrorist action.

and then you will admit that the british army, the SAS and other such armies around the world are terrorists too?

here you go then:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Iraq/Jail-for-British-soldier-over-torture-photos/2005/01/12/1105423555356.html?oneclick=true

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

the IRA DIDN'T recognise the irish government, so where does that leave us?

Seems they do now, so where does THAT leave us???

tomMK1

they dont exist anymore so where does THAT leave us

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

they dont exist anymore so where does THAT leave us

I doubt even you believe that.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

thats a tad pedantic. so its terrorism if the IRA do it, and a legal military organisation if the brits do it ..very good.

Firstly please point out where I said it was assination by British special forces was a "legal military action" ... secondly, its terrorism if it is a terrorist action, it doesn't matter who does it ...

tomMK1 wrote:

This is what it boils down to ..no real argument, just a 'Im right you';re wrong' scenario. thats no good.

What it boils down to is you just seem to want to classify everything bad as being a "terrorist action" ... you seem to think "terrorism" just means "bad things" ... which is just silly ... its like calling a Russian mob leadership assination a "racist attack", just because a racist attack is also a bad thing. As I have (over and over) said, not every evil act is a terrorist action.

tomMK1 wrote:

I mean my god - assassinations dont terrorise?

Terrorise who? To what purpose? Seriously, you really aren't grasping this.

For example, the JFK assination was not a terrorist action, because while it horrified and scared the American people, Oswald had no political motivation for terrorising the American people, he didn't want to get anything out of terrorising the American people. HIs tactics and motivation were not terrorist in nature. He had no further goal after the assination, his goal was to kill Kennedy, not for the killing to achieve anything afterward through terrorism.

But stating that it was not a terrorist action does not mean it was a moral/justifiable/ok thing to do.

tomMK1 wrote:

Im now aware you seem to believe the BA have a right to do covert illegal things but the IRA cant.

Are you on drugs??? Please, please for my own curiosity point out where I said that?? Because I would just love to know what you hear in your head when you read my posts

tomMK1 wrote:

It seems ones a terrorist and the other is outside the law, no matter how illogical that is. No amount of waffle gets past that realisation.

No amount of waffle gets past the realistion that you have no idea what the term "terrorist" means. YOu seem to think that everything bad is "terrorist" and everything good is not "terrorist" ... ie if one says that a British Army assintation was not a terrorist action one must be saying it is in fact a justifiable, legal and moral action.

Again, using the "racist attack" point I made earlier .. if a white Irish drug dealer shoots a white Irish police officer, I can straight out say "That was not a racist attack" That doesn't mean it was not a bad thing!!!!! It just wasn't a racist attack!!! You on the other hand would be jumping down my throat saying "How can you not say that wasn't a racist attack, oh so it is ok for him to kill a police office is it, is that what you are saying" .. and I would say "You don't know what a racist attack is" ... just like I am saying over and over now, you don't know what a terrorist action is.

Terrorism is a specific form of military/political actions. That doesn't mean that every other military/political action that isn't terrorism is ok/justifable/legal or moral!!! FFS :mad: , get off your high horse and actually bother to listen to what I am saying instead of applying your (rather illogical) view point (which seems to be - everyone who doesn't support the IRA must support the British Army) to everything I post

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

the IRA didnt recognise the irish government, so where does that leave us?

I think you will find the Irish government doesn't need the approveal of the IRA to be the legitiamate government of the Irish Republic :rolleyes:

The IRA does though need the approveal of the Irish government (who represent the Irish people .. you know, the actual Irish people, not the handful of Irish in the GPO in 1916) to be a legitamate army, approveal it doesn't have ... therefore the IRA is not a legitamate representive of the Irish people

tomMK1

horseflesh wrote:

I doubt even you believe that.

I do - pending handing over of arms. I firmly believe they will do that, hopefully sooner rather than later

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

Firstly please point out where I said it was assination by British special forces was a "legal military action" ... secondly, its terrorism if it is a terrorist action, it doesn't matter who does it ...

eh? i said legal military organisation - where your 'legal militiary action' quote coming from?

What it boils down to is you just seem to want to classify everything bad as being a "terrorist action" ... you seem to think "terrorism" just means "bad things" ... which is just silly ... its like calling a Russian mob leadership assination a "racist attack", just because a racist attack is also a bad thing. As I have (over and over) said, not every evil act is a terrorist action.

no thats not what it boils down to. Im working on the premise that things the IRA do are terrorist actions and comparing that to what the british do. Are you purposely avoiding that and making up crap (like 'legal military action') or what? s the story here?

Terrorise who? To what purpose? Seriously, you really aren't grasping this.

For example, the JFK assination was not a terrorist action, because while it horrified and scared the American people, Oswald had no political motivation for terrorising the American people, he didn't want to get anything out of terrorising the American people. HIs tactics and motivation were not terrorist in nature. He had no further goal after the assination, his goal was to kill Kennedy, not for the killing to achieve anything afterward through terrorism.

oh yeah, so horrifying and scaring isnt part of terrorism.

But stating that it was not a terrorist action does not mean it was a moral/justifiable/ok thing to do.

and who said it was??

Are you on drugs??? Please, please for my own curiosity point out where I said that?? Because I would just love to know what you hear in your head when you read my posts


No amount of waffle gets past the realistion that you have no idea what the term "terrorist" means. YOu seem to think that everything bad is "terrorist" and everything good is not "terrorist" ... ie if one says that a British Army assintation was not a terrorist action one must be saying it is in fact a justifiable, legal and moral action.

Again, using the "racist attack" point I made earlier .. if a white Irish drug dealer shoots a white Irish police officer, I can straight out say "That was not a racist attack" That doesn't mean it was not a bad thing!!!!! It just wasn't a racist attack!!! You on the other hand would be jumping down my throat saying "How can you not say that wasn't a racist attack, oh so it is ok for him to kill a police office is it, is that what you are saying" .. and I would say "You don't know what a racist attack is" ... just like I am saying over and over now, you don't know what a terrorist action is.

Terrorism is a specific form of military/political actions. That doesn't mean that every other military/political action that isn't terrorism is ok/justifable/legal or moral!!! FFS :mad: , get off your high horse and actually bother to listen to what I am saying instead of applying your (rather illogical) view point (which seems to be - everyone who doesn't support the IRA must support the British Army) to everything I post

I dont own a high horse for a start. now basically all youve really said in those last few paragraphs is that I dont know what the word terrorist mean.

Do you know what the word pedantic means? as thats what you are currently being. You still havent answered my basic question. lets avoid the whole malarky of what 'terrorism' means, since obviously according to you i dont understand it, and instead focus on reality and avoid waffling on about dictionary descriptions.

I will ask you once again - if the IRA are terrorists, then dont you agree the british army also are? If not why not? My point is that the british army have been killed civillians, terrorised communities and murdered in cold blood, judt as the IRA have done.

supersheep

Much as it pains me to admit it ( ) Wicknight has a point. Not everything wrong is terrorist.
Wicknight, do you think that Bloody Sunday was terrorist? After all, it was an attack on innocent civilians who took aprt in civil rights marches, and would surely terrify them - "We could be next!" sort of thing.
On the legitimacy of the IRA as the Irish government, they have a claim, as they were the representatives of the last all-Ireland elections, and the election fought on the 1922 Constitution was... not inconclusive, but rather spurious - the Constitution was not released until the morning of the election, and the vote was more a vote on whether or not the people would prefer to go to war again or not... However, the Irish government currently in place has just a tad more legitimacy - about eighty years of elections and governance. It is still a claim, and I can see where they are coming from.

tomMK1

supersheep wrote:

Much as it pains me to admit it ( ) Wicknight has a point. Not everything wrong is terrorist.

Wicknight made that argument up himself ... i certinaly never said that "everything wrong is terrorist". so I suppose its good he has a point there, as it was his own point.

supersheep

You didn't, but you are basically arguing that... You are trying to say that things that the BA do are terrorism when they aren't.

tomMK1

yes - im arguing that certain things the BA do would qualify them as terrorists .. which isnt the same as everything wrong is terrorism.

What applies to one should apply to another, but in the case of the BA and the IRA, one is a terrorist and the other a justifiable army even though they both do the same things.

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

What applies to one should apply to another, but in the case of the BA and the IRA, one is a terrorist and the other a justifiable army even though they both do the same things.

Yes, one is a terrorist organisation and the other is a justifiable and legal army.

tomMK1

how so .. please explain the difference on moral grounds. Im not interested in 'legal' since that varies according to a countries laws and the anti republican arguments thrown about are usually on a moral level

Zombrex

supersheep wrote:

Wicknight, do you think that Bloody Sunday was terrorist? After all, it was an attack on innocent civilians who took aprt in civil rights marches, and would surely terrify them - "We could be next!" sort of thing.

No I don't. I think Bloody Sunday was an act of an out of control British Army, of anger, voilence and revenge bubbling up on the part of the Paratroopers. In the same way soldiers running riot in places like Sudan and East Temor are acts of the barbaric nature of humanity, so was Bloody Sunday. But it was not a terrorist act. It was a "put them in their place" act, a show of force against the Catholics, but not in a terrorist manner. The purpose of Bloody Sunday, in the minds of the Paratroopers, was revenge and to kill catholics.

Instilling the threat of further violence in the minds of Catholics, through an organised violent act, in an effort to force them, through constant fear of further acts, to a political change, was not the purpose of Bloody Sunday, in my view.

I don't believe there was any overall intention to force the Civil Rights movement in N.I to change its position through the threat of further assinations.

I hope I can say that without a whole load of "oh so you think it was justifable do you!!" crap coming from TomMk1 and others .. because anyone who reads my posts will know I think Bloody Sunday was an immoral, criminal act

supersheep wrote:

On the legitimacy of the IRA as the Irish government, they have a claim, as they were the representatives of the last all-Ireland elections

The current IRA are not the representatives of that group. The IRA pretty much disappeared in the middle of the 20th century. The PIRA is just a group of men and women who claim they are the true army of Ireland. I could stand up and say that I represent the King of Tara, but that doesn't mean I have claim over the Kingdom of Ireland, or even that I am the King of Tara.

supersheep wrote:

However, the Irish government currently in place has just a tad more legitimacy - about eighty years of elections and governance. It is still a claim, and I can see where they are coming from.

As you said, 80 years of elections and governance has established the current government and president system as the government of the people of this country. And they, and therefore the people, reject the IRA as criminals. So the question has to be asked, how long is a claim valid? Is a group, formed years after the orginal claim of legitimise, who do not have the support of the people they claim to fight for, still to be considered a legitimate organisation?

Legitimacy is given not claimed. The Irish people have to give the IRA a legitmate claim to act on their behalf. The IRA cannot simply claim they are the true Irish army. The Irish people reject their claim, therefore it is an illegitmate claim.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

i certinaly never said that "everything wrong is terrorist". .

No, but you seem to be claiming that every act that is unjustifable (such as the SAS killing a Catholic) is a terrorist act (and vice versa), and that if someone claims that an act wasn't actually a terrorist act therefore they must be claiming it was justifable. Which is nonsense, and shows a lack of understanding of what "terrorism" actually is

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

how so .. please explain the difference on moral grounds. Im not interested in 'legal' since that varies according to a countries laws and the anti republican arguments thrown about are usually on a moral level

I'm not being lazy (and I have 3 kids running around, I don't have the comfort of being in work right now, LOL), but the last 2 paragraphs of Wicknight's post 2 up pretty much sums it up.

tomMK1

i still do not see where my question has been answered. I asked what makes the IRA terrorists and the BA not terrorists if they both engage in the same activities - that was all I asked and it hasnt been answered.

Ive no idea where yer man is going with the definition of terrorism. who asked for that?

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

No, but you seem to be claiming that every act that is unjustifable (such as the SAS killing a Catholic) is a terrorist act (and vice versa), and that if someone claims that an act wasn't actually a terrorist act therefore they must be claiming it was justifable. Which is nonsense, and shows a lack of understanding of what "terrorism" actually is

I have never claimed anything of the sort.. what I have claimed is that the actions that define the IRA as terrorists have also been undertaken by the british army, so what makes the british army not terrorists if the IRA are?

Ive never said anything like "every act that is unjustifable (such as the SAS killing a Catholic) is a terrorist act (and vice versa), and that if someone claims that an act wasn't actually a terrorist act therefore they must be claiming it was justifable." - to me that response is basically just avoiding the question.

tomMK1

tomMK1 wrote:

so what makes the british army not terrorists if the IRA are?

The distinction is democratic accountability.
If Bertie Ahern ordered the Irish army to shoot prisoners because the prisons were getting full, then it's very likely[virtually certain] that he'd be turfed out of office at the next election.
Whereas if an IRA officer decided to kill people because the people took the view that what the IRA was doing was wrong and gave information to the Gardaí-there would be no accountability whatsoever.
The ordinary decent man or woman on the street could express outrage as they often did but they'd have no say.

That sir is the distinction between a terrorist and a democratically elected governments army.
The distinction doesnt excuse any wrong that a legitimate army might do but there is a very definite and important line of accountability with them.

tomMK1

so Lee Clegg (for example) was accountable? No he wasnt (he got promoted actually didnt he?) thats just one example of how the british army arent really accountable.

This has now gone full circle, as Ive already mentioned all this.

tomMK1

Earthman wrote:

The distinction doesnt excuse any wrong that a legitimate army might do but there is a very definite and important line of accountability with them.

so the bottom line is that if a government sets up an army, that army cant never be classed as terrorists (in reality) no matter what they do.

We know that the BA isnt held accountable to the people of northern ireland - there are many examples, such as Clegg, the original Bloody Sunday enquiry etc etc - we know they have killed innocent civillians, and we know that they have terrorised innocent civillians (the bogside riots in derry is a classic example, nevermind the various destructive searches of homes in the north)

Even though they do all those things, they arent terrorists because they are governed by a government (that basically does not account for itself, as far as NI goes anyway)? thats basically the answer as far as I can see.

tomMK1

tomMK1 wrote:

so the bottom line is that if a government sets up an army, that army cant never be classed as terrorists (in reality) no matter what they do.

On an accountability front no,if it's the army of a democratically elected government.

We know that the BA isnt held accountable to the people of northern ireland - there are many examples, such as Clegg, the original Bloody Sunday enquiry etc etc - we know they have killed innocent civillians, and we know that they have terrorised innocent civillians (the bogside riots in derry is a classic example, nevermind the various destructive searches of homes in the north)

Even though they do all those things, they arent terrorists because they are governed by a government (that basically does not account for itself, as far as NI goes anyway)? thats basically the answer as far as I can see.

Oh they are accountable to the voters,the fact that most of the voters in the UK werent too pushed by what their army was ordered to do in NI at certain times,certainly during the 70's and 80's could be put down to the bad reputation the IRA gave the place as a result of their actions.
Being Irish in GB at the time was not the best nationality to be and there was only one cause for that.

cal29

Earthman wrote:

.

Oh they are accountable to the voters,the fact that most of the voters in the UK werent too pushed by what their army was ordered to do in NI at certain times,certainly during the 70's and 80's could be put down to the bad reputation the IRA gave the place as a result of their actions.
Being Irish in GB at the time was not the best nationality to be and there was only one cause for that.

Your arguement holds no water

you say the BA is different because thay are accountable when it is pointed out the numerous times they were not held accountable you suggest that is the IRA s fault


for all intents and purposes the BA was and is a foreign army in the North and as such act in that manner in the knowledge that they have the tacit support of the people at home

lets not forget before we go off on this accountability stuff Blair went against the wishes of the vast majority of the population of the UK by invading Iraq over 60% of the population voted against his party where is he ?

still in No 10 with a nice healthy majority


If the BA did what they did in Derry in a city in Britain say liverpool or Birmingham then the people of the UK might hold them to account but over in Ireland they can and did what they liked

They were never accountable to the people of Ireland North or South

supersheep

Earthman wrote:

The distinction is democratic accountability.
If Bertie Ahern ordered the Irish army to shoot prisoners because the prisons were getting full, then it's very likely[virtually certain] that he'd be turfed out of office at the next election.
Whereas if an IRA officer decided to kill people because the people took the view that what the IRA was doing was wrong and gave information to the Gardaí-there would be no accountability whatsoever.
The ordinary decent man or woman on the street could express outrage as they often did but they'd have no say.

That sir is the distinction between a terrorist and a democratically elected governments army.
The distinction doesnt excuse any wrong that a legitimate army might do but there is a very definite and important line of accountability with them.

Going by that definition, one could class the army of Saudia Arabia as terrorist - after all, it's not democratically accountable. The same for many, many armies. I think defining an organisation as terrorist based on its acts and not its accountability is better.

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

i still do not see where my question has been answered. I asked what makes the IRA terrorists and the BA not terrorists if they both engage in the same activities - that was all I asked and it hasnt been answered.

Ive no idea where yer man is going with the definition of terrorism. who asked for that?

Come on, you can't REALLY believe this. How can you compare a guerilla, cloak-and-dagger, secret society type outfit with the official (sorry you probably don't like that word do you?? ) army of a democratic country.

No doubt the British Army had (and probably still has) some loose cannons/hotheaded individuals, but are you really convinced that official British Army policy was one of terrorism???

You just can't compare planting and detonating bombs in public places with British Army policy, it's absurd.