A thread for "Republicans" Only

Flex

=Wicknight]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.

Emmm, how about the fact that they gunned down marchers, and then went around patrolling NI with their guns and armoured cars? That sounds like terrorism to me, because if a foreign army showed up in Dublin and gunned down my neighbours because they felt a need to "put us in our place" for being a bunch of uppity Taigs, Id be pretty ****in terrorized for my own saftey and my familys. Especially since these people wouldnt be held accountable or punished (for decades).

supersheep

Flex wrote:

Emmm, how about the fact that they gunned down marchers, and then went around patrolling NI with their guns and armoured cars? That sounds like terrorism to me, because if a foreign army showed up in Dublin and gunned down my neighbours because they felt a need to "put us in our place" for being a bunch of uppity Taigs, Id be pretty ****in terrorized for my own saftey and my familys. Especially since these people wouldnt be held accountable or punished (for decades).

He does have a point. Military presence is quite scary, and could be defined as causing terror, and aiming to cause terror to make the populace more placid and easier to control...
I think Bloody Sunday was terrorist. If I recall correctly, one of the officers in command said that they were going to teach the people a lesson - am I correct here? If they did, then it would be terrorism, definitely.

supersheep

supersheep wrote:

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.

No I think it's better at least in my opinion to go on it's accountability.
But obviously it's the act that determines the terror.
I was carefull not to include non democracies or what I would term pretend democracies in my description.

I'd regard what the chinese did to their own in Tiannamen square as terrorism for instance,theres no other description for it in my book.It's a grey area and worth examination on a case by case basis,I think.

FTA69

To answer the original question;

Personally I feel that Irish people will always have a right to engage in armed struggle providing oppressive circumstances remain, eg people have a right to defend themselves against future pogroms, whether through the medium of the IRA or otherwise.

The Republican struggle has found itself in new and different times, thus to survive and prosper we must adopt new and different tactics. Armed struggle in the form of the past 25 years has served its purpose, it smashed Unionist hegemony and guaranteed substantial Republican input in the political process. However, we did not win the war outright, we created a stalemate from which a new political process evolved. In this new process armed struggle is no longer a viable tactic and as such party politics must be pursued. Our future depends on consolidating our political strength in the north and building a broad left-wing coalition in the south. This will take much hard work and sacrifice on our part. Many are disillusioned and that is not surprising, but what is done is done and we must now work around the cricumstances which have been created. Our history is marred with splits and division, only through unity, consolidation and radical activism can Irish freedom now be achieved.

hill16

But Sinn Fein by signing the Good Friday Agreement has accepted British rule in Ireland. :mad:

cal29

horseflesh wrote:

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.

Yes because the british army would never detonate a bomb in a public place

I wonder how those 100,000 Iraqi civilians died they must have been in some Private place when the bombs went off

like their own homes

FTA69

FTA69 wrote:

To answer the original question;

Personally I feel that Irish people will always have a right to engage in armed struggle providing oppressive circumstances remain, eg people have a right to defend themselves against future pogroms, whether through the medium of the IRA or otherwise.

you are expecting future pograms here in western Europe,in the E.U?

The Republican struggle has found itself in new and different times, thus to survive and prosper we must adopt new and different tactics. Armed struggle in the form of the past 25 years has served its purpose, it smashed Unionist hegemony and guaranteed substantial Republican input in the political process. However, we did not win the war outright, we created a stalemate from which a new political process evolved. In this new process armed struggle is no longer a viable tactic and as such party politics must be pursued.

That sounds like a verbatim quote from a speech to a local IRA group or even an an poblacht editorial.I dont agree with the analysis but I certainly agree with the decision and I think those that have come to that long overdue decision deserve respect.

Our future depends on consolidating our political strength in the north and building a broad left-wing coalition in the south.

Good luck with that, but I think you'll find difficulty in creating this as the majority of human beings like their modern wealthy lifestyles.
For sure there are those who are left out for various reasons, but they are a minority insuffecient to support a marxist style left wing government here.
Remember in a democracy as people are selfish, they will vote for what suits them and taking away their right to earn or aspire to earn more and more money has never gone down well.

This will take much hard work and sacrifice on our part. Many are disillusioned and that is not surprising, but what is done is done and we must now work around the cricumstances which have been created. Our history is marred with splits and division, only through unity, consolidation and radical activism can Irish freedom now be achieved.

I'm doubtfull if they are your words as they sound like a tract from a speech given to the converted or almost converted.
The problem with those words would be that theres five and a half maybe six million people on this island with less than 10% of them maybe sharing your ideals.
Those in our present democracy that simply tell the other 90% that you know better do so at the peril of electoral rejection by that majority.

horseflesh

cal29 wrote:

Yes because the british army would never detonate a bomb in a public place

I wonder how those 100,000 Iraqi civilians died they must have been in some Private place when the bombs went off

like their own homes

First of all, last I heard was approx. 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.
Secondly, what has that got to do with what we're talking about, ie "if the IRA are terrorists so are the British Army".

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

To answer the original question;

Personally I feel that Irish people will always have a right to engage in armed struggle providing oppressive circumstances remain, eg people have a right to defend themselves against future pogroms, whether through the medium of the IRA or otherwise.

The Republican struggle has found itself in new and different times, thus to survive and prosper we must adopt new and different tactics. Armed struggle in the form of the past 25 years has served its purpose, it smashed Unionist hegemony and guaranteed substantial Republican input in the political process. However, we did not win the war outright, we created a stalemate from which a new political process evolved. In this new process armed struggle is no longer a viable tactic and as such party politics must be pursued. Our future depends on consolidating our political strength in the north and building a broad left-wing coalition in the south. This will take much hard work and sacrifice on our part. Many are disillusioned and that is not surprising, but what is done is done and we must now work around the cricumstances which have been created. Our history is marred with splits and division, only through unity, consolidation and radical activism can Irish freedom now be achieved.

What utter bollox... do you have a tune we could sing that to, Sean South perhaps? you surely have'nt lost your touch FTA69, must be something in the air in Free West Waterford

jbkenn

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

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

Reason and Motivation ...

the BA don't carry out terrorist actions to change political thinking through fear and intimation .. why? you ask .. because they are the f**king political thinking ... they are the government ... they are in control, who are they going to political change? Who is going to "Wow, the people are really scared of the threat of violence from the British Army, we better change our government policies", Sinn Fein??

Terrorism is the creation of a state of terror in the general population, that is supposed to wear the population down so they change the politics of the government or system. The reason for this creation of a state of terror is that it is a lot cheaper in resources that actually forcing change through military actions. The BA don't need to do this, because they can actually force change through military actions.

It is completely unnecessary and pointless for the British Army to carry out terrorist actions. They simply don't need to, they have all the power. They don't need to terrorise or intimidate anyone. The don't need to create the idea of continuous threat, becasue they have to resources for continuous action.

That doesn't mean they doing carry out assinations, shows of force, illegal actions, immoral attacks, targetting of innocents etc etc .. they just aren't terrorist actions because that is not the motivation for them.

Like I said before, a racist attack is not a racist attack unless the motivation and purpose is racism. That doesn't mean the attack is not horrible and wrong. It just means it isn't racist.

tomMK1 wrote:

to me that response is basically just avoiding the question.

What was the question again?

tomMK1

Reason and Motivation ...

the BA don't carry out terrorist actions to change political thinking through fear and intimation .. why? you ask .. because they are the f**king political thinking ... they are the government ... they are in control, who are they going to political change? Who is going to "Wow, the people are really scared of the threat of violence from the British Army, we better change our government policies", Sinn Fein??

It is completely unnecessary and pointless for the British Army to carry out terrorist actions. They simply don't need to, they have all the power. They don't need to terrorise or intimidate anyone.

That doesn't mean they doing carry out assinations, shows of force, illegal actions, immoral attacks, targetting of innocents etc etc .. they just aren't terrorist actions because that is not the motivation for them. Like I said before, a racist attack is not a racist attack unless they motivation and purpose it racism. That doesn't mean the attack is not horrible and wrong. It just means it isn't racist.

hang on .. so its 'we're in power, do what we say cus what we do is always right?' - im sorry ... i dont buy into that at all at all.

they just aren't terrorist actions because that is not the motivation for them.

ah .. there you go .. it shows how silly things have become when you say things like that .... so terrorism depends on what motivates you not what you do? The IRA dont do what they do just to be 'terrorists' so therefore they mustnt be then, going by your theory.

i rest my case in that you CANT say the british army arent terrorists when they do the things the IRA does ... whats good for one is good for the other.

tomMK1

horseflesh wrote:

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.

oh right .. the british army or the SAS have never done the same thing. they didnt like shoot three unarmed people in a car in Dumnakilly in Omagh in 1988 (thats just one I personally know of, theres many other examples) - the SAS and the Amry have never targeted innocent civillians and killed them. of course they dont.

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

What was the question again?

God knows at this stage, since whatever it was its been ignored.

tomMK1

horseflesh wrote:

First of all, last I heard was approx. 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.
Secondly, what has that got to do with what we're talking about, ie "if the IRA are terrorists so are the British Army".

because some of us dont seem to believe that the british army kills innocent people without any form of guilt

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

hang on .. so its 'we're in power, do what we say cus what we do is always right?' - im sorry ... i dont buy into that at all at all.

Bangs head against wall ...

whether or not an action is a terrorist action or not is not a reflection of whether it was "right or wrong" .... what part of that do you not get?? Seriously??

tomMK1 wrote:

so terrorism depends on what motivates you not what you do?

Obviously!!!! :eek:

An attack isn't terrorist in nature by default. A bombing isn't by default a terrorist action, unless the motivation was terrorism. A killing isn't by default a terrorist action, unless the motivation was terrorism.

Just like (and please pay attention) an attack with a knife isn't by default a racist attack, unless the motivation is racism, an attack with a bomb isn't by default a terrorist attack unless the movitvation was terrorist.

You seem to think that "terrorism" is a rating of how immoral an action is. It isn't, it is a description of an action based on the purpose and movitation of that action. It is not a reflection of the severity of that action, or a rating of its immorality.

tomMK1 wrote:

The IRA dont do what they do just to be 'terrorists' so therefore they mustnt be then, going by your theory.

Oh my god ... Of course they do it to be terrorist!! What other military purpose do most of their actions (the bombings) serve!! It is a military tactic!!

They do it to create a climate of fear and terror on the part of the British public in an effort to force them through the threat of continued violence to change political situations in Northern Ireland. Why else do they do it?? The targets they pick have no military significants, no hope of actually removing the British Army from N.I by force. They carry them out to wear down the resolve of the British public, to basically tire them out.

tomMK1 wrote:

whats good for one is good for the other.

I rest my case in that you believe "terrorism" just means "bad things" ... and therefore you think when I say the BA are not terrorists you think I mean they don't do "bad things" .. they do do bad things, but the bad things they do are not terrorist in nature.

FTA69

you are expecting future pograms here in western Europe,in the E.U?

Look at the situation we had in the Short Strand in 2002, where hundreds of Loyalists often converged on the enclave, where literally thousands of missiles including petrol bombs, fireworks and even pipe bombs were thrown into the area, where entire families had to leave because of the continuous attacks. The people behind these attacks have not gone away, they continue to remain armed and if you think the presence of the EU has taken away their ability to persecute Catholics you are sadly mistaken.

Good luck with that, but I think you'll find difficulty in creating this as the majority of human beings like their modern wealthy lifestyles.

Fair enough, but also remember we have one of the biggest rich-poor gaps in the world. Sinn Féin's vote is not increasing for no reason. Neither do people in Dublin, Wexford and Meath vote for us owing to the Peace Process et al, it is because of our socialist policies.

I'm doubtfull if they are your words as they sound like a tract from a speech given to the converted or almost converted.

They are my words that I have used to describe the sentiment within Republicanism, and within myself. That was what the original question was wasn't it?

What utter bollox... do you have a tune we could sing that to, Sean South perhaps?

The correct spelling is actually Seán Sabhat, and what would you rather I say then jb?

you surely have'nt lost your touch FTA69

I'm flattered you thought I'd a "touch" in the first place, but again, what is it exactly that you'd like me to say in response to mike's (?) original post?

FTA69

FTA69 wrote:

Look at the situation we had in the Short Strand in 2002, where hundreds of Loyalists often converged on the enclave, where literally thousands of missiles including petrol bombs, fireworks and even pipe bombs were thrown into the area, where entire families had to leave because of the continuous attacks. The people behind these attacks have not gone away, they continue to remain armed

Yes and the police protected the kids from the mobs on the way to the holy cross school.The locals gladly accepted that help.It also made the mobs look like twats and thugs on Sky news and CNN around the world,such scenes havent been repeated as the own goal was very recorded.

and if you think the presence of the EU has taken away their ability to persecute Catholics you are sadly mistaken.

Thats utter rubbish,the vast majority of catholics are living perfectly happy lives in the North,you aren't providing any justification for mob rule.

Fair enough, but also remember we have one of the biggest rich-poor gaps in the world. Sinn Féin's vote is not increasing for no reason. Neither do people in Dublin, Wexford and Meath vote for us owing to the Peace Process et al, it is because of our socialist policies.

There is only a limited vote for socialism of the extreme variety in Ireland,I'd imagine Adams knows this.It wouldnt surprise me to see his politics migrate towards social democracy labouresque views like Democratic left eventually did over time.

They are my words that I have used to describe the sentiment within Republicanism, and within myself. That was what the original question was wasn't it?

Yes and they sounded verbatim like what I'd expect to read in an poblacht,prompting my question about them.

The correct spelling is actually Seán Sabhat, and what would you rather I say then jb?



I'm flattered you thought I'd a "touch" in the first place, but again, what is it exactly that you'd like me to say in response to mike's (?) original post?

As regards that bit would you quote the poster you are replying to rather than leaving it in a reply headed up as a reply to me as clearly in that last bit you are definitely not replying to my posts.

FTA69

such scenes havent been repeated as the own goal was very recorded.

Yes they have, just not on that scale. Loyalist paramilitaries are still evicting people from their homes as well as creating massive tensions in North Belfast eg Ligoneil, and the police have been doing absolutely nothing about it.

Thats utter rubbish,the vast majority of catholics are living perfectly happy lives in the North,you aren't providing any justification for mob rule.

You seem to be missing the thrust of my argument, as I said before, many Nationalists live in vulnerable areas which are continuously threatened by Loyalists. Often Loyalists have attacked these areas in a myriad of ways, both "in this day and age" and in the "EU". The EU and such means nothing to these people who are fundamentally bigots. They couldn't care less about the press etc because their activities are not reliant on the media.

There is only a limited vote for socialism of the extreme variety in Ireland,I'd imagine Adams knows this.It wouldnt surprise me to see his politics migrate towards social democracy labouresque views like Democratic left eventually did over time.

Maybe, little comes from fortune telling though.

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

Bangs head against wall ...

whether or not an action is a terrorist action or not is not a reflection of whether it was "right or wrong" .... what part of that do you not get?? Seriously??


Obviously!!!! :eek:

An attack isn't terrorist in nature by default. A bombing isn't by default a terrorist action, unless the motivation was terrorism. A killing isn't by default a terrorist action, unless the motivation was terrorism.

Just like (and please pay attention) an attack with a knife isn't by default a racist attack, unless the motivation is racism, an attack with a bomb isn't by default a terrorist attack unless the movitvation was terrorist.

You seem to think that "terrorism" is a rating of how immoral an action is. It isn't, it is a description of an action based on the purpose and movitation of that action. It is not a reflection of the severity of that action, or a rating of its immorality.


Oh my god ... Of course they do it to be terrorist!! What other military purpose do most of their actions (the bombings) serve!! It is a military tactic!!

They do it to create a climate of fear and terror on the part of the British public in an effort to force them through the threat of continued violence to change political situations in Northern Ireland. Why else do they do it?? The targets they pick have no military significants, no hope of actually removing the British Army from N.I by force. They carry them out to wear down the resolve of the British public, to basically tire them out.


I rest my case in that you believe "terrorism" just means "bad things" ... and therefore you think when I say the BA are not terrorists you think I mean they don't do "bad things" .. they do do bad things, but the bad things they do are not terrorist in nature.

ahh .. im snoring over here cus you just dont get it really.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

ahh .. im snoring over here cus you just dont get it really.

thats your response? jesus, you are a member of Sinn Fein aren't you!

Sinn Fein - The We're-Right-Your-Wrong Party

:rolleyes:

tomMK1

look, its all round and round the mulberry bush. Ive much much better things than to be involved in a debate where everything has to be repeated umteen times.

Maybe that style of debate suits you, but it annoys the **** out of me.

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

oh right .. the british army or the SAS have never done the same thing. they didnt like shoot three unarmed people in a car in Dumnakilly in Omagh in 1988 (thats just one I personally know of, theres many other examples) - the SAS and the Amry have never targeted innocent civillians and killed them. of course they dont.

Yes, I believe it hasn't been official British policy to target innocent civilians in the North.

Anyway, I'm getting as exasperated as Wicknight, it's just not getting through to you.
I'm not saying
IRA = BAD
BRITISH ARMY = GOOD

There have been atrocities by both, no doubt. But how you can call the British Army "terrorists" really is beyond me. Call them oppressors or something, but they're not terrorists.

You seem to only see things in black and white, but the real world isn't like that.

jhegarty

horseflesh wrote:

Yes, I believe it hasn't been official British policy to target innocent civilians in the North.

Anyway, I'm getting as exasperated as Wicknight, it's just not getting through to you.
I'm not saying
IRA = BAD
BRITISH ARMY = GOOD

There have been atrocities by both, no doubt. But how you can call the British Army "terrorists" really is beyond me. Call them oppressors or something, but they're not terrorists.

You seem to only see things in black and white, but the real world isn't like that.

but we are always hearing about "state sponsored terrorists" now... what would you call what happened on bloody Sunday ?

tomMK1

horseflesh wrote:

Yes, I believe it hasn't been official British policy to target innocent civilians in the North.

Anyway, I'm getting as exasperated as Wicknight, it's just not getting through to you.
I'm not saying
IRA = BAD
BRITISH ARMY = GOOD

There have been atrocities by both, no doubt. But how you can call the British Army "terrorists" really is beyond me. Call them oppressors or something, but they're not terrorists.

You seem to only see things in black and white, but the real world isn't like that.

oh i can see clearly my friend, clearly. I cant say for sure that the IRA specifically have civillians down on their list as peopel to go out of their way to kill, but if you cant see how I call the BA terrorists .. the people who stop you in the street, chase you out of nightclubs (that happened to me with 3 off duty soldiers - long story but it was terrorising), take pot shots at innocent civillians, destroy houses pretending to search them - if that isnt terrorising people then I'd love to know what it is. Tbh, i dont think its me looking at things in black and white.

Milo

Call them oppressors or something

Compromise people....lets just leave it at "oppressive terrorists"!

tomMK1

or we could get rid of the dreaded 'T' word and have 'terrible oppressits' instead

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

if that isnt terrorising people then I'd love to know what it is. Tbh, i dont think its me looking at things in black and white.

Terrorism is not simply "terrorising people" ... terrorism is the creation of a hightened sense of threat of random violence in the general public in an effort to force the general public to change a political/social/religous point of view. How does the BA harrashing people in a night club do that?

tomMK1

hightened sense of threat of random violence in the general public in an effort to force the general public to change a political/social/religous point of view.

oh right - there I am in a protestant nightclub with six protestant friends when off duty soldiers appear everytime i leave the table and start slapping my friends about for hanging around with a tiag.

sure thats not random violence in public to change a social, religious AND political point of view, eh? :rolleyes:

You really really really do need to understand what the british army do you know.

tomMK1

oh, and lets not forget when they'd gone round the 6 friends they then attacked me, with baseball clubs and chased me out of the royal arms hotel in omagh and down to the bus depot where thankfully i got in a taxi and ****ed off. sure thats not BA harrassment or anything.

Besides, Ive met a few people on here who'll step in and tell me Im lying, or that I opbviously ddone something to deserve such an attack. for those who say that, i say it again - please go and learn just what thebritish army do in the north. If the IRA are terrorists, then so are the brits. end of story.

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

oh i can see clearly my friend, clearly. I cant say for sure that the IRA specifically have civillians down on their list as peopel to go out of their way to kill, but if you cant see how I call the BA terrorists .. the people who stop you in the street, chase you out of nightclubs (that happened to me with 3 off duty soldiers - long story but it was terrorising), take pot shots at innocent civillians, destroy houses pretending to search them - if that isnt terrorising people then I'd love to know what it is. Tbh, i dont think its me looking at things in black and white.

The IRA killed hundreds of civilians during their campaign. They either DID deliberately target civilians, or else they were very bad at their "job".
How many civilians did the BA kill? I'm guessing it would be an amount that could be put down to "genuine" collateral damage.
Again, I'm not defending the British Army per-se, all I'm saying is that they weren't involved (officially and under orders) in terrorist activity.

If you were chased out of a nightclub by 3 off-duty soldiers, well that's unlucky, but surely if they were off-duty then to all intents and purposes they were 3 civilians chasing you. I don't know why it happened nor do I really care, but if 3 English blokes took an aversion to you and chased after you how the hell can you class that as terrorism????
When you say it was "terrorising" do you mean frightening? Because it certainly wasn't terrorism. If Osama Bin Laden got into a scrap with some bloke down at the market and battered him to death is that terrorism? Was the murder of Robert McCartney terrorism?