A thread for "Republicans" Only

Flex

As far as im concerned an organisation which terrorises people are simply terrorists. Hence, the IRA and the BA are terrorists. As you said before Wicknight (i think), you believe the BA's actions on Bloody Sunday were an attempt to put Catholics ' in their place'. For what? Marching for civil rights? If a foreign army showed up in Dublin and started doin stuff like that id be terrorised because people with guns were going around doing that openly, in broad daylight and in full view of the public, but still getting away scot-free. Id be scared for my parents safety and my siblings safety every single day, hoping they didnt get stopped at a checkpoint or end up in the wrong place at the wrong time or whatever. And by doing that it can be argued they were attempting to cause political change among nationalists by using such force. For example, if you were in an organisation seeking equality in your country, then at a demonstration march a number of marchers were killed by the army, it can be said that they(the army) had poiltical aims in mind. Such as, intimidating people from taking part in any future marches or joing the organisation, thus making it weaker.

supersheep

I more or less agree with Wicknight. I think it's more useful to have a definition of terrorism that is fairly specific - namely, terrifying acts that are supposed to change the opinion of a group of people. It's not exactly Wicknight's, but it is mine. By my definition, Bloody Sunday is a terrorist act (as far as I know, and no-one has corrected me here, the Paras' commander stated an intention to teach the civil rights marchers a lesson), but it's the only example I can think of off-hand.
TomMK1, your example isn't terrorism. If the soldiers had been on duty, and had been ordered to, or it had been policy, then it would have been terrorism, in my opinion at least.

Zombrex

Flex wrote:

And by doing that it can be argued they were attempting to cause political change among nationalists by using such force.

But the whole idea of "terrorism" is to use the least amount of force you can, ie the threat or idea of continued terror, rather than over whelming force (ie actual continued terror). If you can use over whelming force you don't need to use terrorist tactics because you can simply storm into a country/area and force political change.

For example, Germany invading Poland was terrorising for the Polish, it certainly forced political change, but it wasn't a terrorist action, it was an action of over whelming military force.

Terrorism is a specific military tactic, and the actual acts of volience are not as important as the idea of continued, random threat in the mind of the general public.

If the British Army started shooting people at random in Belfast, and said this will continue until Sinn Fein disappear, that would be terrorism.

For terrorism you need an act of violence, the more random the better (you want to make it seem like you can hit anyone anytime), designed to instill fear in the members of the group you are targetting. 9-11 is classic example, look at the effect that had on the entire population of America.

Following that you need a specific stated and public political objective, that can actually be controlled by the people you target, ie USA out of Iraq, but which cannot be achieved through military force (Al Queda cannot force the US Army out of Iraq through strenght of numbers).

After that you need the threat of continued random violence until your objectives are met. Basically you want to sit back and let the state of fear settle in to the general populaiton. Any time you think this needs refreshing you carry out another attack, designed to increase the level of fear, eg. the Madrid, London bombings.

That is terrorism, it is a specific organised military tactic.

Simply terrorising people is not terrorism. The Nazis terrorised the Jews in Germany, but they were not acts of terrorism, they were simply acts of intimadation and anger and violience.

It can be argued, as I have actually done, that Bloody Sunday was a terrorist action. The paras seemed to be killing random marchers in an effort to stop the march, and possibe future marches. But that is sketchy reasoning, and I think it is clear it was not a tactic on the part of the British Army, I very much doubt someone at command said "Gee lads, we just don't have the military force to stop these marches, we better carry out a terrorist campaign instilling fear in the general Catholic population until they descide not to march"

Jesus Trash Can

I think it's a bold step. I agree with it both tactically and morally. In terms of united Ireland we have a lot to do, but we cannot even start on that road until the the phsycological borders have been breached and swept aside, both within communities and within the island itself. This cannot be done by the continuation of the armed struggle. Only when this is achieved will the short comings of British nationalism be laid bare for all the world to see, and the historical right to self determination of the Irish people be realised.

Dave!

Yes, I support it very much so. It's the only way forward. We'll never get a united Ireland if paramilitaries continue with this petty crap. The RIRA are gonna f*ck it up, though. grrg.

cal29

Wicknight wrote:

I'm going to put this is big font so hopefully you will understand a bit better



A race crime stabbing is terrorising, it isn't terrorism

A Nazi soldier taking pot shots at Jews is terrorising, it isn't terrorism

on and on and on we go ...

I have to disagree with you here

If the rascist attack is done with the intention of putting that people of the same race in fear and to get them to keep their head down then it would be a terrorist act as although the attack was aimed at one person the intention was to strike fear into the whole community

And a Nazi firing pot shots at jews would also come into that category and have to be seen in the wider context of the nazis policies towards the jews ie the effect it would have and would be intended to have on the Jewish population

I understand your point that something that terrorises is not terrorism but even the definition that you use is not open and shut take for example the recent conflict in Yugoslavia where Nato did not send in troops to serbia they bombed them from planes and with cruise missiles with the intention of changing the political position of the yugoslav government in relation to Kosovo they did not use overwhelming military force

That would fit in with the definition of terrorism

as would the the years between the 2 iraq wars and the no fly zones and frequent strikes by the americans on the iraqis

I honestly dont like the word terrorist I think it is abused and carries too much political baggage one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist and all that

I think there are obvious terrorist actions that are undisputably terrorist 911 for example or the recent attacks in london but the use of the word to describe attacks against military personel in Iraq for example would not in my opinion be terrorist other attacks in Iraq such as the planting of car bombs in markets are terrorist

cal29

Wicknight wrote:

Exactly ... why would a state with overwhelming military superiority and numbers, who control the government, and have the majority of the people on their side, need to use terrorism??? It wouldn't make sense.

Terrorism is a tactic used against the controlling party, not by it. If Al Queda could fight the USA head on you think they would use terrorism? What would be the point of 9-11 if they could simply storm the beaches of Florida and work their way up?? If the IRA had enough miltary power to occupy England, do you think they would still be blowing up pubs and shopping centers if they had IRA men visible on the streets of London???

.

Again I have to disagree with you

If and evidence would support it the British army terrorised Nationalist neighbourshoods with random acts of violence aimed at keeping in check the nationalist population then those acts would indeed be terrorist.

There would appear to be evidence to support the contention that this was not just random acts by elements of the British Army but that this was BA policy to subject Nationalist areas to random violence and even murder

The actions of the BA following such events in supporting their members even if convicted of murder would support the contention that the BA had given there soldiers carte blanche to behave in this manner

agfa

I dont think the "anti republicans" referred to in this forum care about republicans and its more a case of southern minded arrogance and snobbery as well down right ignorance of some people in the south.
For example i read in another thread that people in the north were "sick" etc and while i accept this excreta with a pinch of salt when it is referred to republicans etc i resent the generalisation of all of us by the actions of so few.

people talk about the great divide between republicans and loyalists in the north but i feel the divide between people in the north and south is far more bitter and twisted.

the sdlp would despise the pira and armed groups as fermently as the southerners but they would work on ahead with mutual respect even though they dont agree with republicans on various issues, anyway i wont dwell on these people any longer.

as a republican from rural tyrone i felt sad,angry,betrayed and completely demoralised all on the same day by the surrender of the provisionals but i shouldnt have had really,because this was going to happen eventually.

i have no support for armed groups anymore because since they cant intensify the campaign against the british army no more than the provos could with their arsenal then what is the point of more republicans dying or even more civilians dying?.

what is needed now is a republican alternative to provisional sinn fein not entwined in rhetoric and elitism like rsf or lack of ambition like the 32csm and with the armed stuggle on hold hopefully it would remove the psf excuse of "anti sinn fein-anti peace".

i wont forget the volunteers and the sacrifices but there is nothing we can do now except to remember them and to strive for the cause they suffered for.

i always hear about how the ira were such scumbags for shooting the ruc and udr etc but i dont see many memorials to the dead ric men killed by the "old" ira in quite horrible circumstances in the 20's and since we are all going to live in a peaceful country hopefully unified or otherwise i think hypocrisy on all sides must stop and stop for good.

i also will never forget the actions of the british army in co tyrone in particular and never forget the legacy they have left us but let our revenge be not on the end of an ak47 or a mortar tube but achieving our objective.

TetsuoHashimoto

jhegarty wrote:

that was a case won in the us supreme court because of the constitution....

what did the Jackeen's ( flag wavers ) say ?

Saoirse 32

mike65 wrote:

For this thread my defintion of Republican is willing to back/agreeing to violence as a means to an end.

Do you agree with the end of the P-IRA campaign and the adoption of an exclusivly peaceful and democratic policy to unite North and south.

If this thread is going to work it needs NO imput from anyone else, please.

Mike.

NEVER!!!The Provisional IRA have commited an act of treachery by surrendering to the British,im personally an independent Republican but i shall quote Ruairí Ó Brádaigh President of RSF here,he hits the nail on the head.

1. BETRAYAL WILL NOT END AT ARMS DESTRUCTION

IN a statement following the destruction of arms by the Provisionals' military wing on September 25, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, President, Republican Sinn Féin said that the betrayal of the Republican Cause by the Provisional Movement will not end with the destruction of arms at the behest of the British government. They will be required by their masters to accept and participate in the British police in Ireland.

The statement continued: "Bobby Sands and the other hunger strikers died agonising deaths rather than wear a British convict uniform. Now the Provisionals will don British police uniforms to enforce British rule in Ireland against the Irish people.

"With the destruction of their own arms the Provisional IRA is no longer an army and should dissolve immediately and stop the pretence. IRA General Order No 11 (see The Long War by Brendan O'Brien) stigmatises such action as an act of "treachery" to be dealt with as such.

"Irish history teaches us that there will always be an IRA to oppose English rule here. It was not merely for civil rights under British rule in the Six Counties that the British occupation forces were resisted and such great sacrifices endured.

"A really permanent peace will be secured by British disengagement. A new four-province Ireland will give full power and decision-making to all sections of the population, both nationalist and unionist."

oscarBravo

Saoirse 32 wrote:

NEVER!!!The Provisional IRA have commited an act of treachery by surrendering to the British,im personally an independent Republican but i shall quote Ruairí Ó Brádaigh President of RSF here,he hits the nail on the head.

Yeah, Ruairí's right: what's the point of being a republican if you don't have the means to murder people who disagree with you?

biko

oscarBravo wrote:

Yeah, Ruairí's right: what's the point of being a republican if you don't have the means to murder people who disagree with you?

Are you thinking GWB now?

Correct me someone if I'm wrong but wasn't IRA supposed to defend the catholic areas of Derry and Belfast from protestant rioters and army/police back in the 1970s? How will they do that now? Is it even necessary?

BuffyBot

Independent Republican, by the name of Saoirse 32 who happens to quote big chunks of RSF material..co-incidence? I think not..

supersheep

The Provisionals came into existence with defending Catholic areas as a main aim - but they also wanted a 32 county republic. The CIRA and RIRA (or what's left of them) still want to achieve this by violence. RSF is to CIRA as SF is to PIRA.