Latest edition of the Blanket - loads of articles

Sand

Yes, I am a republican

Your words, not mine. I exscuse your temper though.

Twomey

Oh, I see, because I am a republican that gives you the right to act like a totally ignorant asswipe? Or is that just your normal behaviour?

From reading some of the other threads here, I am willing to bet it's par for the course for you.

Sand

Oh, I see, because I am a republican that gives you the right to act like a totally ignorant asswipe?

Are republicans worthy of anything more? Im curious though as to why an IRA man's views are any more important than any common murderers? Is it because hes a republican murderer?

Twomey

If I thought for a moment that you were geniunely interested in a thoughtful response, I would spend the time engaging you in discussion. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for you to be as obnoxiously insulting as you have been.

You've also neglected to answer the question put to you.

If one is interested in analysis of both current events and past, the peace process, and republicanism, the views of some of the one time leaders of the IRA, such as Brendan Hughes and Tommy Gorman, are worth reading - they are the ones who fought the war no matter what you think of them or what they did, and that gives them a rare insight.

Their opinions are no more important than anyone else's - they are just that: opinions. Their perspective, however, especially for those who are attempting to understand the history of the last 30 years and where we are going from here, does have some value.

More so, I reckon, than some online twats who can mouth off like tough guys but don't have the brains to back up what they say.

bonkey

I will point out, once, for the record, that there is a difference between "Republican" - one who is in favour of the Republic (in this case, a United Ireland), and a member of the IRA, or any form of terrorist.

In exactly the same way, not all Unionists are terrorists, not all Palestinians are terrorists, not all Muslims are terrorists.

I will have zero tolerance for anyone who continues to show ignorance of this fact. Consider this a blanket warning. I would also suggest that many here need to remind themselves about the civility "policy" we are trying to encourage.

I am not saying you have to like Twomey, or his/her beliefs, or his/her stance, but please try and show at least a glimmer of intelligence. Every single regular poster on this thread has at one time or another stood up and berated someone for blanketing an entire people based on the actions of a few. Nice to see how well you all practice what you preach.

jc

Sand

I will point out, once, for the record, that there is a difference between "Republican" - one who is in favour of the Republic (in this case, a United Ireland), and a member of the IRA, or any form of terrorist.

Nationalists and republicans have a similar goal. Republicanism however has and still uses violence to achieve this goal, unlike nationalist parties in the north. Now you might disagree with that definiton. Fair enough. However reading through the Irish Times today youll see their Northern Editor, Gerry Moriarty refer to republicans in the context of the IRA and Sinn Fein, twice in the one article. another letter writer refers to Pearse, long claimed as a hero of the republican cause, and one of his typically bloodthirsty and completely foolish comments about blood, slaughter and national manhood. This means that If Im wrong in associating republicanism with SF, the IRA and the implicit support for violence to solve political problems, then at least Im not wrong alone.

Now does being a self declared republican mean youre a member of the IRA? No, of course not and I never said that on this thread, or on any other as far as I can remember. Republicans by definition though associate themselves with SF/IRA and their causes and methods. The fact that SF/IRA has gone to political means has actually created a split in republicanism because SF/IRA arent being violent enough for some of them.

Nationalists on the other hand are broadly understood to desire a united Ireland but arent going to endorse violence in the pursuit of that aim. The SDLP for example are referred to as nationalists, even by Tommy Gorman himself, who refers to the SF/IRA as republican. So again If Im wrong, at least Ive got company.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for you to be as obnoxiously insulting as you have been.

"Hey, you ****wit", "- **** off ", "where your big fecking mouth is, you twat? ", "like a totally ignorant asswipe? ", and last but not least, the most ironic one "some online twats who can mouth off like tough guys but don't have the brains to back up what they say."

Right, being honest with you I dont like republicanism. Now despite that Ive not called you names, swore and been as obnoxiously insulting as you have been. I dont expect a medal for that, I consider it the minimum level of politeness.

You've also neglected to answer the question put to you.

Was it this one "Or is that just your normal behaviour? "? or perhaps this one "and tell me what have you done to put your money where your big fecking mouth is, you twat? "? I assumed it was just a rhetorical question/insult given the context of your post. Now searching for the question beneath the insults, quite simply I was not aware you needed some qualification to oppose republicanism? Do you require a similar qualification to hold a view on say corrupt politicians? Or abortion (though some women do try the same line of argument there that youre trying here- as yet without success)?

Their perspective, however, especially for those who are attempting to understand the history of the last 30 years and where we are going from here, does have some value.

These are men who felt the best way to exspress their opinion was not to talk but to kill. Their resulting political "insight" teaches us absolutely nothing of value, no more than a Nazis views teach us anything of value, but is another step in the "understanding" of republican terrorism. "Understanding" isnt justification before you get all hot tempered again, its more a view that "They were wrong, but (always the but) they thought they hadnt got any other choice" - a similar view is often exspressed about palestinian suicide bombers these days. When asked about Tommy Gorman you provide a link to an article that makes it sound like Tommy was in the Famous Five and studiously ignores asking "So Tommy, what did you do in the IRA that landed you in the Maidstone - make the tea?". Reading Gormans articles Im glad he recognises there is no justification for terrorism these days (pity he didnt learn this relatively simple truth previously), but yet refers to spending a large portion of his life in the struggle for political emancipation, I assume he means the IRA? - struggle for political emancipation is a nice term for it. As for some of his other articles the irony of a member of a terrorist organistion criticising democratic nations like the U.S. for their use of violence, well..... its on par with the drunken thugs I mentioned previously claiming the police are a bit too rough when arresting people.

DeVore

to answer some questions raised in this thread:

1. Twomey, we stamp down hard on people who come along and try to use Boards.ie's membership as a place to rachet-up their viewing figures, if we didnt we'd be awash with spammers.
Considering what was done to the Irish Fascist Party, you got a light slap on the wrist.

2. Discussion is welcomed on all topics provided its civil and provided the topics are not offensive to a group or sector of the community, no topics like "are **** all theives?" for example... thats just to clarify a rule, I'm not saying anyone here has done this.

3. Both Twomey and Sand have slipped from targetting the argument to targetting the person. Unacceptible, and bonkeys warning will be backed up.

4. Discussion of republicanism, nationalism, terrorism and propganda are all valid subjects if treated correctly.

5. Twomey you arent the only person who has been treated violently by terrorist. My family were too, it might surprise you to learn that I support a United Ireland and was born in Belfast. What I dont support is a United Ireland where someone has to be shot first to achieve it.

For once, god love me , I'm in agreement with Biffa. Anyone truely seeking a United Ireland would have withdrawn support from any and all terrorist groups. We'd have a united Ireland now if it werent for them. International news is a MUCH more powerful weapon then semtex.

You may not like it but you seem to consort with those who's history includes active involvement in the armed struggle. You shouldnt be tarred with the same brush but the smell lingers in the air.

Also, to explain one last thing, you arent the first person to come here seeking to trawl for new recruits with what was considered "propaganda" so we are getting a bit tired of these elements who wish to bring NOTHING to boards.ie but desire to use our community for their own ends. If we've misjudged you then I apologise but I'd prefer to see you as an active member of our community on a variety of topics before my mind changes.
(not an inconceivable event at all).

Considering that you registered just before posting your original ad, you can see where we are coming from I'd hope.

DeV.

Twomey

Hi DeVore,

Re point number 1 ==> I've learned my lesson, ta.

I had lurked here for awhile before deciding to register, and just picked a really bad way to open up a topic and make my first post at the same time. Believe it or not I was not/am not trawling for recruits (there is nothing to recruit to).

Regarding point number 5, you all might be surprised (and had some of you asked before assuming you might have found out) that I do not support armed struggle. The past is in the past, there is nothing I can do about it except learn from it. One thing I've learned from it is that demonisation and condemnation move nothing forward.

Maybe it may blow a few minds around here but it is possible to be a republican and not support an armed campaign.

I hope this helps clears up some misconceptions, and I apologise for any unnessecary angst I have caused.

Now, I am going to attempt to address Sand's post...wish me luck!!!!

Twomey

One misconception you are bringing to the table is that everyone who is a republican is SF or IRA or supportive of the two. Not true. Republicanism is not the province of any one organisation (if you will pardon the pun) - it is a philosophy. I would consider myself an independent republican (Dolours Price the other day on the Joe Duffy show called herself a 'Freelance Republican' which was kind of funny) - I don't belong to any organisation and have no desire to. Yes, I do edit an online journal and magazine but there is no party line and contains many diverse and contradictory ideas and opinions. It's a magazine, not a political party/movement, and has no pretensions to be anything else.

This means that If Im wrong in associating republicanism with SF, the IRA and the implicit support for violence to solve political problems, then at least Im not wrong alone.

'People are more afraid of being isolated than they are of being wrong' - de Tocqueville -- looks like you aren't isolated but you are wrong.

Republicans do not 'by definition though associate themselves with SF/IRA and their causes and methods' (try telling that to a member of the IRSP or god forbid, RSF, and see how far you get!!). People have not split over the years from SF and a myriad of other groups because they have a bloodlust. There actually are political ideologies and principles that while they may not mean a thing to you, mean a lot to others. That would be a much larger motivating factor for why not all republicans are Provisionals than would your idea of people who are wedded to violence.

Things are not as black and white, good/evil, cut/dry as you seem to think they are. Approaching history with that view while may feel good does not give anything more than a cartoon version of what happened and why. I am more interested in getting beneath the surface of things than I am in condemning 'evil' and applauding 'good' (both of which are not universally defined, especially politically).

DeVore

I'm a republican and a complete and utter opponent of the "armed struggle". Also opposed to punishment beatings, tit-for-tat murders/bombings, basically violence of any kind. I also despise the (rather large) number of people who apologise for or rationalise these actions.

Fair enough Twomey, any rational and civil discussion is welcome here. Dont be surprised if I'm hovering about these discussions though as its a topic close to my heart and birthplace.

DeV.

Twomey

We may yet agree on more than we disagree.

Sand

Id make the point that not all those in favour of a United Ireland are republicans. The differences between republicanism and nationalism lie mainly in their association with violence (or lack thereof), as is broadly understood by most people as I demonstrated (There is a similar broad understanding of the difference between a Unionist and a Loyalist). When you describe yourself as a republican whilst using a more obscure understanding of the term which includes a peaceful overtone ( nationalism? ), as opposed to a nationalist, people are going to assume youre closer to McGuiness' line of thinking as opposed to Humes' . Seeing as you seem to be using a different understanding of republicanism when you describe yourself as a republican (DeVore is also it seems) Id be curious as to what is your understanding of nationalism - i.e. who are nationalists, what do they want and how do they aim to achieve it as against republicanism from your viewpoint?

'People are more afraid of being isolated than they are of being wrong' - de Tocqueville -- looks like you aren't isolated but you are wrong.

Related to the above point : When youre talking about an understanding of a term, i.e. a basic building block of communication, the important thing is not to be isolated or else youll end up sending the wrong message:)

DeVore

I wouldnt describe myself as Republican (capital R) but int he context it was defined in posts before mine, I chose to use the word (and qualify it...)

Thinking about it the only genuine difference we should draw between the words is the government of the nation once its unified.

Republicans should want a republic, the term "Nationalist" doesnt imply a specific kind of government.

Something I've always hated about Sinn Fein is that they pay no respect to the democractic process unless it suits them and they dont tell people they are general Marxist in ideology. I dont have a problem with Marxism but I have a big problem with hidden agendas.

DeV.