Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A new wave of republican violence
Options
Comments
-
And it's clear you know little of the reality of the situation when the PIRA started their campaign back in the 70s. The oppression of Catholics was the reason so many joined the PIRA.
You made the outrageous statement so there's no point getting defensive. Of course I'm aware opression of Catholics swelled the ranks of the provisionals, but to suggest the IRA was formed to defend catholics(which you did) is ludicrous.0 -
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »You made the outrageous statement so there's no point getting defensive. Of course I'm aware opression of Catholics swelled the ranks of the provisionals, but to suggest the IRA was formed to defend catholics(which you did) is ludicrous.
The IRAs role in the north (Going back to the War of Independence and the anti Catholic pogroms) has always been as a defender of the Catholic community. The IRA in the north was fundamentally different to its counterpart down south. So he's not incorrect, most Republicans would have joined the PIRA because they were getting attacked by the army and the loyalist groups. His point was not so ludicrous.0 -
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »You made the outrageous statement so there's no point getting defensive. Of course I'm aware opression of Catholics swelled the ranks of the provisionals, but to suggest the IRA was formed to defend catholics(which you did) is ludicrous.
It's not a ridicules statement. It falls into the realm of opinion and debate.
The IRA had existed in shell form for decades before the outbreak of the Troubles.
The Provisional IRA however were set up in 69 with the immediate aim of defending Nationalist communities in Belfast. That was the urgent response to a clear and present danger.0 -
We welcome those of all denominations, creeds and race to Ireland to live and flourish, but British Army, RUC/PSNI militia, MI5 spooks and pro-Britishg hate groups that attempt to usurp Irish sovereignty are not welcome
What if those groups are there on the invitation of the people? Your conception of sovreignty and mine are so very different - you believe that elites like you (Purist Republicans) can only decide what constitutes the aims and objectives of the nation, whereas democrats like me believe that sovreignty rests within the wishes and demands of the Irish people.and it wont be through the ballot boxes that achieve nothing,
To restate - you adhere to a fascist philosophy that has consistently been rejected by the Irish people.0 -
Jaap,So there are people in the island of Ireland who are 400 years old???
No, what is now the Unionist community is 400 odd years old. Even after the Act of Union that community had no trouble in identifying itself as Irish, it was only after partition in 1920 that the disavowal of all things Irish came about. Edward Carson's statue stands outside Stormont, remind me where he came from again?You say "the British government claim sovereignty over a part of this country"...the Republic governs itself...what are you on about???
You know full well what I mean, the northern six counties remain part of Ireland; the fact that they are also within the UK doesn't change that fact. By your logic there was no such country as Lithuania as it was in the USSR, or that "Ireland" didn't exist until 1922. Ireland doesn't end at the Louth border.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think it was gun toting IRA vols. who blew the **** out of the civil rights campaigners on bloody Saunday. There is no doubt about the courage of the civil rights movement, but to blame the IRA on their demise is daft.As regards McNulty 32, he's the one talking out of his hole.Thats such a cop out and it makes a mockery of the non violent civil rights struggle led by courageous men and women from Derry to Down. The IRA capitalised on a groundswell of discontent and funneled it into a military campaign oblivious to popular consent and devoid of even the barest trace of chivalry. Its an out and out tragedy the way the civil rights movement has practically gotten written out of Northern Irish history because a few gun toting fanatics dictated the course of the Troubles.0 -
that is probably the case but there were those and not some micro faction as has been alluded to, that did'nt participate in the Provos path of treachery,there is a clear distinction between the likes of the 32CSM, IRSP, RSF, RNU etc, and while nowhere near as large as the Provos, these groups ideals are vastly different from the Provisionals.
Do they though? The 32CSM's sole declaration is to achieve "national sovereignty" and all other policies are subservient to this role. While many in that organisation acknowledge the need to address social and economic issues, the fact remains that the likes of the Real IRA simply wish to escalate a military campaign with the view of challenging British rule in this country. That's exactly the same as the Provisional IRA's strategy since 1971 odd when they shifted to the offensive.You seem to be taking the social democratic line to solve the national question, by comparing the likes of the NAMA debacle and working class bread and butter issues in the South and tying them into the republican cause in the North, its not workable the Sticks tried, it was a failure.
The Sticks failed for a multitude of reasons, they lost all support in the North due their dogged refusal to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding them. In the south they lost support die to their opportunism and drift into reformism. I'm not taking a social democrat line, rather a socialist one. There's a difference.While it may well be the organisation of the working class to make change, it's never going to happen.
Not with that attitude it won't. You'll find the most successful guerrilla struggles in the world were completely tied up with the social and economic struggles of working class people in those countries, i.e. it offered more than a line akin to "Brits Out and worry about the rest later". Working class political organisation isn't an alien concept like. If all you have to offer a single-mother in Cork or someone in negative equity in Dublin is "Brits Out via the bomb" then you'll achieve zero support outside of a few areas in the North. The fact that Republican weren't organised in the south was key to the defeat that took place; evidently something which you want to replicate again.The RIRA are in the position the Provos were in 1969, maybe even alittle stronger, while not a dominant force give it 2 to 3 years, and they will have as much support as the Provos had in the 70s/80s
Are the conditions the same now as they were in 1969? They aren't remotely comparable to be honest. As for the Real IRA being as strong as the Provos in 3 years? That's laughable to be honest. In 1972 alone the Provos killed 100 Brits; the Real IRA have killed two in 13 years, that and a few drug-dealers in an effort to garner support. While the Real IRA is evidently becoming more refined as a military organisation they haven't a hope of replicating the strength of the Provisionals. Even in the middle of the IRA campaign Republicans managed to get a number of MPs elected e.g West Belfast and Fermanagh/South Tyrone. If you think that level of support and military and political strength will be the case in 2013 then you have a very deluded view in my opinion.0 -
FTA69,
In the time I've been reading this forum, you've firmly established yourself as both one of the most informative and informed posters here regarding the North.
While I haven't always agreed with your views, sometimes even been disgusted by them, you've always been able to adequately explain the logic and the reasoning behind those views.
This is why I find it so unusual that you are so openly disagreeing with the dissidents. Clearly it's not a change of heart - as you still use the same language and logic that you always used in my experience.
You are just plainly, outright disagreeing with them.
So let me put it to you again McNulty32, for the third time:
1.Is Gerry Adams a legitimate target & what would be your reaction to his assassination by dissident republicans?
2. Can you clarify the legitimate targets of which you spoke earlier.
Does it include the PSNI?
Does it include Sinn Fein?0 -
This is why I find it so unusual that you are so openly disagreeing with the dissidents. Clearly it's not a change of heart - as you still use the same language and logic that you always used in my experience.
You are just plainly, outright disagreeing with them.
It depends on your starting point I think. I would consider myself a Socialist Republican i.e. while I oppose the British presence in this country I would not see the removal of that presence as an end in itself. As James Connolly said, you could remove the Brits tomorrow and things in this country would be exactly the same. At the end of the day we live in a world dominated by global capitalism, and that is the system which perpetuates the vast majority of issues in this country and the wider world. That is not to say that imperialism no longer exists, it most certainly does, albeit in a different form. Republicans in the past have been guilty of very insular and simplistic views, the notion that the occupation of the North is the source of all our problems, it isn't. Rather it is a small, local manifestation of the global system which is responsible for conflict and poverty in Ireland and elsewhere.
Irish Republicanism must be more than "Brits Out", that policy alone is simply redundant these days, and to cling to that notion alone is to isolate yourself from the daily issues and struggles of working people in Ireland. To limit yourself to a small and faceless armed group is to further compound that isolation and irrelevance. Liam Mellows wrote of his dismay at seeing Dublin workers step over the rubble of the Four Courts on their way to work; we need to learn from that and stop seeking to replicate the failed strategies of the past.
There are plenty of disillusioned and p*ssed off people seeking some sort of alternative, albeit they haven't a clue what form that should take. It is up to Irish Republicans to try and provide an analysis, some sort of leadership and try to turn that into an organised political body. Failure to do that will result in the status quo prevailing.
So when I say I disagree with armed groups, it isn't because I'm leaping to some sort of moral highground. To do so would make me a hypocrite in the extreme; rather I just think it will suck more energies into a campaign doomed to failure.0 -
In post nos. 61 and 65 at the top of the page those I believe are not my words in the grey box...they are McNulty32's...just to clear that up!:) Even tho it says it is my quote!0
-
Advertisement
-
and if there is a united Ireland do you think the loyalists will let it happen easily?
Bollox, take away that border and it wont be long before the UDF etc get going again.
There will always be violence in the North if that happens.
What do the Real IRA or whatever they're calling themselves these days actually want? Its the best deal possible.
You are entitled to an Irish passport, You can speak the Irish language and you have every right to call yourself Irish if your born in the North.
Granted alot of headway still needs to be made in removing the politcal stigma attached to the Irish culture there but that will happen.
You can be as Irish as you like!
Likewise you have those in the North who identify themselves as British. They've been British for generations if you decide to force them to be Irish then you are no better than Cromwell.
You want to fight against poverty and unemployment? Thats everywhere, most sane people deal with it by activism and helping make their country better. Not by blowing chunks out of it.
Most debates on the North I've read on the Internet usually descend into a tit for tat argument "the army done this" "Ya but the IRA done this" blah blah blah.
The sooner those living in the past **** off the better for everyone.
The PSNI was set up as a non sectarian police force. Where is your logic in dissuading Catholics from joining? Pointless terrorism.
And another interesting issue, I read a survey on the net a few weeks ago (and I'm going to try find it again) that showed a significant number of people in Northern Ireland didn't regard themselves as British or Irish, but as Northern Irish. Maybe thats the way forward? I don't know. But I do know most people from the North I've spoken too don't care about this sectarian crap anymore.
Its still prevalent in poor areas, but look at any disadvantaged area in the world and you'll see how people in that situation begin to group up and fight.
Look at LA in the US.
You have your culture, your identity and a voice. All your fighting for is who you pay taxes too. And thats pretty sad when you try dress it up as some fight for justice.
Who the **** would choose to pay for Brian Cowen's wages anyway? Republicans are crazy.0 -
I hope that post isn't addressed at what I've been saying because it's a gross misrepresentation otherwise.and if there is a united Ireland do you think the loyalists will let it happen easily?
Bollox, take away that border and it wont be long before the UDF etc get going again.
Violence with a view to what? Am independent NI? They don't have the critical mass for that to happen, the only areas they are in a clear majority are North Antrim and North Down, Belfast and Derry have key Nationalist majorities like, an independent northern state wouldn't be feasible in the slightest. The only thing that kept (and continues to keep) that entity in existence is British political, military and economic backing.You are entitled to an Irish passport, You can speak the Irish language and you have every right to call yourself Irish if your born in the North.
Granted alot of headway still needs to be made in removing the politcal stigma attached to the Irish culture there but that will happen.
You can be as Irish as you like!
I could be as "Irish" as I wanted in Latvia or Ghana or any other country, it's hardly connected to the issue of national sovereignty.Likewise you have those in the North who identify themselves as British. They've been British for generations if you decide to force them to be Irish then you are no better than Cromwell.
Nobody's seeking to strip anyone of their identity. Unionists died in their thousands on the Somme for their identity, it would be foolish to try and belittle their culture and community. That having been said, they are Irish as well, they have been in this country for 400 years, their existence as a people and their culture is inextricably linked with Ireland. Similarly the fact they are distinct from other Irish people in a myriad of ways does not equate with an inherent right of the UK to claim sovereignty over the northern part of this country, nor does it mean that the system of sectarianism and militant repression that took place is somehow sanitised.You want to fight against poverty and unemployment? Thats everywhere, most sane people deal with it by activism and helping make their country better. Not by blowing chunks out of it.
Eh... well that was what I was saying above like.The PSNI was set up as a non sectarian police force.
Yeah, so were the RIC and the UDR. The religion of individual police officers doesn't change the raison d'etre of that force at all. The PSNI is simply the latest manifestation of British policing in Ireland, with a security agenda controlled exclusively by MI5; an organisation that was up to its neck in colluding with death squads in the murder of Irish citizens, including the Dublin/Monaghan bombings.Look at LA in the US.
Lazy comparison with no merit to be honest.0 -
Yeah, so were the RIC and the UDR. The religion of individual police officers doesn't change the raison d'etre of that force at all. The PSNI is simply the latest manifestation of British policing in Ireland, with a security agenda controlled exclusively by MI5; an organisation that was up to its neck in colluding with death squads in the murder of Irish citizens, including the Dublin/Monaghan bombings.
It is a British police force in Ireland which has the overwhelming backing of the Irish people. In my opinion, this makes them an irish police force, as all legitimacy for state institutions derives from the consent of the masses. Irish Republicanism has always tried to supersede the will of the people; it has no democratic basis and is a bastardisation of enlightenment values. There is absolutely no respectability for this modern manifestation of a dead 1920s fascist ideology. The world has moved on.0 -
It is a British police force in Ireland which has the overwhelming backing of the Irish people. In my opinion, this makes them an irish police force, as all legitimacy for state institutions derives from the consent of the masses. Irish Republicanism has always tried to supersede the will of the people; it has no democratic basis and is a bastardisation of enlightenment values. There is absolutely no respectability for this modern manifestation of a dead 1920s fascist ideology. The world has moved on.
Irish Republicanism has no democratic mandate you say,
Please explain to me exactly when England received her democratic mandate to invade, conquer and rule Ireland for centuries.
When did she receive her mandate to invade and conquer and oppress
Palestine,
India,
Africa,
Iraq,
Afghanistan,
Australia,
The Americas
????0 -
It is a British police force in Ireland which has the overwhelming backing of the Irish people. In my opinion, this makes them an irish police force, as all legitimacy for state institutions derives from the consent of the masses. Irish Republicanism has always tried to supersede the will of the people; it has no democratic basis and is a bastardisation of enlightenment values. There is absolutely no respectability for this modern manifestation of a dead 1920s fascist ideology. The world has moved on.
Furthermore in case you hadn't noticed, this independant state of Ireland is a REPUBLIC founded on revolutionary republicanism (a la USA & France).
Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant - it exists.
The "reform" group can't change that. Nobody can.0 -
Irish Republicanism has no democratic mandate you say,
Please explain to me exactly when England received her democratic mandate to invade, conquer and rule Ireland for centuries.
When did she receive her mandate to invade and conquer and oppress
Palestine,
India,
Africa,
Iraq,
Afghanistan,
Australia,
The Americas
????
A rubbish point, you assume I support the british presence and partition of Northern Ireland just because I renounce Republican violence.0 -
Furthermore in case you hadn't noticed, this independant state of Ireland is a REPUBLIC founded on revolutionary republicanism (a la USA & France).
Which is why I call it a bastardisation of these Republican values.Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant - it exists.
Your knowledge of the Wikipedia article on Republicanism does not make you learned on this matter.The "reform" group can't change that. Nobody can.
I despise the Reform group and Eoghan Harris.
Is renouncing violence, a lack of a democratic mandate, and narrow, elitist and fascist political philosophy so repulsive to you?0 -
A rubbish point, you assume I support the british presence and partition of Northern Ireland just because I renounce Republican violence.
Ah-ah! Now now! Ad hominem argument is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I don't assume any such thing and never said you did.
I don't know what you do or don't support, but as you say Irish republicanism has no mandate, why don't you explain to me where England got her mandate from to conquer and rule Ireland.
Did England hold a referendum to invade and rule Ireland?
Was there a plebisicte?
No of course not, it was done through violence and Englands rule in Ireland down through the centuries was codified and maintained through violence as it was in all parts of the "empire".
Now before you start, I also totally repudiate modern day republican violence and mayhem, it's totally utterly wrong.
I don't think politics are worth anyone's life in this day and age and I do feel that we can have closer friendlier relations with Britain and we should do.
But let's not airbrush over history.
I'm hoping and praying that the current peace process is far too strong to be derailed by extremists on any side.
The people of the North have earned and deserve their peace and prosperity and things should only ever change through consent and respect for all the different traditions on this small island.
A respect which you seem to be lacking??0 -
In my opinion, this makes them an irish police force,
Apart from their members what's Irish about them? They are armed and paid by the British government, and since the St Andrew's Agreement their security agenda (their major purpose in other words) is expressly controlled by MI5, an unaccountable secret service with a long track record of colluding in the murder of its own citizens.Irish Republicanism has always tried to supersede the will of the people
As opposed to what? British rule?a dead 1920s fascist ideology.
I don't even know where to begin with that, such is the level of historical fallacy.0 -
your lack of knowledge on history shocks me,when england invaded ireland,people did not have any rights,rulers ruled by force and murder,the english parliament[unelected] was under control of king[cromwell changed that part] but the poor of this world did what they were told ,Ah-ah! Now now! Ad hominem argument is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I don't assume any such thing and never said you did.
I don't know what you do or don't support, but as you say Irish republicanism has no mandate, why don't you explain to me where England got her mandate from to conquer and rule Ireland.
Did England hold a referendum to invade and rule Ireland?
Was there a plebisicte?
No of course not, it was done through violence and Englands rule in Ireland down through the centuries was codified and maintained through violence as it was in all parts of the "empire".
Now before you start, I also totally repudiate modern day republican violence and mayhem, it's totally utterly wrong.
I don't think politics are worth anyone's life in this day and age and I do feel that we can have closer friendlier relations with Britain and we should do.
But let's not airbrush over history.
I'm hoping and praying that the current peace process is far too strong to be derailed by extremists on any side.
The people of the North have earned and deserve their peace and prosperity and things should only ever change through consent and respect for all the different traditions on this small island.
A respect which you seem to be lacking??0 -
Advertisement
-
your lack of knowledge on history shocks me,when england invaded ireland,people did not have any rights,rulers ruled by force and murder,the english parliament[unelected] was under control of king[cromwell changed that part] but the poor of this world did what they were told ,
Hmm, perhaps but didn't England invade Iraq a few years back?
What's your excuse for that?
WMDs?:D:D:D0 -
It is a British police force in Ireland which has the overwhelming backing of the Irish people. In my opinion, this makes them an irish police force, as all legitimacy for state institutions derives from the consent of the masses. Irish Republicanism has always tried to supersede the will of the people; it has no democratic basis and is a bastardisation of enlightenment values. There is absolutely no respectability for this modern manifestation of a dead 1920s fascist ideology. The world has moved on.
Actually, Irish Republicans fought the only war of National Liberation with an electoral Democratic basis in the world.
It's a genuine pity that it doesn't meet your lofty standards.0 -
england did not invade iraq,the united kingdom invaded iraq under the belief that they were ready to use neclear weapons and destabilize the middle east,iraq had already killed more muslims than anyone else had in history,they were also using poison gases to wipe out the kurds and firing guided missiles into israel and and invaded other middle east states,they had also refused to access to UN inspectors.Hmm, perhaps but didn't England invade Iraq a few years back?
What's your excuse for that?
WMDs?:D:D:D0 -
Did England hold a referendum to invade and rule Ireland?
'England' didn't invade Ireland, an Anglo Norman nobleman did after receiving an invitation from a deposed Leinster King.Was there a plebisicte?
The concept of an invading power holding a plebiscite is absurd, though I doubt you really thought about your post. Do you think this somehow weakens what I have to say? That Cromwell didn't adopt the basic democratic standards of the modern era? Don't juxtapose historical periods, it just looks stupid.No of course not, it was done through violence and Englands rule in Ireland down through the centuries was codified and maintained through violence as it was in all parts of the "empire".
Now before you start, I also totally repudiate modern day republican violence and mayhem, it's totally utterly wrong.
I don't think politics are worth anyone's life in this day and age and I do feel that we can have closer friendlier relations with Britain and we should do.
But let's not airbrush over history.
I'm not airbrushing over history. You cannot compare 16th and 17th century Ireland to modern Ireland. If anything, you're making history some kind of teleological simplicity, something completely disingenuous.I'm hoping and praying that the current peace process is far too strong to be derailed by extremists on any side.
The people of the North have earned and deserve their peace and prosperity and things should only ever change through consent and respect for all the different traditions on this small island.
A respect which you seem to be lacking??
I respect the overwhelming majority of the Nationalist community which has consistently rejected violence at every electoral opportunity. I respect all those who object to a small, fanatical, fascist elite dictating the course of their people's destiny. You sir, are the one lacking in respect for the long suffering nationalist peoples of Northern Ireland.0 -
Exile 1798 wrote: »Actually, Irish Republicans fought the only war of National Liberation with an electoral Democratic basis in the world.
It's a genuine pity that it doesn't meet your lofty standards.
Although this has been debated ad nauseum before, suffice it to say that technically, yes, Sinn Féin did have a democratic mandate to launch a national war of liberation. I'm not talking about 1920 here. I was referring to the European fascism of the 1920s, the concept that elites can decide over the will of the people the true destiny of the nation. The concept that only those of sufficient 'purity' can suffer involvement in the creation of a new political order. Radical Republicanism in its Irish manifestation is genuinely creepy and bears all the hallmarks of European fascism.0 -
england did not invade iraq,the united kingdom invaded iraq under the belief that they were ready to use neclear weapons and destabilize the middle east,iraq had already killed more muslims than anyone else had in history,they were also using poison gases to wipe out the kurds and firing guided missiles into israel and and invaded other middle east states,they had also refused to access to UN inspectors.
Ah ok,
So what you're saying is that it wasn't illegal, the UN had it wrong!
It was a humanitarian invasion complete with humanitarian bombing of civilians etc.
Thank God Saddam didn't get the chance to fire all his warheads at Leicester or Chipping Sodbury!!
Wow, I had it all wrong, the guys who ordered that invasion are heroes really aren't they!
Golly gosh.:D0 -
england did not invade iraq,the united kingdom invaded iraq under the belief that they were ready to use neclear weapons and destabilize the middle east,iraq had already killed more muslims than anyone else had in history,they were also using poison gases to wipe out the kurds and firing guided missiles into israel and and invaded other middle east states,they had also refused to access to UN inspectors.
PS, history records the first use of poison gas in Iraq was by the RAF on Iraqi civilians in the 1920s...
Sorry old chap!0 -
'England' didn't invade Ireland, an Anglo Norman nobleman did after receiving an invitation from a deposed Leinster King.
The concept of an invading power holding a plebiscite is absurd, though I doubt you really thought about your post. Do you think this somehow weakens what I have to say? That Cromwell didn't adopt the basic democratic standards of the modern era? Don't juxtapose historical periods, it just looks stupid.
I'm not airbrushing over history. You cannot compare 16th and 17th century Ireland to modern Ireland. If anything, you're making history some kind of teleological simplicity, something completely disingenuous.
I respect the overwhelming majority of the Nationalist community which has consistently rejected violence at every electoral opportunity. I respect all those who object to a small, fanatical, fascist elite dictating the course of their people's destiny. You sir, are the one lacking in respect for the long suffering nationalist peoples of Northern Ireland.
I think if you look at the creation, ideologies and atrocities of the so called "British Empire" you'll find far more similarities with fascism....0 -
I think if you look at the creation, ideologies and atrocities of the so called "British Empire" you'll find far more similarities with fascism....
Ok. This isn't actually a point you've made, but whatever. Sleep well tonight. Don't bother your mind with troublesome things. All will be OK in the end.0 -
Advertisement
-
Exile 1798 wrote: »Actually, Irish Republicans fought the only war of National Liberation with an electoral Democratic basis in the world.
WAR? I ofter find the use of this word in relation to the IRA campaign in the early part of the twentieth century as somewhat misleading. I'm not sure I would call it a 'War', certainly not in the conventional understanding of the term WAR, ie (Two armies, Tank against tank, fighter aircraft, Big guns), etc, etc ......... surely it was more like popping off policemen in rural areas, civil disobedience, ambushing police stations, holding up mail trains, shooting security personnel & that sort of thing. I don't know the full facts, so would anyone like to clarify?0
Advertisement