Are Dissident Republicans here to stay?

paky

Dissident Republicans seem to be more determined than ever. Its only a matter of time before they pull off a successful attack on British Security Forces. So the question remains are Dissidents here to stay?

changes

Its quite sad really, its going nowhere.

I think they just can't leave it all behind, they'd miss the bullcrap talk in the pubs, feeling part of something, nostalgia for the old days etc.

And the organised crime part of it prob helps keep an interest in it too i'd imagine.

Very very little public support for it though.

Bottle_of_Smoke

paky wrote: »

Dissident Republicans seem to be more determined than ever. Its only a matter of time before they pull off a successful attack on British Security Forces. So the question remains are Dissidents here to stay?

Hard to say. The most recent bomb attack on the lad from PSNI was said to have been done by experienced ex-provos. Apparently the groups are now really paranoid about being infiltrated.

If they can't recruit new people for this reason they cant go on forever.

I think for them to grow there would need to be some major event, like a loughall type incident.

What I will say is that a lot of people keep saying "oh itll never be as bad as the troubles"

Which is actually meaningless. In 1988 there were 104 people killed in troubles related violence. That's two people a week. If it even got to the stage now where 2 people a month were being killed by paramilitary bombs/shootings it would still be a frightening place to live.

paky

so do you think they will inevitably rise again? i have a gut feeling they will.

Bottle_of_Smoke

paky wrote: »

so do you think they will inevitably rise again? i have a gut feeling they will.

Well what do you mean by "rise" ?

I'd say within the next 12 months they might kill 0-4 members of the security forces. Probably some drugs dealers too.

Five years time. Really hard to say. If they got a reaction from millitant loyalists there could be a lot of bloodshed and some more community support. If the SAS were to kill a bunch of them in a shoot to kill type mission they might get some support.

Other factors obviously come into it. Stormont falling could impact on things. Impossible to say what lies ahead for that place, even for the next six months.

paky

sorry i meant grow (rise)

Pride Fighter

I would not call them dissident republicans. Criminals would be a more appropriate word. The Republican movement in NI is a political movement, the SDLP and Sinn Fein are the only ones really, and none of them do any of the nonsense of the 70's/80's/90's.

imme

Would the Conspiracy Theories section of Boards not be a more appropriate place to be discussing dissident republicans, or some other section.

I don't know that 'politics' is the appropriate forum, sure to be a dissident republican or a dissident anything one must have given up on politics.

Liam Byrne

Two quick points.

First, to answer the question directly : hopefully not.

Secondly, even the phrase "dissident republicans" gives these criminals an air of authenticity which is undeserved.

FTA69

Its only a matter of time before they pull off a successful attack on British Security Forces.

Sure they already have. The Real IRA attacked a British Army barracks in Massarene and calmly riddled all those standing outside it, the Continuity IRA killed a member of the PSNI and this new group, Óglaigh na hÉireann managed to inflict serious injuries on a prominent Catholic PSNI member. That having been said, attacks resulting in casualties were inevitable due to the rising number of bombings and shootings that took place in the couple of years leading up to them. The likes of the Real IRA have also increased their capabilities in the past few years as well in my opinion, a marked contrast to the incompetence they displayed in the early part of the decade. The Reals and ONH are growing in many parts of the country, and retain the capability and will to attack the crown forces, and people like drug-dealers as well. It would stand to logic that they will succeed in launching more attacks in the future.

At the end of the day, rightly or wrongly there will always be those who will take to conspiratorial and armed methods when the British presence in this country is concerned. Every generation going back to the 1800s has spoke about how the "gun is out of Irish politics"; the fact is while a part of this country remains under British control there will always be those who will see armed struggle as a legitimate tactic. Sometimes that movement will be large, other times it will be very small, but it will always be there and it won't be going away anytime soon.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

Óglaigh na hÉireann managed to inflict serious injuries on a prominent Catholic PSNI member.

I didn't hear anything about the Irish Army attacking anyone!

thebman

Given lack of community support for a return to violence and relatively small numbers. I think they will be unable to continue attacks for any length of time unidentified.

Of course you also have to take into account policing improvements such as CCTV which will mean the authorities aren't as reliant on members of the community coming forward as they used to be.

In short, its more difficult to attack and the people involved are most likely less competent at it than the provo's so we will hopefully see them peak in support and disappear once they hopefully fail to achieve anything.

sparkling sea

Its more likely that they will be exposed as the criminals they are I don't see how they can brainwash people into supporting them.

I would imagine that the people of NI will eventually want their country to be recognised as a country in its own right.

All the supposed causes have run there course

Fratton Fred

looks like thet plan on at least making a nuisance of themselves

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8529541.stm

kenneth5

Fratton Fred wrote: »

looks like thet plan on at least making a nuisance of themselves

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8529541.stm

With all the bombs they have been planting it was always a matter of time before one of them actually exploded. No one was injured it seems. Saw a programme on rte about them recently and it was suggested that they break up into different factions on purpose, i.e cira, rira, onh so if one group is infiltrated the other's can survuve. Where as if they all merged to be one it would be easier to for te brits to cripple there actions with only a few grasses. I don't see this ending for a while. Possibly gonna get more intense before things calm down again

The Corinthian

Fringe malcontents exist in every society. A hundred years ago, you had lone anarchists periodically assassinating monarchs around Europe, but ultimately they had very little support - even from those who might have agreed with some of their ideals. In the present day you have groups like the ALF, who again have very little support - even from those who might agree with some of their ideals.

Northern Ireland has dissident republicans, essentially the remnants of ideologies (armed struggle, et al) that were once popular, who again have very little support - even from those who might agree with some of their ideals.

You're always going to get fringe malcontents, just as you're always going to get nut-jobs. Some are fairly benign (such as the SWP) and others are violent (such as the ALF), but ultimately you're always going to have a few.

imme

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fringe malcontents exist in every society. A hundred years ago, you had lone anarchists periodically assassinating monarchs around Europe, but ultimately they had very little support - even from those who might have agreed with some of their ideals. In the present day you have groups like the ALF, who again have very little support - even from those who might agree with some of their ideals.

Northern Ireland has dissident republicans, essentially the remnants of ideologies (armed struggle, et al) that were once popular, who again have very little support - even from those who might agree with some of their ideals.

You're always going to get fringe malcontents, just as you're always going to get nut-jobs. Some are fairly benign (such as the SWP) and others are violent (such as the ALF), but ultimately you're always going to have a few.

Is it worthwhile discussing the SWP and the ALF in the context of dissident reps? You say the SWP (Soc Workers Party?) are fringe malcontents and nut-jobs. How does this further the issue of whether the dissident reps are here to stay.

The anarchists you mention above were generally members of secret societies determined to change society.

imme

Dissident Republicans (read would be murderers) exploded a bomb at Newry court house last night. Nobody was killed.
Were they trying to kill people?, would they have been happier to kill women, children, older people, immigrants, people in wheelchairs.

Sinn Féin's Conor Murphy told the Irish Times:
“The people responsible have absolutely nothing to offer the community except the prospect of a return to the past.
“A lot of good people have worked long and hard to develop Newry over the last 10 years and this will be a major blow to the city."

The Corinthian

imme wrote: »

Is it worthwhile discussing the SWP and the ALF in the context of dissident reps? You say the SWP (Soc Workers Party?) are fringe malcontents and nut-jobs. How does this further the issue of whether the dissident reps are here to stay.

Follow the logic. It's not complicated: Fringe malcontents and nut-jobs are inevitable in any society - be they violent or benign. Dissident republicans are one example of fringe malcontents, specific to (Northern) Irish society. If it's not them, it'll be some other group and other cause to plant bombs, etc.

Whether they are here to stay or not is ultimately irrelevant as there will always be some other fringe malcontent or nut-job to replace them. Or even decades after they have lost steam and vanished, someone else could dust off their banner and resurrect whatever cause they had.

The anarchists you mention above were generally members of secret societies determined to change society.

And violent fringe malcontents and nut-jobs are what normally?

Members of secret societies / underground groups / 'terrorist' cells? Check.

Determined to change society? Check.

imme

The Corinthian wrote: »

Follow the logic. It's not complicated: Fringe malcontents and nut-jobs are inevitable in any society - be they violent or benign. Dissident republicans are one example of fringe malcontents, specific to (Northern) Irish society. If it's not them, it'll be some other group and other cause to plant bombs, etc.

Whether they are here to stay or not is ultimately irrelevant as there will always be some other fringe malcontent or nut-job to replace them. Or even decades after they have lost steam and vanished, someone else could dust off their banner and resurrect whatever cause they had.

you're very good for making it simple for me;)

So you're not casting the SWP as 'fringe malcontents' any more?
If the SWP were to win 15% of the vote in the next election would they still be 'fringe malcontents'?

The Corinthian

imme wrote: »

So you're not casting the SWP as 'fringe malcontents' any more?

They're still fringe malcontents, just not violent ones.

If the SWP were to win 15% of the vote in the next election would they still be 'fringe malcontents'?

I might consider them malcontents, but they'd not be in the fringes. Still, what are the chances of them getting 15% of the vote? Not high, TBH.

FTA69

LB,

I didn't hear anything about the Irish Army attacking anyone!

Don't be pedantic, that's what that particular group calls itself and unlike the Real IRA etc it doesn't have any other particular moniker.

kenneth,

Saw a programme on rte about them recently and it was suggested that they break up into different factions on purpose, i.e cira, rira, onh so if one group is infiltrated the other's can survuve.

That's nonsense really, I saw that programme on the telly as well. The fact that there are different groups has little to do with tactics or logistics, those particular groups emerged at different times and as a result of different political developments. The CIRA formed in 1986 as a result of the split within the Provisionals over the drop of abstentionism from Leinster House; the Reals were formed in 1998 as a result of militaristic Provisionals levaing because of the signing of the Mitchell Principles. This new group, ONH, seems to consist of people formerly centred around the Real IRA as well as a few former Provisional IRA members.

The innacuracy of that programme can be highlighted by the fact your man asked Tony Catney if he was the leader of the Reals in Belfast when anyone in that loop knows that 1) TC has nothing to do with that group and 2) the Reals don't even exist in Belfast.

amacachi

I despair sometimes. Not that I'm advocating it but one night would be all it would take to get rid of all of them.
Then again, we're meant to be moving away from all that so it's a bit of a Catch-22.

Also, why blow up a bomb in a city that's about 90% Catholic/Nationalist? That's like keying your own car.
And don't bother explaining, I'm sure it's something to do with them refusing to recognise the authority of the courts or some other such bull****.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

LB,Don't be pedantic, that's what that particular group calls itself and unlike the Real IRA etc it doesn't have any other particular moniker.

I'm not being pedantic; I'm stating a fact.

Oglaigh na hEireann is the official name of the Irish Army, and no-one else has the right to use it.

What they "call themselves" in order to try to give themselves a sense of importance and legitimacy is irrelevant.

They are not "Oglaigh na hEireann" : FACT.

Biggins

The more a dying animal is backed into a corner of its own making and senses its own demise, the more it will fight back.
Its an inevitable consequence but its fate has already been decided by others and one brought about by its own previous actions.

The victor this time around is "peace" - the losing animal is "unwanted war".
Long may it stay that way.

lcrcboy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I didn't hear anything about the Irish Army attacking anyone!

Óglaigh na hÉireann is a new splinter dissident republic group,

just came across this thread there was a car bomb which went off outside a courthouse in Newry last night, I will provide a link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8529884.stm

lcrcboy

didint see the above posts sorry

Liam Byrne

lcrcboy wrote: »

Óglaigh na hÉireann is a new splinter dissident republic group,

Incorrect.

Óglaigh na hÉireann is The Irish Army.

Some "new splinter dissident republic group" might be trying to call themselves that, but they can go ---- themselves.

FTA69

LB,

Whatever. Don't be jumping down my throat because I stated the title of a particular group.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned Óglaigh na hÉireann (meaning Irish Volunteers) was always a title concerning the IRA, and not the Free State Army which later tried to adopt the name.

PCros

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Incorrect.

Óglaigh na hÉireann is The Irish Army.

Some "new splinter dissident republic group" might be trying to call themselves that, but they can go ---- themselves.

Hes not saying your wrong, hes stating what they are called.

Yes its not a legal name but they're not exactly a legal organisation....

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

not the Free State Army which later tried to adopt the name.

LOL. Almost as bad as how Arch-duke Franz Ferdinand von Habsburg was planning to turn Austria–Hungary into a triple crown to accommodate south Slavic nationalism, even though this was originally the goal of Serbia.

You just cant trust some defunct existing entities.

FTA69

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Almost as bad as how Arch-duke Franz Ferdinand von Habsburg was planning to turn Austria–Hungary into a triple crown to accommodate south Slavic nationalism, even though this was originally the goal of Serbia.

You just cant trust some defunct existing entities.

Yeah. Cool story.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

Yeah. Cool story.

Kind of what I was thinking with your story.

CabbageThing

As long as the Border exists there will be those who will take up arms against it.Its the cancer.

Liam Byrne

CabbageThing wrote: »

As long as the Border exists there will be those who will take up arms against it.Its the cancer.

The cancer is those who are prepared to violently state their objection to a border that people North and South of it have democratically agreed to.

The Corinthian

CabbageThing wrote: »

As long as the Border exists there will be those who will take up arms against it.Its the cancer.

Republican dissidents, like any other malcontents will always find another cancer to fight, die and kill for even if there was no border.

OhNoYouDidn't

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The cancer is those who are prepared to violently state their objection to a border that people North and South of it have democratically agreed to.

He has a point though. For as long as there is a British military presence in the 6 counties there will be Republican groups resisting them. That is a simple reality.

The issue is whether they garner mass support like the Provisionals could or if the British clamp down on them in a clumsy manner and create martyrs out of them. As PSF drift more and more into irrelevance the vacum is open.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

Republican dissidents, like any other malcontents will always find another cancer to fight, die and kill for even if there was no border.

That is an exceptionally naive attitude.

Liam Byrne

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

He has a point though. For as long as there is a British military presence in the 6 counties there will be Republican groups resisting them. That is a simple reality.

It shouldn't be an accepted reality, though.

Whatever about any perceived "justification" in going against the wishes of "the British", the fact is that they are now going against the wishes of the entire island.

I don't know what type of Ireland they want to belong to, but trying to create an island where they ignore the wishes of everyone else, and believe that their wishes supercede those of everyone else, is not going to gain them ANY support, and is actually going to be counter-productive and make people detest them even more than "simply" murdering innocent shoppers.

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That is an exceptionally naive attitude.

After all, what are we discussing here but splinter groups from the main republican paramilitaries what did not agree with a change in tactics towards their ends.

And those ends are not always limited to "a 32-county Ireland", but to a particular kind of 32-county Ireland that should have been were it not for the Free State.

Of course, many existing dissidents will lay down their arms in "a 32-county Ireland" and seek this new Ireland peaceably and democratically - but not all, because that it the nature of extremism, it is a means to a noble end which it will bring to the people even if it kills them in the process.

So frankly, I think you are one who is being exceptionally naive.

OhNoYouDidn't

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It shouldn't be an accepted reality, though.

Whatever about any perceived "justification" in going against the wishes of "the British", the fact is that they are now going against the wishes of the entire island.

I don't know what type of Ireland they want to belong to, but trying to create an island where they ignore the wishes of everyone else, and believe that their wishes supercede those of everyone else, is not going to gain them ANY support, and is actually going to be counter-productive and make people detest them even more than "simply" murdering innocent shoppers.

I don't know why you are telling me all this, but how exactly are they 'going against the wishes of the entire island' than any other branch of militant republicanism since 1798? They derive the exact same legitimacy that all branches of the IRA have done.

Like it or not, we will always see resistance to British military rule in Ireland.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

After all, what are we discussing here but splinter groups from the main republican paramilitaries what did not agree with a change in tactics towards their ends.

And those ends are not always limited to "a 32-county Ireland", but to a particular kind of 32-county Ireland that should have been were it not for the Free State.

Of course, many existing dissidents will lay down their arms in "a 32-county Ireland" and seek this new Ireland peaceably and democratically - but not all, because that it the nature of extremism, it is a means to a noble end which it will bring to the people even if it kills them in the process.

So frankly, I think you are one who is being exceptionally naive.

Your original point seemed to argue that this was directionless violence for the sake of violence. Thats a dangerous approach to take to Republicanism - and it backfired on Thatcher for example.

These guys see the Provisional movement as being co-opeted by the British state to run the 6 counties for them and are determined to retain the purity of the Republican ideals and fight on.

I'm not for one second arguing they are right, but to argue that there isn't a strategy behind these people is what is dangerously naive.

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Your original point seemed to argue that this was directionless violence for the sake of violence. Thats a dangerous approach to take to Republicanism - and it backfired on Thatcher for example.

It's not directionless - until it either arrives at its destination or, along the way, disagrees on the road to take. Sometimes you'll find that there will even be disagreement on what the (final) destination is.

And that is where it becomes problematic, because today's dissidents are fighting to cure one cancer and if they do, some of them will only see this as a milestone in the curing of a greater cancer. Or they may split along the way over a particular aim or strategy, or just because of internal politics and personalities - People's Front of Judea, and all that.

As such, it is unlikely that removing the 'cancer' of the border will ultimately solve the issue of dissident paramilitaries.

Liam Byrne

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I don't know why you are telling me all this, but how exactly are they 'going against the wishes of the entire island' than any other branch of militant republicanism since 1798? They derive the exact same legitimacy that all branches of the IRA have done.

I agree with that - there was never a case to be made for murder.

But the fact that there was a full and unambiguous vote from the whole island proved beyond doubt - if there was one - that they have no mandate or support.

OhNoYouDidn't

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I agree with that - there was never a case to be made for murder.

But the fact that there was a full and unambiguous vote from the whole island proved beyond doubt - if there was one - that they have no mandate or support.

What vote was that exactly?

They derive their mandate from the first Dail, in the same way all versions of the IRA have done, so its a moot point when it comes to Republican dogma. Have they any less a mandate then the version that became FF?

djpbarry

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

What vote was that exactly?

The Referendum on the Good Friday Agreement? I think you knew that.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

They derive their mandate from the first Dail, in the same way all versions of the IRA have done, so its a moot point when it comes to Republican dogma. Have they any less a mandate then the version that became FF?

Yes, because Fianna Fáil were recently re-elected, in a democratic election, to represent the people of Ireland. The IRA (as far as I am aware) were not.

Hagar

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Incorrect.
Óglaigh na hÉireann is The Irish Army.

Officially yes but I think you will find that the IRA have first claim to the name Óglaigh na hÉireann. They used it in 1913 and onwards. The Irish Army as we know it was not constituted until much later and hijacked the name. For evidence see the Official Irish Army Website. Link

The Corinthian

69 wrote: »

Officially yes but I think you will find that the IRA have first claim to the name Óglaigh na hÉireann. They used it in 1913 and onwards. The Irish Army as we know it was not constituted until much later and hijacked the name. For evidence see the Official Irish Army Website. Link

And it is because of such pointless historical nitpicking that dissident republicans here to stay.

Hagar

Nitpicking? I just pointed out a historical fact.

I'm not claiming to support either side, there are hard-line Republicans walking the streets just as there are hard-line Unionists, some of which only very recently decommissioned their arms, many years after the GFA. I've yet to see a thread getting stuck into them.

OhNoYouDidn't

djpbarry wrote: »

The Referendum on the Good Friday Agreement? I think you knew that.

I must have missed the bit about dissident Republicans on that ballot. But thats somewhat irrelevant.

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, because Fianna Fáil were recently re-elected, in a democratic election, to represent the people of Ireland. The IRA (as far as I am aware) were not.

Thats not the point I am getting at. All I'm saying is its slightly rich for the Provisional movement to say the dissidents have no mandate when they used that exact same line in the 60's.

The Corinthian

69 wrote: »

Nitpicking? I just pointed out a historical fact.

Which is irrelevant to present reality. What does pointing out such a fact actually achieve?

I generally find that 'historical facts' are commonly selectively chosen episodes in history that occurred at a point distant enough to the present where they have either zero impact or reversing the impact would cause as much or more harm as the original event, but are used to justify some (typically nationalistic or ethnic) cause.

I'm not claiming to support either side, there are hard-line Republicans walking the streets just as there are hard-line Unionists, some of which only very recently decommissioned their arms, many years after the GFA. I've yet to see a thread getting stuck into them.

That's probably because that 'the other side has hard-line dissidents' argument is not a credible one when defending Republican hard-line dissidents.