IRA statement

Stabshauptmann

Sand wrote:

Where did I claim {the OIRA-PIRA split was over Sunnigdale}

"They have come fuill circle back to the exact same idealogy they rejected 30 years ago, for what is basically the same agreement they rejected 30 years ago."

Where did I say {SF and Paisley are back where they started - stuck together. Making the last 30 years a waste}

"SFIRA plus Paisley in action again. Wonderful how they came together 30 years later to bury the GFA isnt it?"

Point out where I said the PIRA planted the Omagh bomb?

"If they believed in right and wrong, it would be hard for them to support planting a bomb in Warrington or Omagh."
You lumped them together and said they were committed / supported
by the same "they" - the PIRA. In a thread about the PIRA you stuck in the RIRA out of the blue without any disclaimer.
If this were a thread about the BA in Iraq and someone started to refer to US actions and BA actions in the one sentence, and using the collective term they, ppl would point out the mistake.

Point where I said Loyalists didnt kill more than SFIRA?

" That civillians had more to fear from SFIRA than Loyalist did?There is no getting away from that."

And you still havent clarified your "typo":
"Where did I claim morality to be irrelevant? I registered my dislike of moral relativism"

Sand

Pffft Kaptain. Weak. All your responses are so weak. This is what happens when people steam into a thread with personal vendettas.

"They have come fuill circle back to the exact same idealogy they rejected 30 years ago, for what is basically the same agreement they rejected 30 years ago."

No, I still dont see where I said SFIRA and OIRA split happened after Sunningdale?

"SFIRA plus Paisley in action again. Wonderful how they came together 30 years later to bury the GFA isnt it?"

No, I still dont see where I said they were mainstream?

"If they believed in right and wrong, it would be hard for them to support planting a bomb in Warrington or Omagh."
You lumped them together and said they were committed / supported
by the same "they" - the PIRA. In a thread about the PIRA you stuck in the RIRA out of the blue without any disclaimer.

Cmon now, why leave out the full paragraph? What I said was, for your benefit

Im never surprised that its the defenders of evil idealogies that try their best to sell "world of greys" ****e. If they believed in right and wrong, it would be hard for them to support planting a bomb in Warrington or Omagh.

"They" clearly refers to defenders of evil idealogies, from only the sentence before. There is absolutely no mention of SFIRA or RIRA in that paragraph. And you still havent differentiated between the bombs...

" That civillians had more to fear from SFIRA than Loyalist did?There is no getting away from that."

I still dont see where it says SFIRA killed more that loyalists did? All that says is that SFIRA killed far more civillians than they killed loyalists, 17 civillians for every loyalist I think, hence civillians feared SFIRA more than loyalists feared SFIRA.

And you still havent clarified your "typo":
"Where did I claim morality to be irrelevant? I registered my dislike of moral relativism"

Yes I did. I devoted several sections of practically each post to it, including the Omagh and Warrington bombs example. Its okay though, its clear you dont actually read what my posts say and instead create your own versions to respond to.

tomMK1

Sand wrote:

I still dont see where it says SFIRA killed more that loyalists did? All that says is that SFIRA killed far more civillians than they killed loyalists, 17 civillians for every loyalist I think, hence civillians feared SFIRA more than loyalists feared SFIRA.

Please point out where sinn fein killed anyone, or else explain thie SFIRA craic because really, whats in gods name are you on about? also there probably is NO accurate record of how many people were killed by whom.

finally i don think any republicans support any bombings, outside the fact that its unfortunate that these things have had to have happened, but in the circumstances they had to and did.

Zombrex

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The IRA killed about 500, not 700 civilaisn.

What are you basing that on?

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Now onto a topic worthy of debate: were the RUC legitimate targets.
Why wouldnt they be?

Because they are a state police force. What possible purpose can be served by killing them except the purpose of terrorism (which I think we argee is not a legitimate form of warfare). Even if the IRA killed every single RUC member they would be no closer to removing British rule from Northern Ireland.

Now I don't think the IRA ever had a justifiable leg to stand on, but if they did the only justifiable, legitimate targets, could be the British Army, and the only justifiable targets with in the British Army would be those directly responsible with British rule in the 6 counties.

Just in the same way you can't just kill anyone on the other side in a legitimate war (medical staff, cooks, army reporters, for example), there is no way the RUC could be considered legitimate targets for execution by the IRA, mainly because their executions served no purpose other than terrorism.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The threat to attck Iraq unless American demands were met would be through intimindation or coercion,

Umm ... maybe you should think about that a bit more :rolleyes:

Is the threat of prision to stop someone committing a crime of burglery an act of terrorism? I don't think so. Not every act of intimindation is an act of terrorism. A man might intimindate his neighbour to cut down a tree, doesn't mean he committed terrorism. I think you need to think a bit more about the definition of terrorism.

Terrorism is a specific military/political tactic. Like I said before, not every evil act is an act of terrorism.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

"Shock and Awe" would be an example of instilling fear

Terrorism is the perception of small hidden danger, that while only striking quickly and in a localised area, can strike at any time to anyone. It is the fear induced by that idea, the constant "on the edge" feeling that is the goal of terrorism. Terrorism's goals are long term, but use the mininum of effort on the part of the terrorists.

"Shock and Awe" is the exact opposite, in that it is an over whelming show of force, designed to dis-orintate a large number in a very quick space of time, removing their ability to understand the situtation well enough to fight back for a short period. The attacking army can then walking through the defenses with ease. It takes a large amount of effort but its effects last only for a small (relative to terrorism) amount of time.

Technically "Shock and Awe" could be used as a tactic of terrorism (it wasn't in Iraq), but it kinda goes against the idea of terrorism. If you have the resources to use "shock and awe" you wouldn't need to wage a terrorist compaign in the first place.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Cluster bombs and mines would be unlawful use of force and then the actual fighting is the calculated use of violence.

Like I said before (again and again) not every illegal/immoral act is an act of terrorism. Cluster bombs are immoral, but the purpose of using them in Iraq was not to terrorise the population of Iraq to a political purpose.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

What was the aim of the war, to remove Saddam from power/secure oil? sounds politically motivated to me.

It was politically motivated ... it wasn't terrorism. The US/UK army did not wage a terrorist war in Iraq.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

See how easy it is to manipulate your definition?

Only when you seem to fundamentally not understand what you are talking about.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

Please point out where sinn fein killed anyone

Sinn Fein had members in the IRA and the IRA had members in Sinn Fein. They are one and the same.

tomMK1 wrote:

finally i don think any republicans support any bombings, outside the fact that its unfortunate that these things have had to have happened, but in the circumstances they had to and did.

Please explain why these bombings "had to have happened" and explain the difference between saying they had to happen and supporting them. If you believe that it is necessary for someone to commit a terrorist action, then you support terrorism.

supersheep

Sand wrote:

Theyd be the first guys in history to unconditionally surrender and win then...

I must have missed the unconditional surrender of the IRA... Would you like to post a link? But, of course, you're talking about the cessation of hostilities. They won. And how did they win? They're a terrorist organisation who managed to get power for their political wing and their supporters, basically. I think that counts as a win... Yeah, they didn't win a United Ireland, but they got more than the Unionists would have ever given them...



More than that though, shes was supposed to have a trial by her peers which she didnt get, and even if she was guilty as hell, armies arent allowed to execute mothers of young children if I remember reading up on the GC correctly. And firstly, she was born a Protestant and converted upon marraige to a Catholic man, and secondly they murdered her because she was an (ex) Prod in a Catholic area who comforted a British soldier as he died on her doorstep - like youd hope someone would comfort your family if they were dying. That marked her out as a traitor to the Provos. And the Provos lied for years that she had run off with a British soldier, to further destroy the lives of her children left behind, when they *knew* they had killed her. Everything about the provos is lies.

Sand wrote:

Armies are bound by it regardless of who signs up to it. Guerilla armies are also covered by it, *if* they want to be recognised as guerilla armies/rebels. It protects guerillas from being shot outright for being out of uniform. SFIRA might claim to be an army fighting a war, but they never operated according to the GC hence theyre merely terrorists and crinimals. The British didnt criminalise the Provos, the Provos did.

Wrong. The Geneva Convention only covers signatories. For example, in WWII, Russia was not a signatory. Russians captured by the Germans were put to work in slave labour camps, fed measly meals, and shot on whims. Other prisoners were put up well. And, if I recall correctly, the GC doesn't cover guerrillas out of uniform. They have to have a certain number of identifying characteristics, such as insignia and the like, which negate the usefulness of guerrilla warfare.

Sand wrote:

Not going to happen in anywhere like the near future. SFIRA have to do exactly nothing, every day, forever. Do you think all crinimal and paramilitary activity stopped at 4pm last Thursday? It took SFIRA 11 years since the beginning of the peace proccess to agree to surrender, I dont think anyone could blame the DUP if they demanded 11 years to verify SFIRAs word.

I would. This gives them what they want. They should take it and get back to power-sharing.

Sand wrote:

By that fecked up logic you should be building statues of British soldiers and worshipping them in thanks for not nuking Derry and South Armagh. They had the capability, they chose not to do it...

Apart from, of course, a couple of minor points... One, there were British citizens living there. Or possibly British subjects, not sure... Two, fallout would have blown back to Britain, killing more British citizens/subjects/whatever. And three, the person stupid enough to drop a nuclear weapon during the Cold War deserves the global thermonuclear war that would likely follow and their death, which unfortunately would probably not happen, unlike about a few billion people.

Sand wrote:

Oh no, I applaud you for your deep investigation and refusal to accept the incident at face value. Though as I mentioned to Supersheep above theres a fair bit more digging for you to do. Dont worry though, if it doesnt suit your preordained conclusion you can always ignore it...

I highly doubt we will ever know the truth of what happened to Jean McConville. We have two possiblities - that she was a spy, or that she was shot for aiding a dying soldier. If it was the second, I will admit that her killing was a terrible terrible wrong. If she was a spy... Well, you take risks when you become a spy.

Sand wrote:

I never said they did... I was actually hoping youd question that, so I could then ask you why Omagh was wrong and Warrington right? Sorry, I remember, you probably dont accept Omagh was wrong, no more than Warrington because youve already stated you dont believe in absolutes. Merely grey. Tactical moves. Murdering a certain number of people to force better terms at the negotiating table. Omagh wasnt morally wrong in Provo thinking, it was strategically wrong.

Do you believe there is no such thing as a just war? Just wondering.

Sand wrote:

My logic is simple. You claim SFIRA was created to fight off hordes of Loyalists. They only managed to kill 30 odd in 30 years. Meanwhile they were committing attacks like Kingsmills. Hence Loyalists has little to fear from SFIRA, whilst their community - which they also saw themselves as defending - was enraged by sectarian attacks upon them. Under those conditions is it logical to assume that Loyalist attacks should have been more likely, or less likely? A lot of provocation, and no real threat of being killed by the so called defenders.
And you desperately refuse to recognise or factor in the real reasons for the fall in loyalist attacks.... reform of the security forces and deployment of the British Army to patrol the peace lines. Because that might actually challenge your bland acceptance of the Provo theology.

The BA didn't make a difference until after the IRA had prevented the loyalists from overrunning nationalist settlements for a number of months. And you can prevent someone from throwing a firebomb without killing them... When there are loyalist mobs armed with stones and molotovs, and a squad of IRA men with guns, I don't think many mobs are going to try their luck... Plus, those loyalists who were attacking the nationalist settlements weren't paramilitaries, they were civilians.

Sand wrote:

You ran away on the point regarding SFIRAs surrender of every point they disagreed on with the Officials, ran away on the (lack of) justification SFIRA had for atrocities like the Birmingham Pub bombings when the majority of nationalists wanted Sunningdale to succeed, ran away on sectarian attacks of SFIRA, ran away on answering why SFIRA was able to kill so many Catholics in supposedly sectarian security forces, ran away on your cheering of the fact SFIRA still continues its terrorist/crinimal activities.

Answering these points for myself, in a few words and in order:
Tactics.
They were wrong. The Birmingham bombings happened six months after the collapse of Sunningdale...
Yes, there were sectarian attacks. But fewer than were perpetrated by Loyalists.
There were still Catholics in those sectarian forces. Meaning, they could be on the casualty list.
SF does not partake in any criminal activities. As of July 28th, nor does the IRA. I missed the bit where Kaptain Redeye got out the pom-poms for criminality...

Whew, that was one long reply...

Zombrex

supersheep wrote:

SF does not partake in any criminal activities.

No, just the members of Sinn Fein ... oh wait ... isn't that the same thing :rolleyes:

supersheep

Wicknight wrote:

No, just the members of Sinn Fein ... oh wait ... isn't that the same thing :rolleyes:

No, it isn't. Members of the British Army commit acts of criminality, does that mean that the British Army is a criminal organisation?

axer

Wicknight wrote:

Sinn Fein had members in the IRA and the IRA had members in Sinn Fein.

Wicknight wrote:

They are one and the same.

?

supersheep

Wicknight wants to call Sinn Féin the IRA because they have some commonality in members... Which, of course, made the British Army (by way of the UDR) and the RUC the UDA, the UVF, and the LVF.

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

Sinn Fein had members in the IRA and the IRA had members in Sinn Fein. They are one and the same.

your logic outshines you. a man works for the post office and is in the ira, ergo the post office is the ira. amazing

Please explain why these bombings "had to have happened"

they "had to have happened" simply because if they didnt we'd still be where we were and these things would happen in the future. thats the problem with wars - they happen no matter if you want them to or not.

and explain the difference between saying they had to happen and supporting them. If you believe that it is necessary for someone to commit a terrorist action, then you support terrorism.

again, your logic leaves me stunned. obviously every country in the world who gets involved and a war, plus all those people who support those wars (including ww1 and ww2 ertc - they're all terrorists then according to your fine self. in your words then, everyone is a terrorist.

Guys if you want to have a sideline chat about who is SF and who is the IRA or whether they are both one and the same , take it to another thread.


Also if ye want to taunt one another instead of debate with one another there will be bannings-count that as a warning.

Stabshauptmann

Sand wrote:

Pffft Kaptain. Weak. All your responses are so weak. This is what happens when people steam into a thread with personal vendettas.

But I have gotten Earthman's atention. My personal goals are going to be met quite soon.

No, I still dont see where I said SFIRA and OIRA split happened after Sunningdale?

You put the same date for "the ideology they rejected" as the date for the "agreement they rejected" ie The Split and Sunnigdale.

No, I still dont see where I said they were mainstream?

What you said was: ""SFIRA plus Paisley in action again. Wonderful how they came together 30 years later to bury the GFA isnt it?"".
I said something like, its rediculous to suggest they're back together where they started because 30 years ago they hardly existed let alone be mainstream. You tryed to avoid this, so I made a reminder posts with the line
"SF-DUP were by no means main stream before the troubles so they cant be at it again after 30 years". It was a short post, with a shorter version of your mistake. When you got fussy of the wording, I reworded it for you, but out of the 3 times Ive highlighted this error, you are sticking to the one worded the most carelessly. The error Im highlighting is: its rediculous to suggest they're back together where they started because 30 years ago they hardly existed let alone be mainstream 30 years ago. A lot has changed.

Cmon now, why leave out the full paragraph? What I said was, for your benefit: "They" clearly refers to defenders of evil idealogies, from only the sentence before. There is absolutely no mention of SFIRA or RIRA in that paragraph. And you still havent differentiated between the bombs...

My aim isnt to prove anything, its to highlight your errors for my own personal enjoyment. By your own admission, you didnt put in the disclaimer that the RIRA carred out the omagh bombing, in a thread were you were lambasting the PIRA, and where you were refering to the IRA as "evil". You used a collective term for PIRA and RIRA activities.

I still dont see where it says SFIRA killed more that loyalists did? All that says is that SFIRA killed far more civillians than they killed loyalists, 17 civillians for every loyalist I think, hence civillians feared SFIRA more than loyalists feared SFIRA.

Ah, I thought you were trying to say civilians had more to fear from the IRA than from loyalists. I read it as "That civillians had more to fear from SFIRA than Loyalist".

If you were to argue whether the IRA posed a greater threat to loyalists or civilians you'd have to first know how many loyalists there were. If there were the same number as republicans (because I dont have the figures for loyalists) then the IRA killed 32/1000 or 3.2%
The IRA killed 516 out of half a million civilians, thats 500/500,000 which is what, 0.01%.
So, do you have figures for loyalists, or will we just use these firures. So if I have a 1 in a thousand chance of being killed as a civillian and a 3 in a hundred chance as a loyalist, Id be more afraid as a loyalist.

Yes I did.

You said it was a typo, what are the exact words you meant to type.

Earthman wrote:

Also if ye want to taunt one another instead of debate with one another there will be bannings-count that as a warning

Ive never seen anyone banned for taunting or one-up man ship. Is it just us, or is it going to be a general bannable offence from now on?

Kaptain Redeye

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

But I have gotten Earthman's atention. My personal goals are going to be met quite soon.

If one of them is to to get this thread closed, yes that goal might soon be achieved but probably at a cost to you.

Ive never seen anyone banned for taunting or one-up man ship. Is it just us, or is it going to be a general bannable offence from now on?

Let me make this absolutely clear, this is a debating/discussion board.
It's not here for taunting and one up man ship specefically.
You've already indicated that as your purpose here in this thread.

If I see that sort of approach from you in any other thread rather than engagement in proper debate, then you will be banned,count this as a warning.
The politics board is for the enjoyment of civil reasoned debate for all and not your plaything.
Now back on topic,the warning has been issued and theres to be no more discussion of the warning here.

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

they "had to have happened" simply because if they didnt we'd still be where we were...

How do you know?

tomMK1

its called common sense.

you telling me everything would have got better if it was just ignored? its obvious that sooner or later people were going to get pissed off being the 4th class citizen - especially when peaceful marches are attacked by the security forces

county

tomMK1 wrote:

its called common sense.

you telling me everything would have got better if it was just ignored? its obvious that sooner or later people were going to get pissed off being the 4th class citizen - especially when peaceful marches are attacked by the security forces

please clarify?

tomMK1

which bit? clarify that nationalists were treated badly? History tells us this.

clarify that the civil rights marches were attacked by loyalists, b specials and ruc? history tells us that too. ( http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/history/19631969.html )

Im an un clear as to exactly what you are unclear of ...

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

your logic outshines you. a man works for the post office and is in the ira, ergo the post office is the ira. amazing

The Post Office is the IRA if a large number of its members are also in the IRA or have strong connections with it and the Post Office supports and speaks for the IRA.

And if a member of the British Intellegence forces also is a member of the UVF and the army know this and approve it, then the British Army are not infact involved in collusion .. cause they are totally seperate organsitations with nothing to do with each other .. they just have member who are member of both ... but totally seperate ...

Of course the connection between Sinn Fein and the IRA goes much futher than the above example. The two organistation as so inter-twinned it is hard to imagine one without the other. Such, hell even the leaders of SF sit on the IRA army council (oh thats right, they don't offically ... so we will have to be very quiet about that little fact ... )

tomMK1 wrote:

they "had to have happened" simply because if they didnt we'd still be where we were and these things would happen in the future. thats the problem with wars - they happen no matter if you want them to or not.

And you are basing that on the fact that a large number of civil rights movements around the world, which faced much tougher conditions, managed to get more civil rights in a shorter space of time without using terrorist violence? Yes, I can see the logic there :rolleyes:

tomMK1 wrote:

again, your logic leaves me stunned. obviously every country in the world who gets involved and a war, plus all those people who support those wars (including ww1 and ww2 ertc - they're all terrorists then according to your fine self. in your words then, everyone is a terrorist.

No, because not every country or army in the world has resorted to terrorism. The IRA did. Therefore if you support the actions of the IRA you support terrorist actions, because (drum roll please) the IRA are terrorists!!! Wow, what part of that doesn't make sense to you??

tomMK1

any army that takes up weapons and fights an aggressor is, going by your definition a terrorist. i dont get your logic at all at all at all. if someone is in SF and is an IRA member then the IRA is SF ..if a brit is in the UVF then the british army isnt the UVF or vice versa ..because ...? because they're british and couldnt do bad things? cus they;re a legal army? where is the logic there? its complete biasedness.

tomMK1

i think thats one thing we are seeing since the IRA stood down - how people are now really showing how they are biased in that one side cant be called bad or unjust whereas obviously the other side can. if the IRA are terrorists, then certainly so are the british army.

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

The Post Office is the IRA if a large number of its members are also in the IRA or have strong connections with it and the Post Office supports and speaks for the IRA.

and large numbers of sinn fein are int eh ira and vice versa? you base this on what evidence? Im a member of sinn fein - god .. i must be in the IRA too but didnt know it. I must tell the rest of the cumann since they're probably all IRA members too but didnt realise it. thats how much sense i make of what you are suggesting

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

you telling me everything would have got better if it was just ignored? its obvious that sooner or later people were going to get pissed off being the 4th class citizen - especially when peaceful marches are attacked by the security forces

...all of which is based on the assumption that only terrorism could have achieved political change. This is obvious nonsense on the face of it, since political change happens all over the world, all the time, without terrorism.

Personally, I subscribe to the view that terrorism has delayed political progress in the North.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

any army that takes up weapons and fights an aggressor is, going by your definition a terrorist.

Ummm ... please point out where I said that :rolleyes:

Any group that uses terrorist tactics and actions are, by definition, terrorists. The IRA used terrorist tactics and actions, quite a lot actually. Therefore they are terrorists ... again, I ask you what part of that do you not understand.

tomMK1 wrote:

i dont get your logic at all at all at all. if someone is in SF and is an IRA member then the IRA is SF

If the membership of one group is made up of a large number of another group then they are pretty much the same group

if a large number of the UDA are also british army, or ex-british army and the army know and (unoffically) approve of this, is it not safe to say that the UDA are nothing more than the terrorist wing of the British Army?

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

if the IRA are terrorists, then certainly so are the british army.

Are the IRA terrorist, in your opinion?

Is terrorism and unjufitifable form of warfare, under any circumstances?

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

and large numbers of sinn fein are int eh ira and vice versa? you base this on what evidence?

Based on the word of the security forces of the Republic of Ireland .. excuse me if I trust them a bit better than your judgement that they aren't ... do you know personally every member of Sinn Fein?

tomMK1 wrote:

Im a member of sinn fein - god .. i must be in the IRA too but didnt know it.

Well considering what you seem not to know I wouldn't be surprised.

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

Based on the word of the security forces of the Republic of Ireland .. excuse me if I trust them a bit better than your judgement that they aren't ... do you know personally every member of Sinn Fein?


Well considering what you seem not to know I wouldn't be surprised.

OK - so if you are told officially from a person in government then you believe it, regardless of their political baggage.

No i dont know everyone in sinn fein, but going by the law of averages, if 'most' of them are int he IRA then proportionally I should be aware of that in some regard - that is unless your 'security forces of the Republic of Ireland' are telling you porky pies.

Basically you have absolutely no information from the irish government or from anyone that 'most' members of sinn fein are in the IRA. You made that assuption up for yourself my friend. Its biased and incorrect.

tomMK1

Well considering what you seem not to know I wouldn't be surprised.

when it comes to the north and whats going on, i certainly seem to have a better grip on it than your fine self sir. btw theres no need for such pityful attempts at personal insult. it shows where your argument is going.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

OK - so if you are told officially from a person in government then you believe it, regardless of their political baggage.

More than something I was "offically" told by Sinn Fein .. do you believe SF when they say they aren't that connected to the IRA?

tomMK1 wrote:

No i dont know everyone in sinn fein, but going by the law of averages, if 'most' of them are int he IRA then proportionally I should be aware of that in some regard - that is unless your 'security forces of the Republic of Ireland' are telling you porky pies.

Sorry, didn't mean most of all the party members .. i meant most of the upper party members .. you know, the people that actually matter ...

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

...all of which is based on the assumption that only terrorism could have achieved political change. This is obvious nonsense on the face of it, since political change happens all over the world, all the time, without terrorism.

Personally, I subscribe to the view that terrorism has delayed political progress in the North.

Maybe it has, but then again how do you come to that conclusion? there were decades of no unrest before 1969, but yet little had changed in the preceeding 40 years.