Dissidents setting up checkpoints

Biggins wrote: »

Yep but sadly some clearly don't get that. They are still living in the dark ages of thinking and doing things. Didn't work for them then and its not working for them now.
The people of Ireland don't want them or want anything to do with them.
They can run around like face covered rats all they want in the dark. The only people they are really fooling is themselves and clearly, with they operating in the dark, that's as far as their foresight and intelligence can extent to. Just not far enough to see the light, any light of intelligence!
The IRA was supposedly the best terrorist army in Ireland at the time - and even they (the vast majority of their members/units) kopped themselves on and saw what was working, what wasn't and what the people supported and didn't!

These scurrying rats will get as far as they have gotten already, dark country land and hedgerows.
Their actions are just laughable and they are the biggest sad joke of all!

From an objective point of view, I don't think I would have called the IRA South Armagh operations in the past 'laughable' at all. Maybe that was not exactly what you meant, but your post is quite derogatory towards their military achievements. During the Troubles, I dont think the British Army could ever say they were truly 'in control' of South Armagh. Even the use of high-tech surveillance techniques and intimidation tactics (think Crossmaglen, Forkhill) never quite managed to achieve their end goals. The IRA used their informal networks and superior knowledge of the local land to their advantage on many occassions.

Put it this way - I look at the recent difficulties the British Army experieced in Iraq and Afghanistan and often wonder where they are going wrong. Then I open up a map of South Armagh and realise that if they couldn't keep control of an area of maybe 100mls2 if their lives depended on it - quite literally - then their Middle East exploits are inherently futile, IMO - well thats another matter anyway.

You are right in that the popular political sentiment of the people of Northern Ireland ultimately sowed the seeds for the demise of the active IRA campaign in South Armagh, but at the height of the troubles they operated a water-tight system that you would openly laugh at at your peril if you lived in its vacinity.

storm in a tea cup, its over

there is nothing new in what is going on in certain areas of the north, likewise nothing new in whats going on in Dublin, Cork, Limerick,

the human mind is there to be educated or stifled,

there will always be people looking for a leader regardless of the situation,

the world is full of violence and corruption, look at the guy who got home to die for a few barrels of oil,

we are the destruction, peace is so easy to live in yet all over we chose hardship, death, destruction,

humans me thinks, not if there is to be a future for this planet and this species, war unfortunately will be the deciding factor,

we strive to survive to explore to be better while doing our best to make ourselves extinct.

it takes time to grow old to learn, if the world was full of 40+ year olds there would be feck all hassle,

youth drive determination but most of all a mind which will allow itself to be controlled will always have the negative outcome.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

wasnt there a similarly themed thread last month about another bunch of tools glorious freedom fighters, threatin youngfellas for hangin around being youngfellas, in cavan??

its worrying if tomfoolery like this is startin to go on again unchecked.

Those youngfellas hangin around being youngfellas were apparently drug-users who had regularly engaged in violence and vandalism among the locals, or is that what passes for acceptable behaviour in rural Ireland these days I dont know.

Biggins wrote: »

Was the NAZI party democratic too just because civilians thought they were doing the right thing and joining too?
Is the Taliban democratic too just because their volunteers joined?
Is the Chinese Army democratic just because its civilians are making up its numbers!

But its not about democracy. Democracy is what you are attempting to use as a base for an argument. Democracy is built upon, created and preceeded by violence. Talk of democracy is empty. What you are actually talking about is a legitimate use of violence for social purposes.

The state is a self perpetuating entity of violence. One in which the ideology of 'democracy' is used for its validation and perpetuation.

What I am saying is, violence and the use of authority is what matters. Whether that use of authority is 'just' is entirely subjective to the individuals involved.

To many millions of people the Nazi party was perfectly legitimate. And if you were one of those people in Germany spouting about democracy, well then, you would be dealt with by the authorities. Whether that was 'right' or 'wrong' is up to individuals to subjectivly evaluate. You are not an Godly authority on the matter.

Have you bothered at all to read their IRA/Sinn Fein manifesto for Ireland and the direction in which they want to take it?

IRA and Sinn Fein

What have they got to do with anything. What I do know is that they plan to perpetuate and bolster the present capitalist economic arrangements. That cant be a good thing.

Your statement that "the IRA are an entirely democratic institution..."is just laughable and a poor reflection on the quality of research into the institutional background of the organisation your espousing for.

Really, how so?

getz wrote: »

a back seat hero

What are you a soldier, PSNI or garda?

Or do you just like cheerleading like myself.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, we've been through the violence part already and are now in the democracy phase.

Well clearly not, seeing as Irish republicans have taken authority unto themselves, and continue to challenge the authority of the state.

So long as states exist, violence will also exist, and 'democracy' will continue to be defined by that violence.

Biggins wrote: »

Nothing to do with addressing the arguments - I just have the eventual kop on (as so do others as per their previous comments) to know when to give up further fuelling your futile efforts and trying to direct you from your clearly blinkered view.

Bye...

Blinkered :pac:

As I have said, I havnt actually defended republicans yet. I believe my argument to be the most objective so far on this thread.

Im afraid it is you who has the ideological blinkers on. (to the point where you accused me of speaking "out of date republican ideology" - despite never speaking about, nor defending "republican ideology"). :rolleyes:

Dont talk to me about blinkers.

S-Murph wrote: »

Well clearly not, seeing as Irish republicans have taken authority unto themselves, and continue to challenge the authority of the state.

So long as states exist, violence will also exist, and 'democracy' will continue to be defined by that violence.

They never asked me. I live in this state and don't want to be represented in any way, shape or form by a bunch of violence-obsessed thugs who have nothing other to do than rely on the imagined support of a long weary proportion of society who now just want to move on.

Just let them make the move into fully fledged thuggery for once and for all and leave the unjustifiable "freedom" crap out of it.

Long Onion wrote: »

They never asked me.

Fair enough. The British and Irish states didnt asked me either, and when born, I automatically became a subject. And if I disagree with them, well thats what prisons are there for.

We dont have much choice in the matter. The gun makes the law.

The question is whether we should support that violence, irrespective of where it comes from.

I live in this state and don't want to be represented in any way, shape or form by a bunch of violence-obsessed thugs who have nothing other to do than rely on the imagined support of a long weary proportion of society who now just want to move on.

Well thats your viewpoint. You have a state with weapons of mass violence on your side.

Nationalists in the north simply capitulate to the violence of the British state. Some dont, and hence the existence of the IRA.

They disagree, and do not wish to be ruled by the British state, and use what is availible to resist that.

This resistance is not necessarily regressive, id argue the opposite. Using the language of "moving on" is ideological rhetoric. It dosnt help matters, or our understanding.

Just let them make the move into fully fledged thuggery for once and for all and leave the unjustifiable "freedom" crap out of it.

I dont believe them to be thugs. And from those I know who engaged in the struggle for a socialist republic both past, and present, I believe them to be far from it.

Checkpoint?

Feck, my tax is out date