Dissident Republicans

At least they let him use his own voice!

I saw the interview last night and i thought it was a good thing. It shows how little these guys care about anyone but themselves. Hopefully people will see it and they'll lose more of what little support they have.

AFAIK the CIRA arent up to much whatsoever.


The "big boys" are the RIRA and OnH.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

AFAIK the CIRA arent up to much whatsoever.


The "big boys" are the RIRA and OnH.

in their heads.

Hmmm I'm a bit confused as to who the "CIRA" in that clip actually are.


Especially seen as he said they have split from Republican Sinn Féin. Which, afaik, is not true.

RSF are a mess with a break off group called Real Sinn Féin and there is a RCIRA apparently. Based in Limerick, seen as he mentioned Limerick as a stronghold I think it might be the RCIRA. Maybe they where the ones in that clip? Anyone have any ideas?



Just for those who are interested here is a post I put on the politics forum about militant republicans and why they do what they do.

---

First of all if you want to understand why militant republicans are doing what they are you need to understand who they are. I suggest reading this guide, which is fairly accurate. There are a few further subsplits(Ie Real Sinn Féin or whatever the lads in Limerick are calling themselves these days) but you don't really need to concern yourself with that.

On the whole militant republicans believe that SF through accepting the GFA have copper-fastened British rule and are administering it through Stormont. The republican movement, like what happened with the accepting of the treaty in 1921, has suffered a very nasty, bitter split. They regard Adams, and McGuinness in particular(as he was one of them, a soldier) as traitors of the highest order. They feel that the provos have abandoned republicanism and its ideals, taken the Queens shilling, etc.

This split pretty much came in two waves, in the mid nineties with the founding of the RIRA(that movement was pretty much stopped dead by Omagh) and a second later wave this century.

Why do they bomb do you ask?

There are a number of reasons.

They believe that SF have sold everyone a lie. SF say everything has changed, they say that SF have pulled the wool over everyones eyes and the union is stronger than ever and that SF, people who call themselves republicans, are enabling and helping that. In other words, SF have sided with the old enemy. SF have advocated "normalization" in the north. Militant republicans want to smash what they believe is the "myth" of normalisation. They say that this ""normalization" meerly extends to SF and the DUP playing happy families whereas on the ground it is the same as ever.

Above all militant republicans are sickened that SF have seemingly convinced most people that the Brits arent really in charge any more. They say that SF are merely an acceptable face to British rule. Its hard to overstate the bitterness of this split, in fact its hard to see who militant republicans hate more, SF or the British.

Des Dalton, president of Republican Sinn Féin, viewed as the political wing of the Continuity IRA, said his organisation would not talk to the “surrogates” of “British rule” in Northern Ireland. “From that point of view we have nothing to say to the Provisionals,” he said.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/dissidents-in-a-chilling-warning-to-prison-staff-we-have-got-your-details-15114270.html

Militant republicans believe SF have brought republicanism to its knees from a position of strength by selling out. They are apocalyptic that SF are advocating "touting" on militant republican volunteers. In fact the following video is a perfect example and sums up how and why militant republicans feel SF are traitors and hypocrites of the highest order...



By smashing normalization militant republicans want to show everyone that while the BA may be off the streets they could be back in an instant, they want to show that no matter what SF may say London is still in charge. They want to show that republicans got nothing more than what the Sunningdale Agreement offered. It wasn't good enough then, why now? What did everyone die for after that? Did Sands starve himself for Sunningdale?

Its important to note that the current militant republican campaign is NOT intended to remove the British, at least not in the short term. Their supporters arent idiots, armed struggle in an entire year these days would barely add up to a month of provo attacks during the troubles. They know they wont bomb the Brits out. Its a "wake up and see the reality" campaign. The reality that nothing has changed, and that they believe nothing will as long as British rule is being administrated by so called republicans. Personally I interpret it as something along the lines of "lets keep attacking in the hope that something along the way will happen to change everything".

Why bomb police? Simple reasons really. The reality on the ground is that the PSNI is a long way from being an impartial police force, people ARE being harassed etc. Stopped and searched for no legitimate reason, homes raided for little or no reason, crap like that. The RUC have always been the face of "British occupation" and the thought process involved in that killing was intended to portray militant republicans both as "fighting back", fighting against Brit rule and fighting against normalization, aka pretending everything is OK.

"Rowan: Did you target Peadar Heffron, or did you target a police officer?

ONH: We never target an individual in uniform. We target the uniform and what it stands for. "

The above was taken from a rather interesting interview, available to view here.

Normalization will be smashed, militant republicans will get what they want, proof that everything is the same as before, if there is an OTT reaction from the PSNI, the British government or god forbid the BA. For me personally the British Army back on the streets would pretty much be a deal breaker.

Other actions militant republicans are engaged in is so called "community policing", aka punishment beatings and kneecappings of drug dealers and anti social hoods. Its at this stage that most say militant republicans are up to their necks in drugs. That is a lie. Smuggling fags, laundering diesel, maybe, but not drugs. This "policing" is intended to both build support and provide an alternative to the unacceptable PSNI.

The attacks on courthouses are largely symbolic attacks on British rule. However its important to remember the republican prisoners, that may also be a factor in attacks on courthouses. Prisoners are treated like crap, much like prisoners in the seventies and eighties where. This provides militant republicans with excellent propaganda and there will be little condemnation from certain quarters if they follow through with their threats, it will build support.

Fundamentally militant republicans are attempting to create a situation in which British rule will be overthrown by force of arms, and the Irish will rise up once again. Thats my main objection, they know what they are doing has zero chance of resulting in a UI. I have raised that point on various sites and the reaction is invariably "ten plus years of SFs way has not got us closer to a UI has it?" I get the impression that militant republicans and their supporters regard it almost as a duty to resist British rule by force of arms.

Personally speaking I see that they have a point about how the situation has not really changed that much, but if the provos couldn't bomb the Brits out over 30 years no one will. There is nothing wrong with making a point about resisting British rule, whether they feel it is SF administered or otherwise, however you don't need to kill to do so. Civil disobedience, sit ins that type of thing will make that point just as well.

Gerry Adams copped decades ago that Armed struggle and politics where incompatible. Big success in one meant the other suffered. Thats why I think that OnH are the ones to watch, and the most dangerous. They just have the armalite.

In very very simple terms militant republicans don't feel that the GFA will lead to a UI. SF do.

I will just finish by saying that I don't support militant republicanism and I am a SF supporter and member. The above is my take on the situation, and I feel it is accurate.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71764198&postcount=15