Apologizing for the Actions of the IRA?

[SpabSFW]

No.

I hereby, officially cede DA to Frank/Spencer.

My position is support of civil rights for Catholics in N. Ireland. Among the parties working for that is Sinn Fein.

Frank takes any article I post about Loyalist terror gangs or British collusion... an ongoing problem that interferes with civil rights in N. Ireland as recognized by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Judge Cory of Canada (of the Cory Report) as well as the U.S. apparently which helped broker the agreement when Clinton was in office and which Clarke has come out for since, and with whom our current administration just met (Adams) and said that anyone who sees value in including Sinn Fein in the political process "supports terrorism" and owes these vicitms from before the 5 year ceasefire crocodile tears and public apologies.

Not only can I not take a position for civil rights without supporting IRA too, we then follow the winding road and I become responsible for supporting also the splinter groups, RIRA and CIRA that in fact are at war with the PIRA over quitting violence. But because Frank goes from Sinn Fein ---> PIRA ----> CIRA/RIRA, now I'm to be hounded over the Omagh bombings yada yada.

Before Frank's ban I was tired of logging in every day to "You support terrorists!!!! !!!!" in multiple threads.

I think pro-Palestinians DO support terrorism, but I don't post that and only that, more than once at pro-palestinian debaters in every single Israel thread, but also in every single thread any one of the pro-p's are in.

To put it briefly although it's a bit late for that (lol), I am officially ceding DA to Frank. I come to DA to discuss issues basically for entertainment. When it ceases to be fun, I'm outta here and the joy of posting opinions here has ceased with Frank's return. I could ignore that whacked out Bocephus, but Frank has always been a compulsive bitch and while he's stuck in this current mode, it's too annoying for me to bother.

Anyone who should need to know where to find me does.

Oh and Frank, if I had your real name I'd send funds for repair of the memorials at Milltown Cemetary to the glorious republican dead in your name.

signed

Ms. DA (roflmao)

::::::::::tosses the crown over to Kat:::::::::::

[Spencer]

The reason why Spab is truly leaving can be found in the threads I linked below. The ridiculous arguments Spab makes in her opening post is just that, ridiculous.

In the threads linked below you will see two things.

1) Spab justifies the Republican terrorist murders of innocent women and children.

2) She outright refuses to admit that such terrorist murders were morally and ethically wrong.

From the following threads you will see that Spab misrepresents not only my arguments and position but she misrepresents her own motives, position, nature and her claims of respecting "civil rights."

http://www.discussanything.com/forum...threadid=47819

http://www.discussanything.com/forum...0&pagenumber=1

Even in this very thread she admits that she cares only about the "civil rights" of one group of Northern Irish instead of the civil rights of all Northern Irish Protestant and Catholic.

"My position is support of civil rights for Catholics in N. Ireland."

Considering her true views on "civil rights," I doubt that she even cares about Catholics. I believe that Sinn Feins socialist political position is the real motive behind her support for them.

Sinn Feins objective:

http://sinnfeinantrim.tripod.com/objectives.htm

"The complete overthrow of British rule in Ireland and the establishment of a democratic socialist republic based on the Proclamation of 1916.

To bring the Proclamation of Easter 1916 into effective operation and to maintain and consolidate the government of the Republic, representative of the people of all Ireland, based on that Proclamation.

To establish in the Republic a reign of social justice based on Irish republican and socialist principles in accordance with the Proclamation of the Republic of 1916 and the Democratic Programme of the First Dail Éireann in 1919 and by a just distribution and effective control of the nation's wealth and resources and to institute a system of government suited to the particular needs of the people."

[IFF]

Frank-

from my understanding of Spab's posts, she want's what is fair and reasonable, she wantsequality for all in terms of healthcare, housing, education. she doesn't want preferential treatment for catholics, she wants catholics treated equally.

she does not want the innocent people of norhtern ireland or anywhere else to suffer, she want sjustice brought to those who carry out violent acts regardless of religion.

i don't see what's wrong here

and frank, while i don't support Sinn Fein, i do acknowledge that they arenow working on diplomacy and they are willing to talk and work for peace.

Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are tired of all the killings i believe, they want to give up their guns for peace and work for peace.

and i envious Spab's point, THE CIRA/RIRA are separate organisations to the PIRA and SF. why do you think they are a splinter group from them.

to me a splinter group changes because they ar eunhappy about the direction of the main group. here the rira and cira are unhappy the pira are turning to non-violent methods of achieving peace and their ultimate aim of a united ireland

Frank, have you any problems with non-violent methods of achieving objectives. would you rather everyone just kill each other until no one is left?

SPab-
are you leaving DA. if so, i'm really sorry to hear that but anyway i wish you the best as i do like you alot

[Spencer]

from my understanding of Spab's posts, she want's what is fair and reasonable, she wantsequality for all in terms of healthcare, housing, education. she doesn't want preferential treatment for catholics, she wants catholics treated equally.

It is not what she wanted that is the issue but how she supported the methods of obtaining it.

Her refusal to condemn the Republican terrorist bombings of women and children speaks volumes of her alleged dedication to human rights.

she does not want the innocent people of norhtern ireland or anywhere else to suffer, she want sjustice brought to those who carry out violent acts regardless of religion.

That is not what she said in this thread.

"My position is support of civil rights for Catholics in N. Ireland."

If you read the following threads you will clearly see that Spab does NOT care about justice for all Northern Irish "regardless of religion."

She refused to condemn and even tried to excuse the Republican terrorist bombing of women and children as a "mere reaction" to abuse.

http://www.discussanything.com/forum...threadid=47819

http://www.discussanything.com/forum...0&pagenumber=1

i don't see what's wrong here

See the above.

and frank, while i don't support Sinn Fein, i do acknowledge that they arenow working on diplomacy and they are willing to talk and work for peace.

IRA 'must share blame' - Trimble

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/n...nd/3421733.stm

The existence of loyalist paramilitaries is no excuse for IRA activity, Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble has warned.

Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are tired of all the killings i believe, they want to give up their guns for peace and work for peace.

Good for them but how about the "Real IRA?" You will note in the above links that Spab tries to present them as a mere "splinter" group but falls short of even remotely condemning their terrorist acts including the Omagh bombing.

Omagh bombing kills 28

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/no...ews/152156.stm

Nine children are among the 28 people killed in the Omagh car bombing, it has emerged.

Thirteen women - one of whom was pregnant - and six men died, the authorities have said. About 220 people were injured or maimed.

Fifty-three people remain unaccounted for but this is understood to include 20 of the dead who have still to be formally identified.

The blast in the packed town centre hit Protestants and Catholics alike. Among the dead was an 18-month-old infant.

You will note that I asked her more then once whether she supported the Republican terrorist murders of women and children.

She either tried to evade the issue, ignored the question or created a straw man argument trying to imply that I wanted her to apologise for IRA terrorism.

She never once said that Republican Irish terrorist attacks on women and children was morally and ethically WRONG!

Frank, have you any problems with non-violent methods of achieving objectives. would you rather everyone just kill each other until no one is left?

What kind of a question is this? Of course I have no objection to peaceful means being used in achieving an objective.

[SpabSFW]

you snivelling little nazi ****.

First of all, I don't have to explain myself to you. My position is clear on the boards to anyone who isn't delusional and obsessed.

Second, you putrid waste of oxygen, if anyone is to judge me it won't be some hypocritical racist dickweed who volunteered his service to Matt Hale and the illegally-named World Church of the Creator, a notorious hate group that advocated 'racial holy war', and genocide or forced expatriation of all minorities.

So I want to know this. When are you going to assume responsibility and publicly apologize to every person who was injured by the actions of people who were influenced by a website YOU VOLUNTEERED YOUR TIME TO

In case anyone has forgotten what Matt Hale's 'church' was responsible for, here's a little reminder! This is the cause FRANK/SPENCER DEVOTED HIS TIME AND ATTENTION FOR

Excerpts from Frank's beloved 'White Man's Bible':

"For example, it is characteristic of the White Race to be creative, to explore, to build, to organize, to pursue knowledge and learning, to create civilization, to establish empires, to desire and institute law and order, to have a sense of fair play, to enjoy and appreciate beauty, to create beauty in the form of art, music, architecture, and many other manifestations. ******s, on the other hand, are innately devoid of any of these, and have more the brute soul of a dumb animal."

""******s are ******s. We use the term "******" deliberately in this book and recommend its usage in general conversation and writings by the members of our church. As we have stated in a previous chapter, the second dumbest creature on the face of the earth is one who can't or won't recognize its enemies and the dumbest of all is that creature which will actively collaborate with its'enemies for the destruction of its own race."

Our Position. Let us sum up and make our position abundantly clear.
1. The Jews have pursued a conspiracy for the mongrelization and enslavement of the White Race for thousands of years.

2. They are pursuing it today with renewed virulence, and ominously, with rapidly increasing success.

3. The ****** is the vital means of bastardizing the White Race.

4. The Jews are therefore madly pushing a program of upgrading the ******s and pulling down the Whites; multiplying and proliferating their numbers; promoting inter-racial marriages between ******s and Whites.

5. In order to implement this program the Jews need the help of deluded and/or traitorous Whites. (These traitors are called Chabez-goi by the Jews.)

To counteract this terrible catastrophe from happening, it is the program of the CHURCH OF THE CREATOR:

1. To first of all straighten out the White Man's thinking and bring him back to sanity.

2. This we mean to do by organizing the CHURCH OF THE CREATOR on a worldwide basis and placing this book, the White Man's Bible, in the hands of tens of millions of our White Racial Comrades.

3. We mean to organize the awesome potential of the White Race for its own survival and its own benefits. United and organized the White Race will be ten times more powerful than all Jews and mud races combined.

4. As soon as we, the White Race, again regain control of our destiny and our government we plan to ship the ****** post-haste back to Africa.

5. We mean to drive the Jews from power and render them harmless so that never again can they or anyone else threaten the survival and security of the White Race.

6. We mean to hang the traitors of our own race that give aid and comfort to the enemy.

****************************************


Who are you to judge anyone, you scum-sucking nazi twat?

RaHOWa is your good buddy Fox, Frank? I read that he's turned witness for the prosecution and that most of the other Creators are in hiding from both each other and the feds. Still sending money to Matt Hale? I read too he's still desperately seeking it. ROFLMAO

Oh and Frank, have a nice day!

[coral100cor]

I must give credit to Frank - he did brought you back!

[SpabSFW]

Originally posted by coral100cor
I must give credit to Frank - he did brought you back!

Haha, I thought about that too. I certainly hope this is what he wanted by baiting me. If it is, he should be a happy camper when he logs in.

[suicidalmarchingband]

Hello everybody,

This is my first time posting here, so I hope I don't fcuk up any protocols.

I have been reading this and related threads with some interest and I would just like to offer a few points in relation to some of Spencer's and Spab's comments (although I'm generally sympathetic to the latter's position).

To start with Spab.
I think there is a tendency in some of your posts to imply that Provisional IRA violence has been purely reactive in nature.

Spab said:

Frank your position is basically demanding the Irish stop bleeding every time British/loyalists punch them in the nose. It's a reaction to being punched. Tell the British and loyalist terrorists to quit punching the Irish in the face if they don't want to get bled on.

(BTW, who the fcuk is Frank? Spencer?)

There is some truth to this and, indeed, from the inception of the Troubles (lovely euphemism) PIRA legitimacy within the nationalist community has historically been built around the notion of community self-defence. Specifically, from the late 1960s, against the B-Specials (protestant paramiliary force now disbanded) and their quite brutal incursions into nationalist enclaves which coincided with increased agitation for catholic civil rights within the Northern Irish State.

Indeed, a primary reason for the split within the IRA that gave rise to the Official IRA (now defunct) and PIRA was the fact that the southern Irish (Dublin) leadership of the IRA had more or less given up the notion of armed struggle (their last paramilitary campaign of any significance had been in the 1950s, I think), to concentrate upon social revolution within the 32 counties (i.e. Ireland north and south) itself. This political and military stand, and the lack of arms made available to them by the Dublin leadership, was anathema to those sections of the northern Irish IRA that would later form PIRA as they felt, given the context of such events as the Battle of the Bogside, that the northern Irish catholics had been abandoned to their fate. Incidentally, PIRA at the time of the split (1972, I think), tended to be very catholic, conservative and politically reactionary in nature, "socialism" (always dodgey within a nationalist ethos) was only (partially and opportunistically I feel) embraced at a later date.

PIRA strategy has generally been to target only members of NI security forces: this course has been pursued, I think it is fair to say, not due to any superior moral outlook (they are a very ruthless organisation after all), but due to the negative propaganda generated by murdering innocent people.

However, this is not to say that civilian and/or sectarian killings have not been carried out by the IRA at certain times (although some of these can be termed "accidental" and have generally been recognised as counter-productive).

See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/25480.stm

Eleven were killed on 8th November 1987, and 63 were wounded, many of whom have never fully recovered from their injuries.

The IRA said they had meant to kill a colour party of British soldiers who were due to take part in the ceremony but most casualties were civilians and the attack failed to undermine London's resolve.

Although, this is one of the more egregious examples of civilian deaths due to a PIRA bombing there have been many more. For a break down of the statistics civilian deaths during the Troubles (that is up until the Good Friday Agreement) see the link below:

http://www.newint.org/issue255/facts.htm

Percentage and numbers of civilians killed by various para/military groups in NI:

Loyalist paramilitaries – 871
(95.7% of victims)
Republican paramilitaries – 829
(43.1% of victims)
British forces – 203
(56.9% of victims)8

Furthermore, PIRA has not been above inflicting violence upon members of the nationalist community either for "collaborating" with the security forces (e.g. informing, or just the suspicion of such activity), or of "disciplining" various "anti-social" elements within the nationalist community (e.g. joy-riders (car thieves) and the like).

In short, PIRA is pretty fcuking far from being a humanitarian organisation and, indeed, it and Sinn Fein have generally held the various peace and human rights movements in little esteem (I can dig up more detailed links on the subject if you wish). Moreover, its exercise of violence is best characterised as ruthless and whilst this must obviously be understood within the context of State oppression etc, bigotry, sectarianism, human rights abuses etc., these facts contextualised their actions but do not exonerate them.

Spab, I did not mean to concentrate on your input so much regarding this post but their is one further point I wish to make.

You stated:

I posted against unilateral decomissioning as far back as 9/25/03:

"Basically my position is this with regards to IRA. I think if Sinn Fein and other republicans and even non-republicans who are tired of inequity tried to approach the British military/political establishment with nothing in their hands but their dicks, there would be virtually no chance of progress."

There is, again, a degree of truth to this, and obviously decommissioning should apply equally to all parties, but I think it fails to take into account how very ineffective the PIRA strategy had been up until the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent turn towards exclusively (well...not quite) parliamentary means. I say this due to
the fact that the current PIRA position is in fact almost entirely a volte face from that which they held prior to the cease fire: that is to say, their acceptance of the legitimacy of the "Free State" (southern Irish Republic), that any change in NI political status would only come about by consent (plebiscite by both communities), and that - at least as an interrum agreement - there would be devolved government in the statelet in which both communities would participate. This offer was on the table as far back as 1974 (Sunningdale), although admittedly on that occasion the Unionists scuppered the deal. Still, it is difficult to see what exactly PIRA has achieved through armed struggle in the past 30 years or so. PIRA, prior to the ceasefire (at least officially), had never intended to negotiate anything other than a full British withdrawal and have generally continued a long tradition of self-delusion regard to the future of the protestant community (i.e. that they would come to recognise their "true" political and cultural identity as Irish men and women).

This post is a lot longer than I expected so I will put my comments on Spencer's position in another post.

[Spencer]

you snivelling little nazi ****.

When all else fails attack the poster.

First of all, I don't have to explain myself to you. My position is clear on the boards to anyone who isn't delusional and obsessed.

Agreed. It is clear that Spab has no objection to the Republican terrorist murders of women and children.

Second, you putrid waste of oxygen, if anyone is to judge me it won't be some hypocritical racist dickweed who volunteered his service to Matt Hale and the illegally-named World Church of the Creator, a notorious hate group that advocated 'racial holy war', and genocide or forced expatriation of all minorities.

Two fallacies apply here.



Fallacy: Personal Attack

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...al-attack.html

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

And

Fallacy: Red Herring

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1) Topic A is under discussion.

2) Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

3) Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

RaHOWa is your good buddy Fox, Frank? I read that he's turned witness for the prosecution and that most of the other Creators are in hiding from both each other and the feds. Still sending money to Matt Hale? I read too he's still desperately seeking it. ROFLMAO

Clearly we see another example of the two fallacies I mentioned above.

Spab in a feeble attempt to divert attention away from her own advocacy of leftist terrorism is trying to discredit me on the basis that I allegedly supported some radical myself.

She also attempts to change the subject by bringing some church that has no relation to the argument into this thread.

Clearly Spabs use of fallacious arguments combined with cheap libelous personal attacks on my character clearly is an indication that she knows she has been beaten and her true position exposed.

I must give credit to Frank - he did brought you back!

I doubt that her return wil llast very long after I reported her last post. I doubt we will be seeing her for some time.

Haha, I thought about that too. I certainly hope this is what he wanted by baiting me. If it is, he should be a happy camper when he logs in.

I am quite happy you posted what you did. All it did was give me a chance to report you for your misconduct. I was glad to do just that.

[suicidalmarchingband]

I think I made an error in my last post:
The Good Friday Agreement dates from 1998 not 1994.
IRA ceasefire dates from 1994 (more or less).

Spencer:

Firstly, I just wonder if you would clarify Spencer whether or not there is any truth in Spab's post stating that you are a member of a far-right (read racist) group and whether or not, if that is the case, racism informs your somewhat biased posting on the subject of NI, or if you just feel an affinity within certain paramilitary groups in the North that have always shared a certain affinity and occasional links with UK organisations whose views are, to say the least, somewhat extreme (National Front, BNP, Combat 18, WNP etc, etc).

If I am wrong on this point I would be very happy to be corrected.

If, however (having read some of posts on Israel and Palestine), more nefarious irrationalities inform your view on this subject, rather than mere ignorance or bloodymindedness, I should point out what may, perhaps, be a rather distressing fact for you. That is:

Israeli flags taken down for fascist visit to the Village

Andersonstown News – 11 November 2002

The UDA in South Belfast ordered the removal of all pro-Israeli signs and flags from the Village area because they didn’t want to offend Nazi groups who were visiting the area over the weekend.

The far-right loonies were in town to take part in the loyalist terror group’s Remembrance Day commemoration in which they honour their slain paramilitary allies.

The Hitler-worshipping fanatics stayed at loyalist homes in both the Village and Whitewell — areas where they have strong ties. Then on Sunday they joined other loyalists who went en masse to Roselawn ceremony to take part in the commemoration. Like other loyalist hotbeds throughout the city, Israeli flags flew from every other lamp post in the Village. Sick graffiti glorifying the murder of Palestinians also adorned walls in the area. But come last weekend, it had all disappeared.

Sinn Féin Balmoral representative Stiofán Long says the UDA’s Israeli u-turn proves that loyalists will court any group, no matter how crazy, for support. "If anything highlights loyalist stupidity then this is it," he said. "I wouldn’t be surprised if the pro-Israeli graffiti and flags went back up as soon as the neo-Nazis are on the plane home. Neo-Nazis and fascists have always had close links with loyalists and they are regular visitors to Belfast. Is it any wonder no one takes loyalist politics seriously when they are bedfellows with groups such as the BNP and Combat 18."

The Village is also home to a notorious mural glorifying race hate group the Ku Klux Klan. The mural, which went up last May, still remains in the area despite calls from politicians from all sides to have it removed.

For this and related articles see the link below:

http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/cluan.html

Incidentally, your (Spencer's) and Spab's positions on these two conflicts (Israel and Northern Ireland) are the reverse of normal prejudices within the north itself. By and large nationalists identify with Palestinians (fellow victims of colonial oppression) and protestants identify with the Israelis (fellow settler culture).

Regarding your actually postings rather than what I have possibly incorrectly inferred (again I apologise if I have done so):

You quote the following as reflecting contemporary Sinn Fein objectives:

http://sinnfeinantrim.tripod.com/objectives.htm (I could not connect to this link, is it still active?)

"The complete overthrow of British rule in Ireland and the establishment of a democratic socialist republic based on the Proclamation of 1916.

To bring the Proclamation of Easter 1916 into effective operation and to maintain and consolidate the government of the Republic, representative of the people of all Ireland, based on that Proclamation.

To establish in the Republic a reign of social justice based on Irish republican and socialist principles in accordance with the Proclamation of the Republic of 1916 and the Democratic Programme of the First Dail Éireann in 1919 and by a just distribution and effective control of the nation's wealth and resources and to institute a system of government suited to the particular needs of the people."

However, the actual official and contemporary objectives of Sinn Fein, taken from their official home page and not that of a local branch (Antrim), is as follows:

Objectives
Sinn Féin seeks the establishment of a new Ireland based on sustainable social and economic development; genuine democracy, participation, equality and justice at all levels of the economy and society; and a lasting and meaningful peace with unity of purpose and action.

Specifically:

* Sinn Féin is an Irish Republican party. Our objective is to end British rule in Ireland. We seek national self-determination, the unity and independence of Ireland as a sovereign state.

* Sinn Féin is committed to the transformation of Irish society and to a negotiated and democratic settlement. We know that peace is not simply the absence of violence. Real peace - a lasting peace - is based on democracy, justice, freedom and equality.

* Sinn Féin has a vision that sees beyond the present conflict and beyond the present phase of our history. Our vision foresees the unity of the people of this island. Our vision is for the redistribution of wealth, for the well-being of the aged, for the advancement of youth, for the liberation of women and for the protection of our children. Our vision is for a free Ireland and a free people.

* Sinn Féin is committed to our peace strategy. We have sought with honesty and integrity to construct a peace process which reaches out and embraces everyone on the island on the basis of equality. Our objective must be for an agreement that will earn the allegiance and respect of all sections of our people.

To achieve these objectives, Sinn Féin is backing the Good Friday Agreement, which Sinn Féin reached with the other northern parties and the Irish and British governments following multi-party negotiations in Belfast. These negotiations arose from the Irish Peace Process, itself initiated in discussions begun several years ago.

Sinn Féin's peace strategy was supported by the cessation of the armed struggle by the Irish Republican Army and was endorsed again by the decisions taken at the party's annual Ard Fheiseanna [annual conferences].

Through its leadership, the Ard Chomhairle, Sinn Féin maintains its goal of a just and lasting peace as part of its agenda for change.

The link is:
http://www.sinnfein.org/

Your citation above is at least six years out of date (i.e. since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998). I do not seek to represent Sinn Fein and/or the IRA as benign organisations, however, as your post seriously misrepresents their position and fails to account for fairly momentous changes in Irish politics, I must apply this corrective. I trust this is not a wilful misrepresentation on your part?

Another preplexing feature of your discourse on this topic is the fact that seem not to differentiate between the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, and the Provisional IRA. The latter body has been for some time on an imperfect ceasefire (one could say the same, and more so, of the UDA et al. regarding the fractures in this "peace"):

E.g.:

(Spab)
Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are tired of all the killings i believe, they want to give up their guns for peace and work for peace.

(Spencer)
Good for them but how about the "Real IRA?" You will note in the above links that Spab tries to present them as a mere "splinter" group but falls short of even remotely condemning their terrorist acts including the Omagh bombing.

Well, mere or not, the Real IRA is a "splinter group"; there is no other way to understand them and this is their common application, not something dreamt up by Sab.

e.g., from the Council on Foreign Relations:

IRA Splinter Groups
(U.K., separatists)

What groups have split off from the Irish Republican Army?
There are three IRA splinter groups: the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, and the Irish National Liberation Army. The Real IRA and the Continuity IRA are formally listed as terrorist groups by the State Department. U.S., British, and Irish authorities consider the Real IRA the most dangerous of these groups.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/grou...ira_print.html

It should be added that PIRA and SF hate them. Moreover, even the Real IRA recognised the stupidity of attrocities such as that which took place in Omagh (committed just after the Good Friday Agreement was agreed upon in an effort to derail the peace process) - which has resulted, incidently in the arrest of the sentencing of their leader to twenty years in prison.

Whilst groups such as the Real IRA still pose a threat there is no point in overemphasising their strength. As an organisation they in no way approach the importance of PIRA. Indeed, see the following:

IRA Dissident Group Falls Apart

BELFAST, Northern Ireland, Oct. 19, 2002

In their statement the Real IRA commanders said the Aug. 15, 1998 attack on the religiously mixed town "irreparably damaged the Irish republican struggle ... It represented an enormous tactical blunder on our behalf."


(AP) Imprisoned leaders of the major Irish Republican Army dissident group, the Real IRA, signaled Saturday night that the terror gang has fallen apart in feuding — four years after it committed the deadliest bombing in Northern Ireland history.

A statement, being published in the Sunday Independent newspaper of Dublin, said the Real IRA was "at an end." The group, founded in 1997 to oppose the IRA cease-fire that year, killed 29 people in a car-bomb attack on the town of Omagh four months after politicians forged Northern Ireland's Good Friday peace pact of 1998.

In their statement the Real IRA commanders said the Aug. 15, 1998 attack on the religiously mixed town "irreparably damaged the Irish republican struggle in the short to medium term and stifled any opposition to the Good Friday Agreement. ... It represented an enormous tactical blunder on our behalf."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in527527.shtml

By and large it is fair to say that the majority of nationalists support the Good Friday Agreement for very obvious reasons, in that they have most to gain from a positive settlement. Northern Irish politics, despite ongoing violence and a degree of political stalemate, is simply a very different entity from what it was even ten years ago. Groups such as RIRA or CIRA have little or no popular support north or south of the Irish border. I think you should take this into account in your comments on the subject rather than simply seeking to extract a condemnation of the Omagh bombing. It was an atrocity, but carried out by a very marginal and increasingly irrelevant group .

[Spencer]

Another preplexing feature of your discourse on this topic is the fact that seem not to differentiate between the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, and the Provisional IRA. The latter body has been for some time on an imperfect ceasefire (one could say the same, and more so, of the UDA et al. regarding the fractures in this "peace"):

I can explain. When Spab complains about UDA or some other loyalist group committing acts of terrorism she attributes it to "Loyalists" as a whole. (I.E. Her thread "What LOYALIST ceasefire")

I was pointing out to her that "Republicans" also had its share of terrorists and that both forms of terrorism were wrong.

Firstly, I just wonder if you would clarify Spencer whether or not there is any truth in Spab's post stating that you are a member of a far-right (read racist) group and whether or not, if that is the case, racism informs your somewhat biased posting on the subject of NI, or if you just feel an affinity within certain paramilitary groups in the North that have always shared a certain affinity and occasional links with UK organisations whose views are, to say the least, somewhat extreme (National Front, BNP, Combat 18, WNP etc, etc).

I have yet to see any evidence of a connection between Loyalist terrorism and Nick Griffin or any of the BNP leadership. So lets not make such statements.

I am not a member of any racist group nor have I ever been. I also do not feel an affinity with any terrorist group. I loathe them all.

If, however (having read some of posts on Israel and Palestine), more nefarious irrationalities inform your view on this subject, rather than mere ignorance or bloodymindedness, I should point out what may, perhaps, be a rather distressing fact for you. That is:

I invite you to participate in any of the Israel/Palestine threads that I have participated in and prove me wrong.

Israeli flags taken down for fascist visit to the Village

The article is bias, attacks the person, uses prejudical language and makes unsubstantiated accusations.

However, the actual official and contemporary objectives of Sinn Fein, taken from their official home page and not that of a local branch (Antrim), is as follows:

I do not see any contradictions between the two. Just different wording.

By and large it is fair to say that the majority of nationalists support the Good Friday Agreement for very obvious reasons, in that they have most to gain from a positive settlement. Northern Irish politics, despite ongoing violence and a degree of political stalemate, is simply a very different entity from what it was even ten years ago. Groups such as RIRA or CIRA have little or no popular support north or south of the Irish border. I think you should take this into account in your comments on the subject rather than simply seeking to extract a condemnation of the Omagh bombing. It was an atrocity, but carried out by a very marginal and increasingly irrelevant group .

You admit that it was an atrocity. Spab refused to do that very thing. That is my point.

[SimoneAsLily]

Originally posted by Spencer

2) She outright refuses to admit that such terrorist murders were morally and ethically wrong.

Originally posted by Spencer

Her refusal to condemn the Republican terrorist bombings of women and children speaks volumes of her alleged dedication to human rights.


She refused to condemn and even tried to excuse the Republican terrorist bombing of women and children as a "mere reaction" to abuse.


Good for them but how about the "Real IRA?" You will note in the above links that Spab tries to present them as a mere "splinter" group but falls short of even remotely condemning their terrorist acts including the Omagh bombing.


You will note that I asked her more then once whether she supported the Republican terrorist murders of women and children.

She either tried to evade the issue, ignored the question or created a straw man argument trying to imply that I wanted her to apologise for IRA terrorism.

She never once said that Republican Irish terrorist attacks on women and children was morally and ethically WRONG!

Originally posted by Spencer


Agreed. It is clear that Spab has no objection to the Republican terrorist murders of women and children.

Originally posted by Spencer



You admit that it was an atrocity. Spab refused to do that very thing. That is my point.

Why is it so darned important that Spab admit, condemn, object or whatever?

In all of these posts it seems like you are doing backdoor type of baiting and/or personal attacking?

[Spencer]

Why is it so darned important that Spab admit, condemn, object or whatever?

If you took the time to read the threads I linked you would know why it is important.

In all of these posts it seems like you are doing backdoor type of baiting and/or personal attacking?

Excuse me, Who started this thread Simone? In fact Simone who started all of these threads?

http://www.discussanything.com/forum...threadid=48661

http://www.discussanything.com/forum...threadid=48664

http://www.discussanything.com/forum...threadid=48665

http://www.discussanything.com/forum...threadid=48670

[SpabSFW]

First:

Welcome suicidalmarchingband!

It will be wonderful to have someone here to discuss the intricacies of Irish politics with -- I look forward to it.

If you type in Ireland or Irish, you will find a list of threadz in which I've stated positions and I have some that up until now have been unstated as well and might be interesting to discuss. Up until now, no one has shown enough knowledge or genuine concern to bother with it.

If you don't feel like crawling through literally dozens of threads, I'll go back and try to post some to it later.

But basically my position is that I would like to see a democratic Ireland where ALL the people involved have access to using the political forum to influence their own lives in whatever way they see fit, be it a united Ireland or not, as (a fair) majority rules.

My position is also that armed revolution is at this point not useful and it may never be again. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that the British never give up anything without a fight. I think the PIRA did actually bomb it's way to the negotiating table, but what that says to me is why wouldn't the British make an effort without the violence, say during the peaceful Civil Rights marches? We know what actions they took there, don't we?

Why have they fought equal rights for Catholics in Ireland at all? It's almost like the British required the violence to do anything at all. I think they get some of the culpability for that, along with their obvious abuses. The British made it clear what actions would be effective.

I do indeed differentiate between the PIRA and the splinter groups, although Frank (spencer) seems to not grasp the concept. I very much approve of the ceasefires of the PIRA and their attempts to work for goals through the political process. I hardly think I'm in a minority on that one.

If I have tried to make a point, it's that the media presents Sinn Fein as if they are the only political group to have a military wing, while it completely ignores the fact that the DUP has one as well. I don't see people crawling all over themselves trying to disarm the loyalist terrorists and that offends me. Furthermore, the collusion between security forces and loyalist terrorists is appalling. I'm not sure how the Catholics can be protected in the face of that. What do you think?

I have a relatively clear picture of the IRA I believe, though that may not be directly obvious because that is not the point of my posts at this time, nor do I think most people here with the exception of Dogberry have the background to discuss it up until now. Frank is the one who keeps dragging the IRA into Sinn Fein, and actually what I'm doing is supporting the goals of Sinn Fein as YOU listed, and in fact what I've previously listed as well. My concern is primarily civil rights.

What you will discover about Frank is that he is very selective in what he pulls, often out of context, and that 'distortion' is his middle name. I think IFF summed up my position more than adequately.

I say "Sinn Fein", Frank immediately asks me to justify the IRA. So I say that I support their giving up violence, then he demands an apology or some remorse on my behalf for violence prior to the ceasefire. It's a little game to him. But my points are about Catholic safety and civil rights.

I'll be honest that I don't sit around and weep at night for vast numbers of people I've never met, so he's got me there. I don't cry all night for the dead of the Troubles either side. I do what makes more sense. I try to activate in a way which can be useful on the side which I deem to be being victimized (n NI, I see this as the Catholic population). To me, this makes more sense.

As you pointed out, support for the IRA waxes and wanes directly with regard to violence and inequities by loyalists and the British government to Catholics.

For an intricate variety of reasons, it is my personal belief the British both need and want an IRA presence in NI. I believe they have actively worked in the past, and possibly now to keep the IRA visible and from petering out when it looked like it might do so and I've posted some data in other threads that back up that opinion and I have a lot more data I haven't posted to it yet. I believe the British think dead republicans, dead loyalists and dead civilians in Ireland or England are collateral damage to a financial bonanza in military and intelligence funds.

It's like some kind of violent circle-jerk, my opinion, and the ones really losing out are the peons who sacrifice their lives in one way or another by being willing to die or kill or rot in jail for someone else to profit. I think it's all very sad.



But don't misunderstand Frank's position. He could care less about Irish politics any direction at all. His baiting is entirely personal and his projection of that on me is his trademark and it dates back to racism vs antiracism topics.

And he did moderate the WCOTC boards though I seriously doubt he will publicly admit it since he won't even admit he is 'the banned poster formerly known as Frank'.

I want to read your data carefully and I might have some questions or comments. It will be a real joy for me to discuss, with agreement or not issue to issue, the subject of Irish politics. I've been fascinated by it for 6 months and researching it in depth. It's complicated and murky and utterly compelling to me.







Frank, I'll get back to you in a separate post.

[SimoneAsLily]

what I read was despite repeated statements by Spab that she supports a non violent political solution to the problem and promotes civil rights, her failure to admit, condemn or object or whatever to Republican acts makes you believe she is supporting some socialist 'utopia' and not civil rights.

But I still don't get why it is so important TO YOU for her to do this?


Well as to the other I guess turnabout is fair play. You have hounded her for months ( my opinion of course)

[SpabSFW]

Originally posted by SimoneAsLily
what I read was despite repeated statements by Spab that she supports a non violent political solution to the problem and promotes civil rights, her failure to admit, condemn or object or whatever to Republican acts makes you believe she is supporting some socialist 'utopia' and not civil rights.

But I still don't get why it is so important TO YOU for her to do this?

Muise. (Indeed).

Originally posted by SimoneAsLily
Well as to the other I guess turnabout is fair play. You have hounded her for months ( my opinion of course)

Quite right. Thx ksis~

[SpabSFW]

[i]Originally posted by SimoneAsLily [/i


Why is it so darned important that Spab admit, condemn, object or whatever?

Ksis!!!! It just crossed my mind! Doesn't this sound familiar??? Could he secretly also be Wag????

roflmao~

No, really... think about it...

[suicidalmarchingband]

Spencer,

I am going to ignore the various accusations that Spab has made given that she has done so in the absence of any proof of anything I can call proof.

So, I will in future only comment in regard to your actual postings/arguments and not to any unsubstantiated allegations.

You state:

When Spab complains about UDA or some other loyalist group committing acts of terrorism she attributes it to "Loyalists" as a whole. (I.E. Her thread "What LOYALIST ceasefire")

I was pointing out to her that "Republicans" also had its share of terrorists and that both forms of terrorism were wrong.

Fair enough. But there is, at the present time a qualitative difference between Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries. The vast majority of Republican paramilitaries are on effective ceasefire (regarding the overt targetting protestants or security forces at least). Those that are not (CIRA, RIRA) have little or no support from the nationalist population and have become largely marginalised (if not yet entirely eliminated).

This is perhaps less true for the some Loyalists paramilitaries and more specifically the UDA whose ceasefire since 2001 (when pipe bomb attacks against catholics intensified) has been questionable to say the least:

Thus:
The UDA ceasefire came in the wake of that declared by the IRA - but has crumbled amid factions, feuding and continuing sectarian attacks, writes BBC News Online's Dominic Casciani.

On 13 October 1994, Northern Ireland woke up to find that the Combined Loyalist Military Command, a group of men representing the core command structure of the main Protestant loyalist paramilitaries, had responded to the IRA's ceasefire by calling a halt to "operational hostilities".

Reading the statement on behalf of these paramilitary groups, the senior loyalist figure Gusty Spence, said that the men who had claimed defence of the Union in carrying out sectarian killings offered their "abject and true remorse" to the relatives of victims.

"We must never again permit our political circumstances to degenerate into bloody warfare," he added.

But seven years later and the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) part of that ceasefire is, in the opinion of the government, over.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1569237.stm

Check this out below for the parliamentary record of that time 2001:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...0/11030s01.htm

And only a couple of days ago it was stated:

The loyalist paramilitary Ulster Defence Association cannot seriously be considered to be on ceasefire, Security Minister Jane Kennedy has said.

She blamed the organisation for recent hoax bombs across Belfast and attacks on prison officers' homes at a meeting with the Ulster Political Research Group, which speaks on behalf of the UDA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/n...nd/3420391.stm

(Incidentally for a better view on NI affairs generally check out the following blog http://www.sluggerotoole.com/home/

The ceasefire is very imperfect on both sides, but there is a qualitative difference between the actions of the UDA and PIRA at the moment.

My inclusion of the BNP in a list of organisations that have or had connections with Loyalist paramilitaries was a bit lazy.

However, LVF links with Combat 18 are quite well documented. Consider this from the Observer (2000).

Along with the personal details of Combat 18 members, including their
leader Bill Browning, a former British soldier from south London, the RUC
found scores of race-hate CDs. The CDs of racist skinhead bands were being
sold to raise money in Britain for the LVF. Browning has a conviction for
assaulting a gay man and another for distributing race hate material.

http://www.student.uit.no/~paalde/na...2000/0402.html

These are not incidental fears but must be understood within the context of recent events.

Racist war of the loyalist street gangs

Orchestrated attacks on minorities raise fears of ethnic cleansing

Angelique Chrisafis, Ireland correspondent
Saturday January 10, 2004
The Guardian

Not far from the red, white and blue paving stones, the Ku Klux Klan graffiti and the "Chinks out" notices scratched outside south Belfast Chinese takeaways, Hua Long Lin was at home watching television when a man burst in and smashed a brick into his face. His wife, also in the room, was eight months pregnant. The couple had moved into the terrace two weeks before.

Neighbours expressed regret but one white family told a community worker they couldn't offer a Chinese family friendship in public or they would be "bricked" too.

"It's like Nazi Germany," they explained.

Northern Ireland, which is 99% white, is fast becoming the race-hate capital of Europe. It holds the UK's record for the highest rate of racist attacks: spitting and stoning in the street, human excrement on doorsteps, swastikas on walls, pipe bombs, arson, the ransacking of houses with baseball bats and crow bars, and white supremacist leaflets nailed to front doors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story...120113,00.html

Regarding the statements of Sinn Fein's (and hence PIRA's) objectives listed above you state:

I do not see any contradictions between the two. Just different wording.

The contradictions might not be apparent to you but they are huge. In the first they declare that they will abide by the proclamation of 1916. This is proclamation was a declaration of Irish independence and war against British government. To adhere to this statement in a modern context meant in effect that PIRA/Sinn Fein did not recognise the validity of the political structures north or south of the border (neither Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic). It was their justification for violence. In the second statement they specifically wedded themselves to peaceful means through the political structures of the Good Friday Agreement. Part of that agreement entailed the acceptance of the fact that Northern Ireland political status would only change (i.e. become part of a united Ireland) under the principal of consent, in other words by means of a plebiscite rather than violence. This is the underlying significance of the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Regarding the naming of atrocities. Would you also specifically condemn UDA atrocities (this is an old game as regards northern Ireland and largely a pointless one: the accusants tend to be uninterested in the actual suffering of ordinary people who get caught in the crossfire from all sides but rather to make expedient political points, although I'm not necessarily accusing you of this).

[Spencer]

But basically my position is that I would like to see a democratic Ireland where the ALL the people involved have access to using the political forum to influence their own lives in whatever way they see fit, be it a united Ireland or not, as (a fair) majority rules.

So far, so good.

My position is also that armed revolution is at this point not useful and it may never be again. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that the British never give up anything without a fight. I think the PIRA did actually bomb it's way to the negotiating table, but what that says to me is why wouldn't the British make an effort without the violence, say during the peaceful Civil Rights marches? We know what actions they took there, don't we?

Hmmm...sounds like she is justifying terrorism?

I do indeed differentiate between the PIRA and the splinter groups, although Frank (spencer) seems to not grasp the concept. I very much approve of the ceasefires of the PIRA and their attempts to work for goals through the political process. I hardly think I'm in a minority on that one.

Remember my explanation from an earlier post on this very point.

I can explain. When Spab complains about UDA or some other loyalist group committing acts of terrorism she attributes it to "Loyalists" as a whole. (I.E. Her thread "What LOYALIST ceasefire")

I was pointing out to her that "Republicans" also had its share of terrorists and that both forms of terrorism were wrong.

Frank is the one who keeps dragging the IRA into Sinn Fein, and actually what I'm doing is supporting the goals of Sinn Fein as YOU listed, and in fact what I've previously listed as well. My concern is primarily civil rights.

Sinn Fein is the IRAs historical political wing. That is fact.

What you will discover about Frank is that he is very selective in what he pulls, often out of context, and that 'distortion' is his middle name. I think IFF summed up my position more than adequately.

Actually, I presented the threads in their entirety for the gallery to judge for themselves.

My concern is primarily civil rights.

Yet, she refuses to even admit that the Republican terrorist murders of women and children was wrong.

This is something a civil rights advocate would do?

I say "Sinn Fein", Frank immediately asks me to justify the IRA.

I did no such thing. I asked her if the Republican terrorist murders of women and children was immoral and would she condemn such acts. She refused to do so.

So I say that I support their giving up violence, then he demands an apology or some remorse on my behalf for violence prior to the ceasefire.

I did no such thing. I asked her if the Republican terrorist murders of women and children was immoral and would she condemn such acts. She refused to do so.

It should also be noted that I never once asked Spab to apologise for anything.

I'll be honest that I don't sit around and weep at night for vast numbers of people I've never met, so he's got me there. I don't cry all night for the dead of the Troubles either side.

She condemns loyalist terrorism but will not do the same in regards to Republican terrorism.

But don't misunderstand Frank's position. He could care less about Irish politics any direction at all.

I care about British politics and Northern Ireland is a part of Britain.

And he did moderate the WCOTC boards though I seriously doubt he will publicly admit it since he won't even admit he is 'the banned poster formerly known as Frank'.

Fallacy: Attacking the person and presenting a Red Herring argument.

[Spencer]

Regarding the naming of atrocities. Would you also specifically condemn UDA atrocities

I outright condemn such atrocities. UDA members who commit such acts should be brought to justice just like REAL IRA terrorists should be brought to justice.

Under the Geneva Conventions in conflict the lives of civilians must be safeguarded. This must be a priority for either side.