32CSM Statement Re Military attacks

by Jim Fri Mar 13, 2009 14:07

"What is required to resolve it is an end to British Parliamentary activity in Ireland so that the people of the island can come to their own democratic arrangements as to how we govern ourselves."

The GFA agreement was passed overwhelmingly by democratic majorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Assembly has the overwhelming democratic support of Northern Ireland's population.
Dail Eireann commands has overwhelming democratic support of the population of the Republic of Ireland.

The people of Ireland therefore have already made their voice abundently clear - they support democratic institutions and they recognise that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland must first agree democratically to the end of the link with the United Kingdom before Irish unity can ever be a possibiliy.

They have made clear through their support of peaceful law abiding democratic parties that they reject violent political revolutionaries.

The 32csm does not command any support either in Northern Ireland or in Southern Ireland of any significance.
They do not possess a single democratic representative seat at national or local level anywhere on this island.
They clearly do not possess a shred of political credibilty, a shred of a morality or a shred of justification for their violence in recent days.

A group who use violence combined with contempt for the democratic will of the people while claim they alone possess the spirit of the nation are nothing less than fascists.

The people of Ireland, North and South, Protestant and Catholic, unionist and nationalist are as one in their determination to defeat thugs and murderers who have no future and who will not dictate the future to us all.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Fri Mar 13, 2009 15:35

A chairde, Im trying to get a discussion on Republican Anarchism going on the IRBB, and would like to invite anyone interested. In my own opinion Republicans and Anarchists need to join forces before we can force any change in the current status quo. Please see the link below if you want to join in or just read the thread:

by tom Fri Mar 13, 2009 16:35

Lowly paid pizza delivery men are not and could never be considered legitimate targets.

by Andrew Fri Mar 13, 2009 17:08

If you want a anarchism & republicanism discussion where you don't have to create an account to view the discussion see the link below where Cael also gives us his views on abortion rights. Unsurprizingly for an RSFer he seems more concerned with the rights of a yet to be born fetus then of a living breathing pizza delivery worker. (You will need to create an account to post)

by sophia Fri Mar 13, 2009 19:15

andrew, what are you worried about? whats wrong with discussion or debate between republicans and anarchists or anyone else for that matter? i can remember reading cael invite readers to a discussion on this topic a year or so ago and reading it back then and being both impressed with the ability of the rsfers there to the idea of debate, willing to argue their points and more importantly understand that a discussion is a little give and take and staying polite throughout. a few from blackcat took caels offer and what could have been an enlightening topic(s) was wasted because the feeling i got reading was that a) the anarchists wanted to tell the republicans instead of discuss with them and b) perhaps most important in the republicans (on that board anyway) were willingly to calmly talk and that is where the real problem lay because it seems that too many would rather dismiss or misrepresent the politics and opinions of the republicans. maybe its easier.

by Peter Mahon Fri Mar 13, 2009 19:38

"Frank" of the 32CSM either didn't visit Specsavers - or he is an American.

He seems not to have noticed that the Irish people has expressed it's wishes on governance in a referendum that was carried by a large majority.

Or perhaps he has adopted the current US philosophy on democracy - we support the will of the people as long as the people doesn't vote for someone we don't like.

by Frank Fri Mar 13, 2009 20:22

You seem to be talking about the Lisbon referendum result which is being ignored? Or is it a case of one rule for them and another for us? And whilst youre at it, if the GFA is so sacrosanct because a partitioned electorate voted for it what's your take on a British Minister suspending the institutions on numerous occasions unilaterally? Who in Ireland votes for the British NI Secretary? No outrage on that one Peter?

by Justin Morahan Sat Mar 14, 2009 09:37

As one who believes that the Irish State suffers from chronic financial and political corruption (I would add to that judicial corruption) nevertheless I am totally opposed to the killing of humans. In particular I totally oppose the recent killings of Mark Quinsey, Patrick Azimkar and Stephen Carroll as well as the gunning down of two other soldiers and two pizza delivery men. It was a particularly callous crime against these human beings. No warnings were given, they were killed in cold blood. This was murder and nothing can justify it.

As a pacifist, I am opposed to all armies and the very idea of an army whether State or other. Armies are entities where young men and women are trained to kill other humans, where they are taught to obey "superior" orders and never to question the morality or ethics of any order from a superior. They are places of brainwashing; you train, you obey, you kill.

Some of the people who were part of armies were Daniel and Philip Berrigan, Mohandas Gandhi, Peter de Mott, Jimmy Massey. All of them saw through the brainwashing eventually and became involved in the non-violent struggle to really better their world and use more noble means than killing real or imagined enemies on someone else's orders.

The most important right of any human being is the right to life.

I appeal to you to give up this reckless and monstrous killing game before you wade any farther into a sea of human blood. Not only is it wrong. It doesn't work. It goes on and on and on. One murder begets another. The innocent die and the "enemies" are denied an opportunity to change.

Shane, Mark and Patrick will never have a chance to be a Dan Berrigan, a Phil Berrigan, a Peter deMott, a Jimmy Massey or a Mohandas Gandhi.

The RIRA and the CIRA have taken that opportunity away from them. Please stop now.

by Richard Walsh - Republican Sinn Féin Sat Mar 14, 2009 16:00 tiocfaidh at btinternet dot com c/- Teach Dáithí Ó Conaill, 223, Parnell Street, Dublin 1, Ireland +44-7835 620 592 / +353-87 261 8603

Statement from Richard Walsh
An article in the 'Independent' Newspaper of London (“Policeman's shooting 'was not murder', say dissidents” (12/3/09)) describes me as the “Continuity IRA's mouthpiece” in the print edition, and as the “Continuity IRA's spokesman” in their online edition.

For the record, I am the Director of Publicity for Republican Sinn Féin – and it is on behalf of this organisation that I was speaking.

Republican Sinn Féin does not have a military wing, nor is it the political wing of any other organisation.

ENDS

by Jacqueline Fallon Sat Mar 14, 2009 16:12

"Non-violent struggle to really better their world and use more noble means than killing real or imagined enemies on someone else's orders."

Justin,

I have witnessed myself Irish Republicans using noble, peaceful means to address issues, and I have witnessed them (at first hand) being harassed, shunned, and threatened with death by the so-called forces of 'law and order'. I am just an ordinary woman ("a woman of no importance") and I have attended Easter commemorations for our patriot dead, and pickets to improve conditions for political prisoners in the past for humanitarian reasons, and I have been threatened and harassed myself in the past (and I would regard myself as a peaceful person), and in one sinister incident (which I’ll never forget), I was even handed an abortion leaflet by a young Garda.

I believe that as a result of the extreme harassment Irish Republicans face on a daily basis and the constant surveillance they are under and the impact that this has on their fundamental human rights, and their political right to express and spread their respective political messages to the Irish people, well, I am not surprised at all that they resort to violent means given no other avenues are available to them. Other avenues might be available to you, Justin, but they are certainly, from my experience, not available to them. All peaceful avenues are open exclusively to those who agree with the status quo (i.e. British rule in Ireland).

The outrageous announcement by Imperialist Police Chief, Sir Hugh Orde, that he will be sending for additional British forces of occupation to come to Ireland, in the form of the British military’s Special Reconnaissance Force, and the vitriolic language he employs ad nauseum to describe authentic Irish Republicans only stokes the raging ‘fire’ and is, indeed, an incitement to hatred to all decent Irish citizens, and a 'call to arms' to those that have training in the use of arms. Where there is serious injustice, people will always fight it using whatever means they possess.

If British sponsored Ulster politicians really want an everlasting peace then, in the meantime, I would recommend they drop the provocative language (i.e. using the words ‘vermin’ and ’traitor’- jaysus, what uninspiring political figures we have the misfortune to have on this island). They should also cease aiding and abetting British rule and concentrate their efforts on bringing about a lasting peace by working towards an end to British rule.

In my opinion, there will never be an everlasting peace on our island whilst British rule and its armed forces of occupation remain stationed here. Since 1169 (God, it has been a long and bloody war), the people of this island have continually fought for freedom to govern their own political affairs, which is the basic right of any country. I believe the fight for Irish freedom will continue on into future generations (as it has done since 1169) until all remnants of British rule have been permanently removed from our beautiful island.

by Non-Republican Sat Mar 14, 2009 17:19

Just one wee problem with your comments Jacqueline Fallon. What if the overwhelming majority of the Irish people don't want you - or those you are defending - to fight for their freedom?? What in fact if they oppose you doing so - and despise those who resort to the gun on their behalf? What if they want you to stop? Surely some pause for thought is in order here.

History teaches many things, some of it open to interpretation. But I would have thought it obvious that no 'fight for freedom' can succeed when it is completely opposed by the people it is purporting to liberate, and if in fact it makes them angry at those waging it (and hence willing to support what you call the 'occupation forces' against them). If you disagree, maybe you can explain precisely how the killings last week have advanced your cause. It seems to me that all they have done is unite people against you - thereby rendering your objectives even more distant. They have strengthened the state, not weakened it - the precise oppoiste of your objective Most people I talk to hope desperately that those who killed last week are caught as soon as possible, and locked up before they can inflict yet more carnage. I see no point in taking life when it can do absolutely no good. Republican dissidents remind me of a man who knocks his head against a brick wall year in year out, and when challenged on the futility of it just mutters: 'If I hammer against it for another thousand years I am bound to break through.' It is a profoundly hopeless perspective.

Less talk about the 'rights' of this minority to resort to arms, and a little more questioning of whether it is in fact sensible or useful to avail of this 'right' might be in order.

by Kevin T. Walsh - Peace in Ireland has come into be Sat Mar 14, 2009 18:03

Ms Fall

Who are you tring to lecture about Irish history?

How dare you? Three innocent men have been murdered in cold blood in the last week and you state on this site that it is for the betterment of Ireland and its people.

I have read many of your postings before, with mild humour and bewilderment so let me tell you something, there comes a time when thugs linked to gangland in Moyross and drugs will be stopped by the Irish people on both sides of the divide. Or let me put this a better way Jaqueline - there is no divide. The people of Ireland stood side by side and wept together in silence in Banbridge yesterday which I note you don't condemn. I know my history Jacqueline. Some of my bloodline is on the Proclamation and my partner's Grandfather assisted in writing up the Constition of 1937.

We had a conflict. It started in or around 1968. Gusty Spence shot the first Catholic on his way home from work. Spence is now an old man (UDA) and is now a leading figure for Peace in the North of Eire. The provos did their job and fought a war for over 32 years and they knew the people had enough and if you have little brain in your head, you would understand. Guerilla warfare is only with the cover and camouflage of the people.

Seana Walsh read out the IRA statement and Jacqueline there is only One IRA. I keep telling this to Richard Walsh, Des Dalton and the other idiots. The last time they held a press conference last year in 2008 they got arrested with 2 journalists.

Martin McGuinness has called these thugs Traitors and they will never defeat the people of Ireland. They will never defeat democracy. They will never achieve their idiotic view that Ireland is run by a couple of hunddred thugs disgracing the name of the IRA so please go away. I think you ought to go to Zimbabwe or maybe a week cutting turf on Achill Island - this might broaden you wee brain!

You see Jacqueline - as Justin Morahan in the previous posting mentioned, we live the real world now. Ireland is facing one of its biggest financial disasters of its history. We have corruption, we have the crooked bankers etc. but we have grown up now.

We as a Nation together condemn outright the murder of any human being on this, our Island and that even includes the jun kies and dealers who are linked to the CIRA traitors.

I hope you also will grow up and your couple of two a penny followers with you.

God Bless Peace

K.T. Walsh

You see Jacqu

by Sharon . - Individual . Sat Mar 14, 2009 19:01

Hi !

Well said , Jacqueline - a good post , although perhaps understandably it's difficult for some people to acknowledge the points made , as those points can make them feel uncomfortable , and some of them may insist on clinging to the historically inaccurate notion that "...we had a conflict. It started in or around 1968...."

It's good to now and again see the elephant in the room being highlighted.

Thanks!

Sharon.

by Mark C - Contact.ie Sat Mar 14, 2009 19:11

But, Richard, you don't mind it being said that you don't consider the deaths of two soldiers to be murder? As long as they don't mix up the organisation you are speaking for.

by K.T. Walsh - Peace in the Unity of Ireland - Not War Sat Mar 14, 2009 19:42

K.T. Walsh

Sharon, the two funerals of the two young men commenced in England today. Two young human beings. You speak of your children Sharon and imagine the mothers of those two youngsters' murdered by thugs with gangland connections.

Sharon - if you want history piece by piece for the last 780 years you have come to the right man. We can go from the Chieftains Sharon, origins of the Celts, the first inhabitants on the Island off the West coast of Kerry near Valentia Island.

We can go to penal times, to the transformation of Henry xiii to the break away from Rome to his daughter Queen Elizabeth first who hheld a meeting with the famous Grainne O'Malley on the Thames and gave her safe passage. These women held a mutual respect for each other.

This is not about your annual swim Sharon but all of your children and today two other peoples' children get buried - murdered by common thugs and traitors.

This is about the Young Irelanders, the Fenians, the famous speech from the Dock by Robert Emmet (hung drawn and quartered). This is about the IRB to Collins to the IRA and as old Sam Maguire swore a young Michael Collins into the IRB first - Sharon you are like a little poodle with Ms. Fall beside you swimming in the Pacific with the great white sharks all around you but these white sharks are thye emblem of the Irish people for Peace on this Island. I repeat Marrtin McGuiness' words 'Traitors# and now I put it to you and your mob from Moyross to Hell to conderm these murders of these 3 people (INNOCENT) and not forgetting the Polish worker out to feed his family - don't try to lecture me on history Sharon - you would only be a mouse going to a Cat's Convention but the good news is there are three common thugs in custody this evening

K. T. Walsh

by Non-Republican Sat Mar 14, 2009 19:44

Well, Sharon, maybe you would like to explain how the killings last week - of which you evdiently approve - bring your objectives any closer. If you don't approve, say so - join the Irish people in condemnation.

The truth is that killing soldiers and policemen when 99% of the Irish people utterly condemn those who do it unites us all against you, and makes many of us question the value of your objectives. Is this really sensible? Can you not for one micro second entertain even a scintilla of doubt about the value of this? Why kill and support killing if it cannot achieve your goals - if, in fact, by uniting the Irish people against you it makes them even more remote?

Why should you succed now, when the PIRA failed after so many decades, so many deaths, so many wasted years in jail? What is likely to be so different this time round? And if nothing is likely to be different - and I have never read anything by you indicating how it can be - why should you get any different result, other than death and misery.

There is a well known definition of insanity - keeping on doing the same thing but expecting different results. Sums up RSF et al to me....

PS

On Jacqueline's complaints about state harassment of Republicans: there is a simple way to stop it. Give up threatening murder, destruction and explosions, and you just might find that nobody pays you any attention at all.

by Sharon . - Individual . Sat Mar 14, 2009 20:30

Mr Walsh :
You now write about "...the Young Irelanders, the Fenians, the famous speech from the Dock by Robert Emmet (hung drawn and quartered). This is about the IRB to Collins to the IRA and as old Sam Maguire swore a young Michael Collins into the IRB first..." , whereas in your previous post you stated - "We had a conflict. It started in or around 1968."
Then you attempted to lecture me regarding your superior knowledge of history?
You had to be reminded about the 'elephant in the room' , Sir - but then what did you do ? You lashed out at the messenger , but not at the subject of the message .
Unfortunate.
Also - if those three men are released would you still consider them to be "three common thugs" ? Do you know for a fact that that is what they are ?
And what is this nonsense about my "mob from Moyross" ?

Non-Republican :
No , I don't "approve" of those killings , but that is not to say that I am surprised that they happened . The Six Counties remains an area in conflict , connected to the political and military situation that that conflict stems from and I have been one of the few voices (particularly since 1998) to constantly advise that such an unresolved conflict position leaves the door open for the potential of such happenings.
You wrote - "There is a well known definition of insanity - keeping on doing the same thing but expecting different results."
Like trying to work with and/or appease the British military and political presence on this isle , you mean ? It hasn't worked before , but let's try it again.

Thank you both ,

Sharon.

by Non-Republican Sat Mar 14, 2009 20:45

So, Sharon, do you think that killing soldiers and policemen at present is inadvisable, since it won't achieve anything? Come off the fence - and do tell. Is a military struggle at present wise - or is it unwise? Should we support it - or oppose it? If we should support it, then please tell me why it should succeed.

Would you agree that a military campaign might only be justified if there was a sufficient groundsewll of opinion to give it some prospect of success? Would you accept that when 99% of the people such a struggle is aimed at liberating are utterly opposed to it, it is only counter-productive.

by Sharon . - Individual . Sat Mar 14, 2009 23:53

Non-Republican :
"Killing soldiers and policemen" - or anybody else - is never advisable , if you ask me. And equally inadvisable is pretending that the potential I mentioned earlier does not now exist. There is a link between the two , however uncomfortable it makes you feel to state that that is the case.
Regarding your comment on military struggle , each individual will have to come to their own conclusion as to whether it's wise/unwise and whether to support or oppose it . It's not my place to answer those questions on your behalf , N-R , but I will ask you how often in this struggle has the military campaign received justification from "a sufficient groundswell of [public] opinion" ? Has that opinion been present more so after the event rather than before or during it ?

Chris-
If anything , those elephants have opened my eyes as to how little others use their eyes.

Thanks to you both,

Sharon.

by Dan Langrishe Sun Mar 15, 2009 00:28

"None of this subtracts from the case against the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA, whose violent actions last Saturday and again on Monday, whose violence generally, is utterly futile and morally indefensible and should stop now. They should seek a different way of remedying whatever grievances, real or imagined, lie behind their campaigns. "-Eamonn McCann, Belfast Telegraph, 12/3/09
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ea....html

by Non-Republican Sun Mar 15, 2009 09:44

'each individual will have to come to their own conclusion as to whether it's wise/unwise and whether to support or oppose it .' Sharon, this is nonsense - and you know it. Do you, or do you not, personally, in your case, support or oppose the Continuity IRA's military struggle. Do tell. Do you argue for it - or against it? Is killing policemen in the north today likely to achieve your goals - or is it not? You can't just evade this critical issue. Or do you just try to 'understand'?

Let me get specific and personal. I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 70s. Like many other Catholic youths, this was a day to day life and death decision for me. For a time, I moved beyond 'understanding' the struggle and 'supported' it. Then doubts arose - as they did for most people who embraced that path. But then, Sharon, I had a dilemma. Many of my school friends were still moving beyond 'understanding' the struggle and were prepared to 'support' it. They were being arrested and going to jail. One killed a policeman, and went on to serve 20 years in jail. He was, at 19, just married with a child. Somehow, his marriage endured his imprisonment - I don't know how. I talked to these people everyday, and my choice was to tell them whether I 'understood' what they were doing, or challenge them to find a different path. Yes, the lives of policemen and soldiers were at stake - but so were those of my friends. Did I tell them I 'understood' what was going on - and therefore contribute to their motivation to kill, be killed or go to jail? Or - did I debate with them and suggest that maybe none of it would achieve their objectives and that they should find a different way? I must say, at this stage of history, I find armchair commentators who say they 'understand' but who avoid coming off the fence just a bit hypocritical.

On another one of your typically cryptic comments: you were at pains to say that constitutional activity never delivered a united Ireland, so bugger that, maybe there is something in violence after all. The flaw here, Sharon, is obvious. Lets us grant you have a point that politics won't get what you want. That does not mean that killing soldiers and policemen will either! If you trace your struggle back to 1169, what is the point in continuing with tactics that by your own lights have been tried for 1000 years, and have failed? I would suggest that one of the problems with political action in the past has been that there have been too many people in the background like you, willing to 'understand' why people like the Continuity IRA are killing people, and therefore cutting across the political process.

It is time to move beyond 'understanding' and actually try thinking. The simple question remains, and has always remained unanswered by you,: precisely how will killing soldiers and policemen in 2009 achieve a united Ireland?

by Kevin T. Walsh - Peace Justice Equality Sun Mar 15, 2009 14:02

To: Starling

With a level of humane respect Starling - make your point. Forget Eamonn McCann; forget SWP and forget the true genuine IRA in this bullshit.

Three people have been murdered by thugs.

You mention the word opportunist so are you telling me that the whole Nation of Ireland and beyond e.g. Republicans in Boston, Queens, Woodside; The Bronx; Chicago; Australia; and don't forget 35 million people with Irish Ancestry in England.

SO NOW YOU CALL ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE OPPORTUNISTS

You mentioned a mandate for CIRA AND REAL IRA - well let me tell you something and this comes from a very deep core.

If a bunch of gangland thugs mixed with a few former republicans - totally and approximately 200 - you are living on a different planet. I condemn these murders like every decent Irish person on this Island.

Do You condemn these murders?

Ms Jacqueline Fall says she is an ordinary Republican - never an opportunist so whats her problem in not condeming the murders in the last week in the north of Eire

K.T. WALSH

by B.O'Brien Sun Mar 15, 2009 15:51

The long, 30 yr. war was futile and a detour from the real social and economic problems of all Ireland.

Now as the Irish ruling class faces its most serious crisis an attempt at another diversion occurs. Not this time.

"Speaking on behalf of the SWP, Eamonn McCann said "we reject entirely the strategy of 'armed struggle' carried out in the name of the people but, of necessity, behind the back of the people and without sanction of the people. We rejected armed struggle when carried out by the Provisional IRA. We reiterate that position now.

"The attack comes at a time when the need for working-class unity was never clearer. Here, as in the South and across the water, we are faced with a relentless attack on jobs, wages and public services, from employers’ groups and the governments of Gordon Brown and Brian Cowan. The killings on Friday are a disruption and diversion from these urgent issues."
http://www.swp.ie/html-03-09/AntrimStatement.html

by Diarmuid Sun Mar 15, 2009 16:26

Sharon and Jacqueline, you have argued coherently and calmly but the response has been mostly hysterical. From the tenor and some of the comments it would seem to me that some supporters of the SWP (and possibly of others?) have joined ranks with the imperialists, social-democrats and pacifists. Though each of those constituencies would argue with the other, they are maintaining a truce and focussing their fire on you and not too bothered about the terms in which they do so.
I suggest you save your energies for people who are able to 'listen' (read) and able to have a civilised debate.

by Dumbo Sun Mar 15, 2009 17:00

"they are maintaining a truce and focussing their fire on you and not too bothered about the terms in which they do so." writes one in support of the other. Are they for real Diarmiud? Or have they beyond merely seeing enormous mammals of the unique status of being the only animals with vertebrae incapable of jumping (elephants) to actually thinking civilised debate about the pros and cons of the GFA, Peace Process, Andrews agreement and participatory politics on this island should begin with killing 3 people and shooting up Pizza delivery boys?

Coz let's not get it wrong - the only reason comments are appearing under this article is because the reprobate traitors linked to the 32CSM committed murder in the name of the Irish Republic. Isn't that what this article is about? It's an add-on to death. It's a postscript to suffering. It's the calling card of those who want to bring bloody open conflict back to the Irish people.

civilised?

You'd probably cut the tusks out of those elephants in your livingroom and sell them for ivory if you could catch them.

by Michelle Clarke - Justice not petty warfare by a few Sun Mar 15, 2009 17:27

Diarmuid

Are you for real? You mentioned the word civilized - you mentioned that people are not capable of having a civilized debate on this site. Again I would suggest yourself Jacqueline and Sharon are living in a very dark place. I feel very sorry for you but like the Irish people today, my sympathy and ppain goes out to the three men who are murdered in cold blood by common thugs.

You mentioned the word 'hysteria' - I am sure you know what it means. A mother to lose her son, a wife to lose her husband or emotionally and with a mandate of the entire Island to feel hysterical.

I will close by saying if you read the above postings of Justin Morahan; K.T. Walsh; Dumbo and others - its not hysteria just CONDEMNATION but then again I feel I am wasting my time but there is always Hope to change a mindset like yoursef.
These thugs will never defeat the people of Ireland - they have just strenghtened their resolve to put them away for years.

There are three of the4se alleged thugs in custody at the moment and hopefullymore will follow.

As Martin McGuinness said they are just TRAITORS.

What sort of so-called Republicans have connections to Gangland? It really is pathetic. So I hope you find this a civilised debate.

My thoughts again tonight are with Maura Harrington - a woman of conscience and credibility.

Michelle Clarke

by Dan Murphy Sun Mar 15, 2009 19:06

"Speaking to the crowds outside from the back of a lorry, Eamonn McCann, speaking on behalf of the local branch of the rally organisers, the Irish Council of Trade Unions, said people were determined they were not going back.

He said: “We stood here in protest and in sympathy with the bereaved after the Shankill bombing, the Greysteel massacre, the city of London bombing which broke the original ceasefire, the cruel murder of David Caldwell in the Waterside, and it is our earnest hope that never have to come here again and stand in protest and in sympathy.”

He added: “The message from this demonstration here today is never again; no more.

“We stand for peace between our people and an end to the cruel grief inflicted on so many families in this part of the world.” "

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/n....html

by Frank Sun Mar 15, 2009 22:47

I see another British soldier killed in Afghanistan. Will the cameras descend on this incident as they did with the two soldiers killed in the north? Will tearful widows be rolled out? Will we see a similar displays of soapbox indignation as we've seen here with political wannabes jostling for camera space to vent their spleen for self advancement? Or perhaps its a dose of good od fashioned indifference so long as it's 'over there' and not 'over here'.

by puca Mon Mar 16, 2009 00:46

A lot of the pro armed struggle comments here seem to have forgotten that the provo campaign was a cul de sac for the best part of 20 years. By 1994 the provos could not even take the war to the brits, they couldn't kill soldiers, could barely kill cops and got a hail mary pass with the London bombings that fortunately for them didnt kill any civilians (except the daily mail snapper). Warrington was probably the point at which, even for the most ardent, the game was up. We hoped the dissidents would have learned the same lesson from Omagh. That lesson is that there is no military solution. In all of the comments from the militants here I see only justifications (or understanding...sounds like marion finucane or dr phil) for the killings recently.

None of you is suggesting that such a campaign will bring the orgasm of a united Ireland any closer. Instead its a 19th century mantra about the legitimacy and inevitability of generational armed struggle. You guys have the prayers of dead conservatives running round in your brains. Lets kill some cops...for the sake of it. Unless you can come up with some coherent reason why killing cops and soldiers (and if it continues that will inevitably include civilians) are tactics that will bring a political strategy to bear then its just revanchists playing politics by murdering people. noone is going to support this stuff. Who wants the awfullness of the 70s and 80s back in the north? the place and people are already badly damaged by what happened in those decades. Those supporting armed struggle should check out some of the counselling services that cater for the brain damage caused by the conflict. You can find them in every community in the 6 counties and they remain busy. Check out the incidence of alcoholism, mental illness, depression and psych medication in the north's population and find that it is significantly higher than in the south or the UK. More of that? no thanks.

by Diarmuid Mon Mar 16, 2009 03:36

See what I mean? Despite the fact that neither Jacqueline, Sharon nor myself glorified never mind expressed approval of those killings, again and again the comments addressed to us put try to represent us as doing that. Yes, hysterical and no way to conduct a debate, so clearly it's a waste of time trying to have one with you.

Now and again another comment reminds you of the killing being done elsewhere by (and sometimes to) British and US soldiers but you don't seem to worry about those.

by puca Mon Mar 16, 2009 04:08

Diarmuid, I certainly didnt use the word 'approval'. I used the words 'justification' and 'understanding'. To wit, a quote from Jaqueline...

"I believe that as a result of the extreme harassment Irish Republicans face on a daily basis and the constant surveillance they are under and the impact that this has on their fundamental human rights, and their political right to express and spread their respective political messages to the Irish people, well, I am not surprised at all that they resort to violent means given no other avenues are available to them."

That would appear to qualify under both the categories I employed, those being 'justification' and 'understanding'. I guess you want people who will 'listen' without disagreeing or responding. Thats one of the problems latterly with militant republicanism. It requires only an echo chamber to work its ideas out. Indeed thats been the case for quite some time. Now i find that the points I raised, about the rationality of armed struggle, are not addressed by you at all. Instead I get from you a martyr complex about how they are all against us. Stand up for yourself man. Tell us what you think and don't be afraid to put it out there. You believe completely in it, right? then you've nothing to lose and we have something to learn from you.

by Starling Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:05

Kevin T Walsh you have misunderstood my contribution and also completely misrepresented it and accused me of things that I did not say.

You claimed I said that everyone who opposes the RIRA and CIRA murders are opportunists "SO NOW YOU CALL ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE OPPORTUNISTS".
I never said that, I was talking about the SWP and Eamonn McCann.

You then said: "You mentioned a mandate for CIRA AND REAL IRA".
No I didn't. I never said anything like that at all.

You then asked me: "Do You condemn these murders?"
My reply is this, I fully condemn these murders without any reservation and I oppose the thugs and scum who carried out these murders. The CIRA and RIRA are enemies of the Irish people and should be driven out of our society.

Dan Murphy you seem to be a fan of Eamonn McCann's and maybe also the SWP. You give us a quote from Eamonn : “We stood here in protest and in sympathy with the bereaved after the Shankill bombing, the Greysteel massacre, the city of London bombing which broke the original ceasefire, the cruel murder of David Caldwell in the Waterside, and it is our earnest hope that never have to come here again and stand in protest and in sympathy.”

He added: “The message from this demonstration here today is never again; no more.

“We stand for peace between our people and an end to the cruel grief inflicted on so many families in this part of the world.”

Well Dan the reason why I gave an earlier quotation from the SWP in which they express support for the IRA was to make a political point. The point is that the SWP for a significant part of the Troubles supported the PIRA armed struggle. They only changed that position when the majority of the nationalist community began to turn against the armed struggle and when the PIRA started their involvement in the long road of the peace process. Hence my accusation that the SWP's positions on the North are arrived at for opportunist reasons not political belief.

In the British Socialist Worker 19 October 1974 it said "It’s up to us to fight to get them (troops) out, by making their dirty war so unpopular with British workers that the Government cannot continue with it. That means we support all those in Ireland who want to get rid of British troops, including the IRA. When people get hysterical, about IRA bombs in Britain tell them that 20,000 troops in Ireland is like 660,000 foreign troops occupying our towns and cities."

Again the above quote explicitly says that the SWP supported the IRA's campaign. Dan you gives us a quote from Eamonn McCann in which he says how he/they participated in previous workers/union demonstrations against the paramilitaries and their campaigns.

This is what the SWP said about Protestants in Northern Ireland in Socialist Worker, No. 25, April 1986 "Orange bigotry is based on Protestant privilege today as surely as it was when the Orange Order as founded in 1795. Then, the privilege was to do with access to the best land on the most favourable terms. Today, it has to do with jobs, houses, social prestige and access to political influence. The fact that, from the Protestant worker’s point of view, the privilege is pretty small, matters not at all. When tuppence half-penny is looking down on tuppence, the half-penny difference can assume an importance out of all proportion to its actual size. The same is true for the ‘poor whites’ of the southern states of the US or the skin head racists of the National Front in Britain."

Their contempt for the Protestant working class is summed up by the following written in the Socialist Worker, No. 21, December 1985 "In this sense Protestant workers can be compared to the poor whites of the Southern states of the USA. Their cheap labour goes hand in hand with their racism."

The reality is that the SWP and McCann previously opposed strikes, protests and demonstrations by workers and trade unionists if they were opposing the activities of the so-called republican movement. In 1992, when trade unionists organised a strike in Mid-Ulster against the Teebane massacre of Protestant workers by the IRA and against Billy Wright's Mid-Ulster UVF sectarian campaign of attacks against Catholics, the SWP accused the coordinators of organising a "loyalist" strike!

In the Socialist Worker No.21, December 1985 it said "While never flinching from our profound differences with the Provos, we recognise that they are presently leading the fight against sectarianism and bigotry."

My point is clear, the SWP and McCann are hypocrites who hide their political past because they are ashamed of it. If Eamonn's audience were aware of the above they would view his current message in a very different way! From having been a cheerleader of republican armed struggle he is now an opponent, why? Because now the majority of people are opposed to armed struggle.

by Adam Rafferty Mon Mar 16, 2009 14:03

If you go to the SWP statement at http://www.swp.ie/html-03-09/RIRA.html and read it you will see that they don't condemn the murder of the two soldiers or the policeman. They don't condemn the shooting of the two pizza workers.

And read eirigi's statement at http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest100309_2.html

They don't condemn the killings either and say “While supporting the right of any people to defend themselves from imperial aggression éirígí does not believe that the conditions exist at this time for a successful armed struggle against the British occupation.

So for eirigi the killings and attacks were just a matter of bad timing. Also they don't mention the two pizza workers at all, nor do they criticise the politics of the RIRA or the CIRA.

by K.T. Walsh - Justice Mon Mar 16, 2009 14:58

Starling

I admire and respect your reply. If I took it up wrong - what you were saying I take it back wholeheartedly. I admire your honesty and your previous posting and at least we agree on the condemnation of these three people who were murdered last week.

K.T. Walsh

by McCarthy Mon Mar 16, 2009 16:26

Oh dear Adam Rafferty, did you really think that people wouldn't follow the link you provide and see that you are lying:

“The Real or Continuity IRA have absolutely no right to try to drag the working people back into a form of communal violence that will produce huge suffering but no gain for any section of workers. Their description of workers who deliver pizzas as "collaborators" shows a deep contempt for people who are condemned to live on poverty wages.”"

I suspect that your real concern is that the rest of the statement points out the utter hypocrisy of the British and Irish governments in wittering on about the evils of violence when their own violence is much greater. Can't be pointing that out now can we - all we're allowed at the moment is to go on about the uniquely evil RIRA and CIRA and how everyone should line up behind the forces of law and order until the villains have been wiped out.

by Adam Rafferty Tue Mar 17, 2009 00:07

Yes I did expect people to follow the link and I wasn't lying. The SWP in this statement did not condemn the murders and they didn't condemn the shooting of the pizza delivery workers. So what the fuck is your point!

by Jacqueline Fallon Tue Mar 17, 2009 01:44

I would just like to clarify that, I never stated on this site nor on any site that the deaths of those two British soldiers and that PSNI ("RUC") man was for the "betterment of Ireland" (to quote Mr Walsh in his own words), and it is very unfair of Mr Walsh to deliberately misrepresent me in this way, when it was himself alone that stated it.

I would like to say, however, that I do believe that a permanent end to British rule and the permanent departure from this island of the British Army and its intelligence services would guarantee an everlasting peace to future generations and would be in the best interests of Ireland and its 'always at war' neighbouring island.

by Sharon. - Individual . Tue Mar 17, 2009 13:12

Hi !

Deliberate misrepresentation appears to be the order of the day when it comes to trying to avoid the bigger picture. To do so is apparently seen as some sort of 'immediate solution' to the Six County problem , but I suspect those doing so realise that it's only a short-term 'answer' .

Thanks!
Sharon.

by Non-Republican Tue Mar 17, 2009 13:31

Can't help but note Sharon that you haven't answered any of the specific questions put to you. They aren't hard to understand, assuming some adult level of intelligence. In essence: does killing policemen now in 2009 achieve your goals? If so, how? (To me, this is a real mystery, and I really would like to know how RSF supporters imagine that these methods might advance their aims. Do tell). If it doesn't, what's the point to engaging in them, bring bereavement to families and ensuring that those who do it are likely to spend years in jail? There was much of this over a 30 year plus period, which by your own estimation failed. I repeat: will similar tactics once more produce a different result, or more of the ssame - death, destruction, imprisonment, defeat and compromise/ sell out?

You and Jacqueline say you 'understand' why people do this. Very well. The question remains: is it actually a fruitful, productive and useful thing to do, now, in the year 2009? Or does it unite the Irish people in opposition to firstly your methods - and maybe eventually to your ends? Even if peaceful politisc won't acghieve yoyur goals - and we can debate this - oit doesn't follow that blowing up buildings and killing people will either. But there ceretainly is a high cost attached, and one we should be wary of paying. I'm sure Sharon you are a good person and don't relish death for no reason. So could you explain whether a military struggle is a good idea or not? I

by Sharon . - Individual . Tue Mar 17, 2009 14:20

Non/Ron-Republican -
Questions have been put to you , and comments directed at you , which you have ignored : you seem to believe - demand? - that I should continue to explain myself to you, even when that would involve repeating myself. I won't be doing that , but you can confirm that much for yourself by continuing to ask me the same questions over and over again, using different words , if you wish , but I won't be repeating myself to you or anyone else.
I will state , however , that I don't know any person who would consider military struggle to be a "good idea" , and the fact that you think I would purposely associate with people who consider it to be a "good idea" is an indication of the closed mindset you approach this issue with.
Your anger is mis-directed but I can't help you with that particular issue as it's your own ignorance that is at fault in that regard , and not anything I've done or said.

Thanks!
Sharon.

by Kevin T. Walsh - Social Justice and Ethics Tue Mar 17, 2009 18:05

Ms. Faul

You wrote the article - please have the guts to stand over it. You accuse me of being inaccurate. You go on to say in another posting you are an ordinary republican - that is brilliant Miss Faul but as I said before - don't forget the poodle in the Pacific.

You mentioned in your opinion that there will never be an EVERLASTING PEACE ON THIS ISLAND WHILE THERE IS BRITISH RULE.

I am in Dublin, like 1.5 million more and we are going through an economic crisis and I don't see any British Rule.

Let me clarify some points for you Miss Faul.

Your opinion to me is gone. It is in the past but we always have hope for a United Ireland through a democratic process without cold blooded killings by common thugs.

I ask you again - Do you condemn the murders of the three men last week?

Sharon said 'Elephants in the room' - seemingly it came back to haunt her.

The first posting on this article written by Frank was like reading a piece out of the Beano. IT IS OVER - GET OVER IT.

The young people of Ireland now are fighting a different war. They are fighting for their jobs, health issues, and the elderly are concerned with their pension funds. We all hope we will ride out this tide of uncertainty.

Sharon accused me sarcastically of thinking history began in 1968. If you want I will give you line by line for the last 800 years but sadly I don't think your mindset is ready for it.

We live in the now Miss Faul. There are 9 thugs at the moment in custody and being questioned by the PSNI not the RUC. They left the stage years ago and good riddens. The people of Ireland will not be defeated by a couple of hundred criminals with gangland connections. It is Paddy's day, like millions all over the world - I AM PROUD TO BE IRISH. To see people today wear the green and multi-cultural from all over the world join our parade is unique. THE BOMB IS OVER - THE GUN IS OVER AND ABOVE ALL I AGAIN ASK YOU - DO YOU CONDEMN THESE MURDERS

Kevin T. Walsh

by Frank Tue Mar 17, 2009 19:01

Kevin, if the conflict was over these attacks would not have happened. That's your problem, you believe condemnation is a political response when it isn't. Its convenient to label it criminal because it allows you abdicate any political responsibility toward it. Your point about being in Dublin and removed from British rule is quite telling. It aptly reflects the position of standing idly by which prolongs the conflict itself. Condemn away.

by Amused Tue Mar 17, 2009 19:16

Frank, since Sharon remains mute on the point, perhaps you could patiently explain how killing cops brings a united Ireland any closer? No? Thought not....

by Frank Tue Mar 17, 2009 20:16

Clearly you're only content with answering your own questions, which begs the question; why ask them at all? Those that carried out the attacks need to explain why. The statement from the 32CSM is directed toward resolving the issue which gives rise to the conflict and also to highlight the rank hypocrisy of those who sought to use the attacks to engage in soapbox politics. Killing policemen brought the Free State into existence and we don't see much condemnation of that from those who condemn it now.

by Amused Tue Mar 17, 2009 21:16

No Frank - I'm asking you a simple question. Do you think that killing cops brings a united Ireland closer (today, in 2009, not 1920)? If so, how?

It seems a reasonable question. I'm interested in clarifying what is the way forward now - not in what might have or might not have been appropriate in 1920. How does killing cops today bring your goals any closer? It seems to me that it only united the wntire Irish people in diusgust and revulsion. Honestly, I've never heard any answer and I am really curious as to why this trype of activiuty (which we are free to do or not to do) might be construed as something likely to help dissident Republicans achieve their goals.

by Sharon . - Individual. Tue Mar 17, 2009 21:20

Kevin-

"I am in Dublin, like 1.5 million more and we are going through an economic crisis and I don't see any British Rule."
It's less than 80 miles up the road from Dublin , Kevin - you couldn't miss it unless you wanted to.
"Sharon accused me sarcastically of thinking history began in 1968."
More attempted misrepresentation - I commented on the fact that you had stated "We had a conflict. It started in or around 1968."
"Sharon said 'Elephants in the room' - seemingly it came back to haunt her."
As per the title , Kevin - they'll haunt all of us , especially whilst some amongst us refuse to see what's happening less than 80 miles away.

Thanks!
Sharon.

by Frank Tue Mar 17, 2009 21:36

Those that carried out the attacks obviously do believe they advance the goal of Irish unity otherwise they wouldn't engage in such actions. What's needed to address that is clarity as to why they do. What it certainly advances is the reality that the conflict is not resolved and the way forward now is to address that reality. People have always been revulsed by republican violence but they've also been liberated by it. That's a political reality that doesn't stand well on a soapbox.

by McCarthy Tue Mar 17, 2009 22:01

"Yes I did expect people to follow the link and I wasn't lying. The SWP in this statement did not condemn the murders and they didn't condemn the shooting of the pizza delivery workers. So what the fuck is your point!"

My point - or should I say my fucking point, since you prefer to shout and swear - is that you are lying - the SWP condemned the shooting of the pizza delivery workers and made clear their opposition to the attacks. Anyone can follow the link and see exactly what they had to say. Of course, the likes of you won't be satisfied because they didn't rant and rave about the unparalleled evil of the RIRA/CIRA and chose to point out the hypocrisy of the British and Irish governments, which have no problem with large-scale political violence and the murder of civilians when the right people are doing it. You are just a silly little witchhunter trying to smear anyone you can.

by Amused Tue Mar 17, 2009 22:28

So thats a yes then Frank - you think that killing policemen might revolt people, but at least it gets the issue of partition on the agenda, and so then presumably (and through some mechanism you decline tos pecify) presumably makes its removal more likely? Tnaks for the clarification, mindless, stupid and murderous though it is!

by ballad writer Tue Mar 17, 2009 22:32

when 32CSM title this stuff as a statement on military attack - what is the semantic purpose of the word military ?

by Frank Tue Mar 17, 2009 23:01

"So thats a yes then Frank - you think that killing policemen might revolt people, but at least it gets the issue of partition on the agenda, and so then presumably (and through some mechanism you decline tos pecify) presumably makes its removal more likely? Tnaks for the clarification, mindless, stupid and murderous though it is!"

It's clear you're not interested in answers that do not conform to your emotional take on political matters. I take it you support the GFA, I apologise if you don't, but killing policemen created that also and that's devoid of a mechanism to secure Irish unity.

by Amused (but not really....) Tue Mar 17, 2009 23:20

Frank writes: 'It's clear you're not interested in answers that do not conform to your emotional take on political matters. I take it you support the GFA, I apologise if you don't, but killing policemen created that also and that's devoid of a mechanism to secure Irish unity. ' This still does not answer the question. How does killing cops in 2009, when most people are so opposed to it (thereby eliminating the political conditions that might have prevailed in the past) bring about a united Ireland?? If it does, I'd like to know how. Can you enlighten me? If it doesn't, it is a waste of life and energy that should stop now.

Moreover, the Continuity IRA and Real IRA are murdering in my name and the name of the Irish people - though 99% at least of us do not want them to do so. I think we can be forgiven if we occasionally get 'emotional;' or even angry at this usurpation of our will, by organisations who claim to be intent on liberating us - whether we want it or not, whether we approve of their methods or not, irrespective of whether we agree with them or not. I get upset when people are killed to achieve a goal - and those who support this action refuse to explain precisely how these deaths will actually achieve their goals. Please look at what you have written, and how it avoids this issue. Precisely how, I ask again, can killing policemen today achieve a united Ireland? You decline to say - as does Sharon, Jacqueline and the rest. Isn't this incredible. People die for a cause - and yet those who 'understand' why these deaths occur, just refuse to say how they think these deaths will achieve their stated objectives. Has it become a case that the killing is an end initself?

You now say that killing policemen brought about the GFA. Really? The GFA is identical in all important respects to what was available over 30 years earlier - 'Sunningdale for slow learners'. I thought that killing policemen delayed it, rather than speeded it up: this agreement could have been had decades earlier. We ended up with it because killing policemen showed no signs of getting a united Ireland, and Sinn Fein (which I do not support) opted for compromise -a compromise you reject. Moreover: you oppose the GFA. You want a united Ireland. If the best you can say for killing policemen is that it led to a deal you reject, the GFA, it doesn't say much for your case. How, once more, does resuming tactics which by your own standards failed for 30 plus years (in reality, since 1169) now stand a chance of achieving a united Ireland? I really want to know your thinking on this. How will it get 'the Brits' out now, when it did not so in the past??? What's different now from 1972, 1978, 1981 - or, for that matter, from 1169?

And if nothing is different, such deaths are a waste of life. That is why I oppose them, condemn them, or whatever expression you wish to choose. The problem is that so do the Irish people. All that these killings have done is make people angry with the organisations responsible, make them support the state in arresting them, and discredit the cause they espouse. More and more people now think that if it takes death and mayhem to get a united Ireland then they would rather have the status quo - it just isn't worth a life. In short, it seems to me, that these killings have made your cause even less likely to succeed rather than more likely to do so. No? And if I am wrong, then one last time: how does the murder of Constable Carroll, and the creation of yet another widow, bring a united Ireland closer than it was a month ago?

by Jacqueline Fallon Tue Mar 17, 2009 23:47

Chuig: Mr Walsh,

I did not write the original article above, I merely commented on it. I have never had a problem standing over anything I have written or said, and have used my own name - you alone, Mr Walsh, have given me a fictitious name. You consistently misrepresent me, and do not even bother to read my comments or, indeed, other commentators, whom you also misrepresent even though they agree with you! A snowball would stand a better chance in Hell, than I would in trying to communicate with you - as you cannot even be bothered to read my comments or anyone else’s comments properly. If you had bothered to read my comments you would have noticed that my name is neither ‘Ms Fall’ nor 'Ms Faul' - all figments of your imagination!

I believe dialogue and debate is the correct approach at this time, and that people should be permitted to give and receive freely political literature from both organisations and the general public should not be subjected to being harassed and threatened for receiving such material. The simple act of receiving a Republican leaflet in public or even conversing with a member of a Republican organisation, or visiting Republican shops, can cause a bored member of the SDU to get overly excited, and for an innocent member of the public to be chased and tailed by shadowy and shifty looking characters for months!

Labelling people as 'vermin' and 'traitors' is not conducive to promoting a peaceful environment. There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding the CIRA and the Real IRA, such as the fact that neither has political policies, which I know to be untrue - the reality is they do, if people only bothered to read them, and they are well thought out political policies, with many intelligent and highly political people operating in both organisations.

Nobody joins a Republican organisation unless they are highly committed to both the political policies of their respective movements and steadfastly committed to the pursuit of Irish freedom. None of the Volunteers from either the CIRA or the Real IRA are in it for selfish reasons or monetary gain (the idea is ludicrous to me given the hardships they will inevitably face economically and the risk of losing their freedom or, indeed, their precious lives). Republican Volunteers give their lives totally to the cause for free; therefore, I do not know how anyone can call them ‘criminals’. I would describe people in the Republican Movement as being deeply committed individuals, with well thought out political policies, willing to fight until death for Ireland and I respect them for that. I believe Republicans against the GFA deserve to be heard by the general public as their political policies are worthwhile and well thought out and worth considering.

I want everlasting peace for this island, but there will never be peace if people ignore the continuing conflict and misrepresent the organisations involved, and do not address the reason for the conflict appropriately. British rule must go for a permanent peace to be realised, then all communities on the island can work together in peace for the benefit of all.

by Concerned Irish citizen Wed Mar 18, 2009 00:01

Amused thank God you have laid things out like they are and are a voice of reason when so many are trying to stir up the past and cause more deaths and mayhem.

You have laid it out in plain English before all.

A piece of land is not worth one single life. As the Policeman's widow stated at the end of our lives all any of us get is a 6 x 6 hole in the ground where our mortal remains will lie. We can't take anything with us so live and let live in peace.

Hatred and death just bring more hatred and death. It is time to live in peace.

Also look at the practical side. With our bankrupt republic how could we possibly fund almost another 2 million citizens? The majority of them don't want to be part of us anyway so leave them alone you can't force them to join us and you can't throw them out of their homes. They are ok as they are. Live and let live.

by Irish-American Socialist Wed Mar 18, 2009 00:07

Before i go out to a San Francisco pub for a obiligatory St. Pat's day pint i thought i would read this thread . Unlike most of the alleged 40 million (doubtful ) Americans of Irish descent i do try to follow events in my grandparent's country from multiple sources . I have noticed very little mention in all the tearful tributes to the slain British soldiers of where they were shipping out to . Afghanistan . Where US and British forces have killed thousands of Afghan ''civilians ''. (Though one could argue that any Afghani killed fighting a occupying force was also a ''civilian '' ) So i'm curious , why are the Real IRA shooters ''cowardly thugs '' but these guys that were willing to go to a country thousands of miles from England where they might very well kill people that , regardless of their reactionary idelogy/thelogy , pose no threat whatsover to ordinary Brits, Americans , Canadians , Germans etc ''are Young innocent lads "' ?
Make no mistake that from my vantage point on the West Coast of the US it appears that resuming any sort of '' Armed struggle '' in Ireland is futile . But this hyprocrisy is staggering . And this call by Martin McGuiness for Irish people to become British Police informants should be condemmed by any conscious progressive .
Think about it . Even if one believes all the hysterical propaganda re the ''dissident republicans '' does anyone think that once turns over ''intell '' to the PSNI(RUC ) or any other police or intelligence agency that would be the end of it ? That if for example some major militant strike occurred that the cops wouidn't pressure them to provide infro on the ''extremists '' ? ('' Not the good proper union men just the Trots'' ) Or the anarchists etc .
my two cents
PS i don't doubt that some will say that how dare a '' yank'' have any opinion that's contrary to what ever is currently popular in Irish political circles . (As one Sinn Feiner said to me in the late 90's when i asked some questions about the ''peace process'' and quoted Bernandette Devlin's reservations '' She doesn't know fuck all ! You Yanks should just leave it to Gerry and just give $ '! "' (Not exactly the language '' Gerry '' would use when wooing Irish-american Politicians and businessmen ! )

by Kevin T. Walsh - Rule of Law, Peace and Social Justice Wed Mar 18, 2009 01:13

Ms. Jacqueline Fallon

What conflict are you talking about? Is it the recent murder of three innocent people, one policeman and 2 army personnel? I can assure you, Ms. Fallon, not in my name. You can blather on all the bullshit you want but you don't and never will speak on or on behalf of the Irish people. As I said before Ms. Fallon Peace has arrived and nobody, not even, the couple of hundred thugs will derail this Peace.

You see Ms. Fallon, we live in a democracy and that democracy North and South of this Island spoke. Republicans, nationalists, and all the Unionists people have enough of lives' being lost. Nobody ever wants to see Omagh again.

I asked you before to condemn these killings but you keep on blathering and it leads you up a cul de sac. Where now I realise that you don't condemn these murders. That's Fine. Blather on Ms. Fallon.

Now Frank - I read your postings and I read them clinically. You use the word political. In what sense does three cold blooded murders become political? Is it because the murders are carried out by a couple of hundred criminal thugs. Again I state what McGuinness said 'traitors'. To watch the turnout at these funerals last week gave us all hope. To watch the people of Ireland hold these thugs with the deepest of contempt and people worldwide will always give this Peace Process a stronger unity now.

O yes, Ms. Fallon, I have been reading for quite some time now your little lectures about British Imperialism and all the bullshit that goes with it. It appears to me now you and your like are on the defensive and thats exactly where every decent person on this island want you all to be.

Again, I repeat my question to you - Ms. FALLON - DO YOU CONDEMN THESE MURDERS? Now this is not rocket science. Yes or No.

Democracy is vital to all nations - we fought long and hard for Peace and nobody especially a couple of hundred thugs with gangland links will change the prosperity and the health of the Irish people. It is time Ms. Fallon to take a long look at your morals to condemn these cold blooded murderers.

I will never take lectures on Irish history or have any idiot dictate to me where I should be at in relation to democracy but I will tell you this - these thugs will be hunted down and given years behind bars but sadly, this does not bring back families, loved ones, sons, or husbands.

Kevin T. Walsh

Kevin T. Walsh

by Jack Wed Mar 18, 2009 01:30

"None of the Volunteers from either the CIRA or the Real IRA are in it for selfish reasons or monetary gain (the idea is ludicrous to me given the hardships they will inevitably face economically and the risk of losing their freedom or, indeed, their precious lives). Republican Volunteers give their lives totally to the cause for free; therefore, I do not know how anyone can call them ‘criminals’."

Another romantic who who can't see the wood for the trees. Oh how I lived in your world. The pure-at-heart Dissidents, skipping hand-in-hand with the pixies and the elves.
Saying that the CIRA and RIRA only do what they do for non-selfish reasons is like saying that people join the Mafia or people join the Triads as they are doing it selfesly and for some higher purpose.
What utter hogwash! The RIRA and CIRA have been involved in criminal activities for years. Extortion, drug smuggling, taking kick-backs from drug pushers, smuggling fuel and other contraband. All big business. All very lucrative. All very profitable for some of the canny volunteers. Tell me, how can you justify the recent activities in places like Derry - i.e. known Dissident Republicans providing protection for pushers and young lads chased through the lanes and gunned down in cold blood. How does any of this help the cause of Irish unity or move us one step closer to getting rid of the crown forces?

by Jack Wed Mar 18, 2009 01:30

"None of the Volunteers from either the CIRA or the Real IRA are in it for selfish reasons or monetary gain (the idea is ludicrous to me given the hardships they will inevitably face economically and the risk of losing their freedom or, indeed, their precious lives). Republican Volunteers give their lives totally to the cause for free; therefore, I do not know how anyone can call them ‘criminals’."

Another romantic who who can't see the wood for the trees. Oh how I lived in your world. The pure-at-heart Dissidents, skipping hand-in-hand with the pixies and the elves.
Saying that the CIRA and RIRA only do what they do for non-selfish reasons is like saying that people join the Mafia or people join the Triads as they are doing it selfesly and for some higher purpose.
What utter hogwash! The RIRA and CIRA have been involved in criminal activities for years. Extortion, drug smuggling, taking kick-backs from drug pushers, smuggling fuel and other contraband. All big business. All very lucrative. All very profitable for some of the canny volunteers. Tell me, how can you justify the recent activities in places like Derry - i.e. known Dissident Republicans providing protection for pushers and young lads chased through the lanes and gunned down in cold blood. How does any of this help the cause of Irish unity or move us one step closer to getting rid of the crown forces?

by Kevin T. Walsh Wed Mar 18, 2009 08:10

The morning is beautiful and so is our1 democracy down here ao Frank I think enough is enough now. Your Beano topic got too much coverafe.

Probably in a way it was my own fault but murder is murder and a lot of people have spoken and called it just as it is (Murder).

The Police in the North of Eire are making great headway and will I believe bring these thugs before the courts.

Enough said about this now. We now have our own economy fight down here and we also have Gangland down here and again we will beat these similar thugs eventually.
Mark Quinsey, the young soldier will be buried in Birmingham today. It is believed that thousands of Irish people will turn out with their English neighbours in solidarity for this young man and his family. What a waste of life?

But Gangland continues down here - O yes, the Year of the Gangster continues and the decent people will win eventually.

Kevin T. Walsh

by Frank Wed Mar 18, 2009 08:28

"This still does not answer the question. How does killing cops in 2009, when most people are so opposed to it (thereby eliminating the political conditions that might have prevailed in the past) bring about a united Ireland?? If it does, I'd like to know how. Can you enlighten me? If it doesn't, it is a waste of life and energy that should stop now."

Most people were opposed to pre GFA as well. That political condition still prevails. You cite this in an emotional context not a political one which only serves to negate the value you think you derive from making it. As I said repeatedly those who carried out the attacks need to explain clearly why they did so.

"Moreover, the Continuity IRA and Real IRA are murdering in my name and the name of the Irish people - though 99% at least of us do not want them to do so. I think we can be forgiven if we occasionally get 'emotional;' or even angry at this usurpation of our will, by organisations who claim to be intent on liberating us - whether we want it or not, whether we approve of their methods or not, irrespective of whether we agree with them or not. I get upset when people are killed to achieve a goal - and those who support this action refuse to explain precisely how these deaths will actually achieve their goals. Please look at what you have written, and how it avoids this issue. Precisely how, I ask again, can killing policemen today achieve a united Ireland? You decline to say - as does Sharon, Jacqueline and the rest. Isn't this incredible. People die for a cause - and yet those who 'understand' why these deaths occur, just refuse to say how they think these deaths will achieve their stated objectives. Has it become a case that the killing is an end initself?"

But you're not being precise at all because you conveniently ignore historical precedent when asking the question as to how such killings advance the objectives of those who carried them out. Can such acts lead to political change? Yes, you're living in such a change. Will such acts lead to political change, perhaps, but that can only be accurately guaged if those responsible state clearly their reasons for carrying them out in the first place.

"You now say that killing policemen brought about the GFA. Really? The GFA is identical in all important respects to what was available over 30 years earlier - 'Sunningdale for slow learners'. I thought that killing policemen delayed it, rather than speeded it up: this agreement could have been had decades earlier. We ended up with it because killing policemen showed no signs of getting a united Ireland, and Sinn Fein (which I do not support) opted for compromise -a compromise you reject. Moreover: you oppose the GFA. You want a united Ireland. If the best you can say for killing policemen is that it led to a deal you reject, the GFA, it doesn't say much for your case. How, once more, does resuming tactics which by your own standards failed for 30 plus years (in reality, since 1169) now stand a chance of achieving a united Ireland? I really want to know your thinking on this. How will it get 'the Brits' out now, when it did not so in the past??? What's different now from 1972, 1978, 1981 - or, for that matter, from 1169?"

Sunningdale was the result of violence also. If your on an historical quest through Irish history to eliminate the effects of violence in determining the shape of that hisory then you are not a serious commentator at all. We can all wrap ourselves in the comfort blanket of pacifism but its dishonest and weak. Yes, all that you mention did not achieve 'Brits Out' (your choice of phrase) but it is an undeniable fact that it has removed them from a substantial part of Ireland and made their tenure in the remainder costly and unstable. You may not wish to recognise these facts but at each of those historical junctures questions sucs as yours were posed aloso and the majority, save 1918/1921 were opposed to the methods employed. Will it work finally, I don't know, but I would rather wait and glean the reasoning from those who believe so to make a valid judgement on it. They have history on their side, you only have emotional rhetoric.

"And if nothing is different, such deaths are a waste of life. That is why I oppose them, condemn them, or whatever expression you wish to choose. The problem is that so do the Irish people. All that these killings have done is make people angry with the organisations responsible, make them support the state in arresting them, and discredit the cause they espouse. More and more people now think that if it takes death and mayhem to get a united Ireland then they would rather have the status quo - it just isn't worth a life. In short, it seems to me, that these killings have made your cause even less likely to succeed rather than more likely to do so. No? And if I am wrong, then one last time: how does the murder of Constable Carroll, and the creation of yet another widow, bring a united Ireland closer than it was a month ago?"

But we don't know if nothing is different. You believe Irish unity is not worth taking human life for. That's grand. The British believe maintaining partition is worth the taking of human life. Some have chose to confront that.

by Adam Rafferty Wed Mar 18, 2009 09:23

Jacqueline Fallon you wrote in one of your postings
"I would like to say, however, that I do believe that a permanent end to British rule and the permanent departure from this island of the British Army and its intelligence services would guarantee an everlasting peace to future generations and would be in the best interests of Ireland and its 'always at war' neighbouring island."

I would argue that this prognosis is false. The belief that all that is necessary in order to solve the national question in Ireland is for the British to "leave" is wrong. This analysis ignores the most important issue. The opposition of over one million Protestants/unionists and loyalists to a united Ireland.

The Real IRA and the Continuity IRA are aiming to bring about the conditions in which a new armed struggle can flourish and create the conditions within which the British establishment will just say we've had enough and decide they are withdrawing politically and militarily.

This was the strategy of the PIRA. Under conditions, from their perspective which were a thousand times more favourable than now, they failed. The PIRA never defeated or came even close to defeating the British militarily. The PIRA realised that they would never achieve their military objectives. They also came to the conclusion that their strategy of armed struggle was flawed because the British don't want to be in Ireland. They would prefer to get out and just exploit this island like any other capitalist power. It would be substantially cheaper, more profitable and a lot less hassle.
What the PIRA realised was their problem wasn't getting the British out, no, the real problem was getting Northern Protestants to agree to join a united Ireland.

The RIRA and CIRA face the same problems. They cannot militarily defeat British imperialism and they cannot bomb and murder one million Protestants into a united Ireland.

They attempt at an armed struggle by these micro groups will only create more sectarian division. If their campaigns continue the result will be mean military repression in the nationalist communities, when at present there is none. It could lead to a sectarian tit for tat war. Everything that the RIRA and CIRA do will be detrimental to people in the North. These organisations are right-wing sectarian nationalists who have nothing positive to offer. Only death and sectarian conflict. Their actions will put off unity because they increase sectarian division. They are the enemies of the working class on this island.

by Amused Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:41

Frank, I am afraid the emotion is on your side, not mine. There is not a shred of logic in your position, as I believe Adam Rafferty's insightful post indicates. You leap over inconvenient facts (e.g. Protestant opposition to your goals), make inappropriate historical analogies (is this 1918 or 2009, and how different are conditions between then and now?) and seem to have little sense of the proper relationship between means and ends (hint: they should be proportionate to each other.) Let's deconstruct your logic a little, hard though it is.

In the past (1918), arguably, a military struggle achieved some of its objectives - when there was (possibly) mass support. (We might argue about whether other tactics would have done just as well, but that's beside the point). But times have changed Frank - and nothing remotely resembling such support exists today. Without it, how can a few armed men succeed in removing a mighty power from a given territory? Where in all of human history has this occurred? I can't think of anywhere in the world where an armed minority has won out against the complete opposition of most of the people they are trying to 'liberate.' Can you?

I dispute your view that Sunningdale was 'achieved' by violence - in my view, the IRA campaign helped derail a much more productive political approach which would in all likelihood have achieved some compromise without murder. Just because two events are correlated (violence = Sunningdale) does not mean that one caused the other - I get out of bed everyday, but that doesn't mean that this causes the sun to rise up with me. It is much more plausible to suggest that by providing an excellent pretext for increased state repression, and inflaming loyalist opposition, the IRA campaign delayed a compromise solution rather than facilitated it.

However, we are living in 2009 - not 1918 (if you send me your address, I'll happily forward you a calendar). What are the political conditions today, and how similar are they to either 1918 or 1971? A compromise deal has been brokered which has the enthusiastic support of most Irish people. Military acts by the CIRA and Real IRA evoke only disgust and revulsion, with most people hoping that those involved are arrested sooner rather than later. Now, to have any chance of success killing Constable Carroll and the two young British soldiers would have to evoke the opposite reaction - growing support among the nationalist community, more engagement with the CIRA etc, hatred of 'British rule.' Do you see this happening - or do you see the opposite happening?

Yes, Frank, most people have always opposed the IRA campaign - which is one of the reasons it never had any prospect of success, and in fact failed. This was one of its weaknesses - not, as you seem to imagine, a strength or a justification. It always lacked legitimacy, and never could have worked. That's why it ended, why it failed, why Sinn Fein moved on. But things are even worse for its would be successors today, not better. Possibly never in the history of the island has support for such acts been at a lower ebb. I remember 1971 and beyond very well, when the Catholic population in the north were overwhelmingly either neutral or sympathetic to the IRA (for a time). Even this wasn't sufficient to generate enough momentum for success. In its absence, with in fact extraordinarily high levels of opposition, killing policemen just makes the objective recede even further into the distance. Why should a campaign today have any better prospects for success than it did in 1971?

There comes a point to stop. The tactic of military struggle is extreme. It leads to death for those you see as the enemy, and jail and suffering for those who try it. It is futile, Frank, as the IRA cessation in the 1980s itself shows. In the absence of even the remotest sign that a new effort is likely to succeed, I believe that the only sensible course is to oppose it. Try to find a better way Frank - times have changed, and it is time to wise up and change with them. It will be a challenge, but less of a challenge than trying to wage an unwinnable 'war' that cannot be won.

by Frank Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:50

Its bizzare to contend that Sunningdale was not the product of violence no more than it would be to contend that partition and the establishment of the Free State were not also. But I suspect your position is uncomfortable with fact as opposed to emotive interpretations. Its easy to defend the status quo but distance yourself from its violent origins by invoking 'that was then and this is now'.

Its not a question of a small group trying to force a British withdrawal via military means but a question of provoking instability in the body politic to force it to politically address the root cause of the conflict. It may work, it may not work, but its not automatic either way because it has witnessed both in the past. One of the reasons you avoid history is to avoid the lineage of political events and causes which bring violence to the political theatre today. You just simply do not want to address the core point that British Parliamentary activity in Ireland is a cause of violence in Ireland no matter how that activity is dressed up. Sure things have changed, but some have not and misrepresenting political violence remains one of them. You can patronise as much as you want but in the absence of alternative activity on your behalf your position remains one of posturing.

Trying to argue that physical force resistance in Ireland throughout its history lacked legitimacy is quite simply laughable. Could you tell me which violence on the island was legitimate or are you going to cocoon yourself in pacifist generalities to avoid taking a position?

In the mid seventies the British offered withdrawal, Dublin persuaded against it. What brought the British to contemplate this?

The 32CSM are trying to establish political alternatives, if you care to study them.

http://www.32csm.info/policydocs.html
http://www.32csm.info/rui.html

You may disagree with them, but can you point me towards your own?

by Amused Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:20

Frank, lets be clear. From your perspective, killing Constable Carroll isn't aimed at forcing a British withdrawal. No, 'Its not a question of a small group trying to force a British withdrawal via military means but a question of provoking instability in the body politic to force it to politically address the root cause of the conflict. It may work, it may not work, but its not automatic either way because it has witnessed both in the past.' Lets look at the evidence, rather than your assertions and your hopes. Has this man's death (anmd that of the solkdiers), in the real world we actually live in, provoked the kind of instability you are aiming at - that is, has it compelled more Irish people to look afresh at the relative importance or otherwise of partition? Has it made the British Government reconsider its strategy? Has it made nationalists in the north more sympathetic to your aims and your methods? Or - has the opposite occurred? Are you more marginalised than a few weeks ago, or less? I believe that what we have witnessed is far from the kind of instability you relish, and therefore far from helpful to your goals. I repeat my view: you could only hope to win if the majority of Irish people endorse your methods, or at least felt passive about them. The truth is that these actions achieve precisely the opposite. You therefore cannot succeed with these methods. They are counter-productive.
It is revealing that you say 'It may work, it may not work, but its not automatic either way because it has witnessed both in the past'. People's lives have been lost Frank - and your response is that you aren't even sure whether it will work or not. If I was part of a movement that endorsed this, I would want to be pretty damn sure that killing would get what I want. Yet you endorse this kind of activity on the off chance that it 'might' work? This seems remarkably casual to me.
So lets assume you get the 'instability' that you write so casually about. Let's look also at what this would mean. More than instability would be required Frank - all out bloody warfare would ensue. You must know this. You would need to reach the level of violence that obtained in the 70s, and far surpass it, to have even the ghost of a chance of getting your way. Earlier you wrote that I held the view that Irish unity Irish unity is not worth taking human life for - this is true, I don't. But you are endorsing an approach which means much more than taking human life - it means taking thousands of human lives, British and Irish. And all you can offer is the thought that it 'might' work. Shrug. Or maybe not. We all die and kill, on the off-chance that the hunch you and your colleagues have about its effects might pan out. This is light-minded in the extreme, and seems to suggest that for your movement violence has become so habitual that it is an end in itself.
There is no evidence whatever that this 'military' campaign will do any good. It didn't in the 70s and has even less chance now. Your vague hope that it 'might' work out does not entitle those you support to set aside the quite clearly expressed views of the Irish people that they want to liberate, and take it upon themselves as a militant minority to wage 'war.' As one of those you want to liberate, I say no - not in my name, not in the name of the Irish people. No more. Enough is enough. Your actions are not wanted. Those who advocate them are not wanted. Whatever the weaknesses of the status quo it is much preferable to bloodshed without end. No more. Stop. End it.

by Adam Rafferty Wed Mar 18, 2009 13:26

Frank your arguments are divorced from reality. They are also callous, as you say a military campaign may or may not work. Sorry but asking the people of this island to suffer years of shootings, bombings, thousands of deaths, and more sectarian conflict just in the off chance that it might work is laughable.

Why have you and the others who have argued a similar line not addressed the issue of what Protestants want?

How are you going to persuade them to join your united Ireland?

Do the 'national' aspirations of Northern Protestants not warrant the same consideration as those of Irish nationalists?

Do Northern Protestants have the right to determine their own future?

by Frank Wed Mar 18, 2009 18:17

Its clear your only perspective on the entire conflict is an emotional one, devoid of the political reality of partition and occupation. I notice you fail to address the points I put to you concerning the British offer to withdraw in the seventies and your own alternatives to ending partition. Like the other reactionaries to this statement you cannot address it politically because you have no political position yourself. Or do you?

by Adam Rafferty Wed Mar 18, 2009 18:27

Frank - "devoid of the political reality of partition and occupation." So Frank what exactly is the political reality of partition? Have you ever experienced it? Being from Northern Ireland I know exactly what it is like and for the vast majority of people they could couldn't give two f**ks about it.

Instead of coming out with empty meaningless rhetoric why don't you answer the questions I asked you.

by Frank Wed Mar 18, 2009 18:31

" Adam Raffertypublication date Wed Mar 18, 2009 14:26

Frank your arguments are divorced from reality. They are also callous, as you say a military campaign may or may not work. Sorry but asking the people of this island to suffer years of shootings, bombings, thousands of deaths, and more sectarian conflict just in the off chance that it might work is laughable.

Why have you and the others who have argued a similar line not addressed the issue of what Protestants want?

How are you going to persuade them to join your united Ireland?

Do the 'national' aspirations of Northern Protestants not warrant the same consideration as those of Irish nationalists?

Do Northern Protestants have the right to determine their own future? "

You see this is where the hypocrisy become nauseating. How many years of conflict have we had to endure because the British tried political and constitutional approaches which didn't work but were nonetheless repeated? But you're not concerned with British violence in Ireland are you?

As for 'Northern Protestants' you ask what do they want? What are they entitled to? Are they entitled to threathen violence to remain a dominant minority on the island? They got away with that. Are they entitled to threathen violence to partition the country just so that they can dominate as a majority in a part of it? They got away with that. Are they entitled to threathen violence to bring down powersharing in Sunningdale? They got away with that.

If 'Northern Protestants' have nationalist aspirations concerning membership of the UK would they abide by a vote if a majority of the citizens of the UK said they didn't want them? Or is it the case that democracy to 'Northern Protestants' is only acceptable so long as 'Northern Protestants' retain a numeric majority?

Is this your takle on it, seriously? Do 'Northern Protestants have the right to determine the future of all the people of the island? Whayt about the people of Cork or the people of the bottom left half of Tipperary?

More emotion, no objectivity.

And where does the British government fit into all of this? What right have they to determine the future of the people of this island to whom they are not democratically accountable to? Did that bit pass you by or is it just to uncomfortable for your posturing?

What have you done to engage with unionism?

We are trying.
http://www.32csm.info/su.html

by Frank Wed Mar 18, 2009 18:34

"Frank - "devoid of the political reality of partition and occupation." So Frank what exactly is the political reality of partition? Have you ever experienced it? Being from Northern Ireland I know exactly what it is like and for the vast majority of people they could couldn't give two f**ks about it.

Instead of coming out with empty meaningless rhetoric why don't you answer the questions I asked you"

Less emotion. More patience!

by Adam Rafferty Wed Mar 18, 2009 19:23

Just what I expected Frank. According to your philosophy Northern Protestants have no rights.

You asked the question; Are they [Protestants] entitled to threathen violence to remain a dominant minority on the island?

Whether they have the right or not is irrelevant, the reality is they will take up arms to stop themselves being forced against their will into a united Ireland, and they will prevail and at the end of the civil war you will still not have your united Ireland.

The relevant question is what are you going to do about it? How are you going to get them to join your united Ireland?

You pose another question; But you're not concerned with British violence in Ireland are you?

What British violence in Ireland? Gives us an example of that Frank. And not an example from history that you have to dust the cobwebs off, something in the last six months.

by ballad writer Wed Mar 18, 2009 20:19

Since none of the apologists for terrorism have addressed the semantic doubt which leaps out at the careful reader from their title, I suppose I'll have to have a stab at that particular elephant in the living room. There was one attack by criminals acting against the backdrop of the peace process on Saturday night when nothing much was happening on a military instalation. This could merit a title "attack on the military" . But there were no other attacks by the RIRA and that thereafter by CIRA on a PSNI policeman doesn't qualify as "an attack on the military" . So why then do we see this plural used? Are we to presume that 32 CSM are presenting RIRA unto us as our military bravely engaging (a) forces of occupation (b) polish migrants who take our jobs in pizza [foreign food] delivery (c) helping the taleban open an Irish front ?

Really at the nib of the semantics is this little truth.

Nobody could describe the Omagh massacre, which was RIRA's last escapade which attracted as much local and international attention and rejection as "a military attack" could they?

But drive across the province without road blocks and shoot up a barracks is M-i-l-i-t-a-r-y-? attacking?

Gosh. It's just like a drive by drug shooting feud thing with less impressive fire power & no rap music soundtrack..,

Where does one sign up, paw a tricolour, learn the proclamation by heart, kit out in a blaclava & volunteer for that kind of army?

Is there anyone around who handles inquiries?

Yes there is. & we mostly agree to some extent with Hilary Clinton when she more or less said she was pro-dissident but anti-criminal. So let's engage with those who are anti GFA, anti Domino Pizza, anti British army & pro-interment, pro-road blocks, pro-tricolour draped funerals, pro-sympathetic Hollywood Trouble genre movie blockbusters as long as they condemn violence or we think we can bring them round to condemning violence.

Because everytime we quibble with them we give don't really give them the oxygen they've been craving but rather we trick them into thinking they're engaging in politics. That way they might leave off the 20th century style terrorism. Coz face it lads & lassies - you're not Al Qaeda, you're not the CIA, & you're not growing either opium or coca & really honestly and truly you have no recruitment base for the simple reason that all kiddies these days

(a) eat pizzas.
(b) use internet.
(c) are an open book.

don't waste their time & energy.

by Frank Wed Mar 18, 2009 20:30

"Just what I expected Frank. According to your philosophy Northern Protestants have no rights.

You asked the question; Are they [Protestants] entitled to threathen violence to remain a dominant minority on the island?

Whether they have the right or not is irrelevant, the reality is they will take up arms to stop themselves being forced against their will into a united Ireland, and they will prevail and at the end of the civil war you will still not have your united Ireland.

The relevant question is what are you going to do about it? How are you going to get them to join your united Ireland?

You pose another question; But you're not concerned with British violence in Ireland are you?

What British violence in Ireland? Gives us an example of that Frank. And not an example from history that you have to dust the cobwebs off, something in the last six months."

Where did I say northern protestants have no rights? What I addressed was their abuse of so called rights in the past and based on that their rights should be afforded parity with the rest of the citizens on the island. Stop misrepresenting matters to suit your own shortcomings.

So now you're saying that unity should not occur because violence will be threatened against it and that we should cede to that threat? Is that an example of violence working to secure a political end? There's hypocrisy for you.

The British have an armed garrison in Ireland. Its not there to direct traffic. Have the British government foresworn the use of violence to protect its sovereign claim over the Six Counties? I think not. British violence is in Ireland.

I'm not sure if you bothered to read the link I gave to you but it goes some way into answering your question as to how we go about joining with them in a united Ireland.

by Adam Rafferty Thu Mar 19, 2009 18:41

Frank you are living in cloud cuckoo land. I am not interested in engaging in abstract debate with you. I want to deal with concrete realities. You are just avoiding the most important question of all. How will you achieve your aims against such opposition? You have not even attempted to answer that question. Instead you ask me would I support the right of people to use violence to stop a united Ireland. What I support or agree with in this context is irrelevant. What you believe is right or wrong about it is irrelevant. Deal with the reality that over one million people on this island are opposed to your united Ireland. What are you going to do to change that?
Have an armed struggle to force them against their will? If not then you have no choice but to accept their right to say no to your united Ireland. The alternative if we follow your strategy and the strategy of RIRA and CIRA is civil war and repartition with tens of thousands dead and widespread ethnic cleasing. Thats not the future I or the majority on this island want.

by Frank Thu Mar 19, 2009 19:24

Adam you seem confused. Is it not the case that it requires a majority of those living in the Six Counties to vote for a United Ireland under the terms of the GFA? In other words a majority of nationalists and a minority of unionists could form the majority of the total. Hmmm?

by Adam Rafferty Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:43

Frank I don't support the GFA. But there is no prospect that at any time in the future than even a minority of Northern Protestants will vote for a united Ireland. You have been asked numerous direct questions which are at the heart of trying to resolve the national question in Ireland and you have refused to answer them, I can only assume because you are incapable of answering them. This "discussion" is futile. The end.

by Frank Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:24

"Frank I don't support the GFA. But there is no prospect that at any time in the future than even a minority of Northern Protestants will vote for a united Ireland. You have been asked numerous direct questions which are at the heart of trying to resolve the national question in Ireland and you have refused to answer them, I can only assume because you are incapable of answering them. This "discussion" is futile. The end."

I can understand your need to end the engagement when your knowledge of political matters is so blatantly poor. This is what happens when emotional rhetoric is introduced to political discourse.

by Reader Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:39

Frank, I think it is rather more that Adam has realised you are stone deaf. A simple question is posed. How to you get a united Ireland with a million determined Protestants in opposition? It has been suggested you are more likely to get a bloody civil war - through the pursuit of tactics which you yourself have acknowledged 'might' or 'might not' work. This is not 1918. We have a million people in the North whose determination is at least equal to yours, who hold that territory, who are well armed, and who despise your agenda with all their hearts. Your response - bombings and shootings.

You address every conceivable question but this. Yet ultimately it is the most important one of all. It means your tactics are futile, counter-productive, all pain and no gain. But you cannot hear the question, let alone answer it, which is why Adam and everyone else will now leave you alone to savour your little victory of having the last word. Please enjoy it. It is as close to success as you are likely to get.

by Frank Fri Mar 20, 2009 17:21

So even if 51% of the Norths population vote for unity this is to be over ridden by the threat of protestant violence? Are you saying that protestant violence or its threat should be the determining factor for the islands future?

by Reader Fri Mar 20, 2009 20:19

Frank - you are rather obtuse. I am saying that whether it is right or wrong, whether you like it or not, when one million Protestants are prepared to oppose you it is impossible for you to impose your will on them. Impossible. Thus demanding that the 'Brits' pull out without taking this into account is preposterous. It is not a question of 'rights', but of what is possible - with that much determined opposition, a military campaign by your friends is a doomed prospect. You can wax lyrical about what is right and not right from now until teh second coming - what you can't do is explain how your armed friends can overcome this in practice, without encountering colossal resistance, and provoking a civil war which would still leave your goals beyond reach. This is not a scenario most Irish people are willing to contemplate. But then you can't hear the question, let alone answer it (which is why this discussion is over).

by Frank Fri Mar 20, 2009 21:01

The problem is this, every time an occurence like the recent attacks happen the first catch cry from the soap box is the 'democratic will of the people as expressed in the Good Friday Agreement.' You're now saying something entirely different. You're saying that irrespective of any democratic will the threat of protestant violence is the only factor to be considered where constitutional change is concerned. You seem to be saying that if their veto doesn't work then their violence can replace it, either way no constitutional change. In fact you're saying that partition is being maintained by the threat of violence and not any democratic will expressed via a ballot box. So its ok to cede to this violence but any violence against it it is to be roundly condemned? Is that the way its supposed to work?

by Reader Fri Mar 20, 2009 21:10

Knock, knock. You Frank keep talking about the way things should be. But things are as they are, not as you would like them to be. That means you have a million Protestants on your doorstop opposed to your goals, and determined to oppose them by force if necessary. (And, by the way, most Irish Carholics also oppose your methods - a slight inconvenience, but there you are). Your whole strategy is one of military might -we can prevail. Enough bombs and killings, and we will get our way. All I keep asking is: how? Given that this mood of Protestant opposition exists, whether you like it or not, whether it is right or not, whether they have the right or not, how can a small bunch of people shooting policemen in the head overcome their opposition? How? Move from the abstract Frank - what should be - to what is. How in cold hard reality will your tactics overcome this opposition, when it has failed to do so in the past? it is not a question of what should be, but what is; not one of what you would like, or I would like, but what is. I have no hope you will address this question - you have not done so at any point in this discussion. It is like trying to explore colour to a blind man and explain sound to the deaf.

Over and out.

by Frank Fri Mar 20, 2009 22:21

I have consistently addressed the question you raise by addressing it in the context of how you use it to criticise the position outlined in the statement. As far as your concerned the sole problem is protestant resistance to the idea of a united Ireland. That may take the form of violent expression. Why should we bow to that threat of violence yet stand fore square against other violence? You firmly believe that movement toward unity, be it violent or otherwise, will provoke a violent response from unionists and because of that unity should not be contemplated. If partition is successfuly maintained violently, as you obviously contend, however patronisingly, why are you surprised that their is violence opposiong it? How can you say violence is not the way forward when violence clearly is for unionism?

Its alright saying over and out, but when you depart the problem still remains. What are you doing to resolve it?

by Another entrant in the battle Fri Mar 20, 2009 23:08

'You firmly believe that movement toward unity, be it violent or otherwise, will provoke a violent response from unionists and because of that unity should not be contemplated. '

Frank, it takes a particular talent to keep missing the point. That point is NOT that unity 'should not' be contemplated (whatever that means). It is that with such opposition as a definite fact, 'unity' is a practical impossibility. You cannot force it on a million determined opponents. The effort would require civil war, and ;unity' of a blood spattered and divided people at the end of it would be highly unlikely.

Even if you could do this, though Lord knows how, what value would it have, after so much bloodshed, destruction and carnage? What goal is worth that?

Please move on from what you think is right and wrong, and discuss what is possible and what is impossible. In short, welcome to 2009 from 1918.
, mayhem and hate?

by pixie Fri Mar 20, 2009 23:46

to the comment above theres not a million unionists in the 6 counties. closer to half a million i reckon

by Frank Sat Mar 21, 2009 00:21

The question is quite simple, (which is why I presume others have run away from it) if it's the case that the Good Friday Agreement states that unity can come about if the majority of citizens in the Six Counties vote for it why are people like Reader etc saying that that is irrelevant because protestants will resort to violence if that scenario should come to pass? Is it only democratic if a majority of unionists say it is?

Again I say to reader, it's alright saying planet zog etc but its clear that the problem is not resolved. What is Reader doing to resolve the problem?

by Shane Sat Mar 21, 2009 00:28

Just to add another thread into this debate.
Yes, politics religion and tribalism are all things which will get in the way of re-unification.
Re-unification will only be achieved through the democratic process, i.e. people will need to vote for it and, if the majority agree, it will happen. If it does than I disagree thant 1 million Protestants will take up arms. I would, however, agree that some Loyalists would take up arms in an attempt to prevent a smooth transition. I do believe that a great deal of the Protestants in the North would have no problem living in the Irish Republic, providing it was not to their detriment.

To this end, I believe that one of the factors which would sway the way people would vote is economics.
If the Northern man in the street is going to be financiall better off and more secure in an Irish Republic then he is a lot more likely to vote for it. If he is going to be better off in the U.K. then he, Protestant or Catholic, will be more likely to want to remain part of the UK. I know there are those that will argue that all good patriots will not care and will vote for re-unification no matter what, but by my reckoning there are few patriots left in this country who would put their own well being and that of their family second.

by Justin Morahan Sat Mar 21, 2009 02:32

Frank

In the course of separate replies to "Amused" you say

(1) "are you going to cocoon yourself in pacifist generalities to avoid taking a position?"
and

(2) "We can all wrap ourselves in the comfort blanket of pacifism but its dishonest and weak"

Why do you denigrate pacifism in this way? Why do you believe that pacifists are people who "avoid taking a position"?

Pacifism IS a position, just as your brand of republicanism is a position. Pacifism is not a comfort blanket or cocoon as you disparagingly state. If one were into disparagement, one could say just as easily that you are in a republican cocoon or republican comfort blanket. This I know would also be untrue.

Why do you think that espousing pacifism is dishonest and weak? The non-violent approach of the pacifist can sometimes be as strong as that of the most committed republican. Think at present of the hundreds who are in and out of prison in the USA, Britain, Ireland and elsewhere because of their non-violent opposition to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza etc. The vast majority of them are pacifists. Are you implying that their witness should be labeled as "dishonesty" or "weakness"?

by Reader Sat Mar 21, 2009 09:03

Frank, whether protestant opposition to your goals is consistent with the principles of the GFA, whether it is undemocratic or not, is NOT the point. It is a good issue for discussion, but it is not the point. The point is: whatever you think about it, protestant opposition is there. Republican violence CANNOT defeat it. I see no reason to imagine that Protestants will be anly less tenacious in purruit of their goals (link with Britain) than Republicans have been for decades in pursuit of yours. Therefore your campaign is futile. Stalemate is not viuctory. You might not like this, but you do not address it. You offer no evidence that if Protesnats in the north resist your goals that military effort will overcome them - and what a cost the effort would exact.

As to what I am doing about it: this is your cause, not mine. I am trying to persuade you not to support a course of action which has no prospectrof success. Rather than debate the democratic principles of it, why don't you address the practicalities? Once more and for the last time, how exactly can your campaign overcome such determined opposition? Leave aside the issue of what is 'right' for just a micro-second: look at what is possible, and what is not.

by Frank Sat Mar 21, 2009 16:31

"Frank, whether protestant opposition to your goals is consistent with the principles of the GFA, whether it is undemocratic or not, is NOT the point. It is a good issue for discussion, but it is not the point. The point is: whatever you think about it, protestant opposition is there. Republican violence CANNOT defeat it. I see no reason to imagine that Protestants will be anly less tenacious in purruit of their goals (link with Britain) than Republicans have been for decades in pursuit of yours. Therefore your campaign is futile. Stalemate is not viuctory. You might not like this, but you do not address it. You offer no evidence that if Protesnats in the north resist your goals that military effort will overcome them - and what a cost the effort would exact.

As to what I am doing about it: this is your cause, not mine. I am trying to persuade you not to support a course of action which has no prospectrof success. Rather than debate the democratic principles of it, why don't you address the practicalities? Once more and for the last time, how exactly can your campaign overcome such determined opposition? Leave aside the issue of what is 'right' for just a micro-second: look at what is possible, and what is not."

I realise that protestant resistance is there. I also realise that such resistance is bolstered when its bowed to as is made manifest by the institutionalising of it in the GFA via their veto over change. But the issue for republicanism is that the British government underpin that resistance. That's what the struggle is directed against, their interference in the process of allowing the people on the island reach a democratic concensus as to how the island should be governed. The British government has a battled hardened garrison in Ireland to ensure that the undemocratic outcome of this veto is maintained so long as it suits British interests. The two soldiers who were killed were acting in that capacity. Of course protestant resistance to change must be addressed but it can only be addressed in the absence of British interference and addressed on a par with the aspirations of those who do want change. The struggle is not directed toward or against unionism but against British interference in to how we seek accommodation with each other.

You ask republicans not to go down a certain road because you deem it to be futile, that's grand. But trying to impose an undemocratic arrangement to maintain the status quo is futile also. And that's why I ask you what you are doing against that. You can't resolve this problem with a one sided approach.

by Frank Sat Mar 21, 2009 16:35

Justin, my point was not directed against pacifism or pacifists but people who selectively adopt it to avoid taking a position in resolving a problem. Apologies if that could have been made clearer.

by Reader Sat Mar 21, 2009 17:10

Frank, thanks for the clarification. In your analysis the British presence is the problem. This can only make sense, in the context of my question, if you believe that in the event of a declaration to withdraw on their part the protestant community would then embrace a peaceful future within a united Ireland. This is the lynchpin of your position, as it was of Sinn Fein's in the 1970s. If it were true, then a violent struggle against the British is still required with God know how many deaths - but at the end of it there would be little or no loyalist resistance. Like most people I find this completely untenable. Firstly, the amount of carnage required to force out the British is way out of proportion to the benefits you imagine might flow from it. How many deaths are you prepared to countenance in pursuit of this united Ireland - a thousand, two thousand, ten thousand, 20,000? What goal is worth that? Will we all living in golden palaces, working 1 hr a day, eating caviar and swilling champagne in your united Ireland? Or might it look remarkably like something not worth dying and killing for?

Secondly, I think there is not a single shred of evidence that protestants would be anything other than outraged, frightened and motivated to resist to the end in the event of the scenario you outline. They are committed to their position you know, just as you are to yours. It is a bit insulting to imagine that without a British guarantee underpinning them their determination evaporates. Why should it? You fought for decades without state support. protestants aren't lesser human beings, incapable of summoning up similar reserves of determination in pursuit of their aims. You might not like it, but this is the reality. You are prepared to risk everything on a hunch that they would fold and embrace a settlement with you. To me this is utterly reckless and mindless. They are what underpins the British presence: in a real sense, they are the British presence. You have no basis other than fantasy for imagining that they would pose little or no problem in the event that the British Government pulls out - an unlikely scenario anyway.

But it is on that where we differ, and I believe on that point where your futility is most evident. By the way, you wax lyrical about how terrible it is for some minority (i.e. Protestants) to have a veto on everyone else's aspirations. This is a bit rich from a movement which commands practically zero support, and is in fact opposed by 99% of Irish people, but which takes upon itself the right to wage war anyway. You are assuming the right to veto peace Frank, to the utter disgust of the Irish people. But somehow that's all right - while a protestant veto cannot be tolerated. Just one of the problems with your position. This is fantasy politics, fantasy militarism, and a dead end from which it is vital this country escapes. Enough dead. No more in my name. No more in the name of the Irish people. You have no right to kill in order to force the liberation of a people who despise your methods, particularly when those methods cannot succeed. Your time is up. Go away.

by Frank Sat Mar 21, 2009 18:47

"Frank, thanks for the clarification. In your analysis the British presence is the problem. This can only make sense, in the context of my question, if you believe that in the event of a declaration to withdraw on their part the protestant community would then embrace a peaceful future within a united Ireland. This is the lynchpin of your position, as it was of Sinn Fein's in the 1970s. If it were true, then a violent struggle against the British is still required with God know how many deaths - but at the end of it there would be little or no loyalist resistance. Like most people I find this completely untenable. Firstly, the amount of carnage required to force out the British is way out of proportion to the benefits you imagine might flow from it. How many deaths are you prepared to countenance in pursuit of this united Ireland - a thousand, two thousand, ten thousand, 20,000? What goal is worth that? Will we all living in golden palaces, working 1 hr a day, eating caviar and swilling champagne in your united Ireland? Or might it look remarkably like something not worth dying and killing for?"

Hold on a minute, how many deaths are the British government prepared to accept to maintain the status quo? It was the British who adopted the policy of an acceptable level of violence ad infinitum, is that a laudable position to maintain pursuit of a goal? Unionism were quite content with this also when you consider Molyneux's contention that the 1994 ceasefire was the most destabilising event in the north's history. What price in terms of carnage has partition demanded? This is a two way street and movement needs to come from both sides.

"Secondly, I think there is not a single shred of evidence that protestants would be anything other than outraged, frightened and motivated to resist to the end in the event of the scenario you outline. They are committed to their position you know, just as you are to yours. It is a bit insulting to imagine that without a British guarantee underpinning them their determination evaporates. Why should it? You fought for decades without state support. protestants aren't lesser human beings, incapable of summoning up similar reserves of determination in pursuit of their aims. You might not like it, but this is the reality. You are prepared to risk everything on a hunch that they would fold and embrace a settlement with you. To me this is utterly reckless and mindless. They are what underpins the British presence: in a real sense, they are the British presence. You have no basis other than fantasy for imagining that they would pose little or no problem in the event that the British Government pulls out - an unlikely scenario anyway."

Unionism is not fenianism, they have no tradition of insurgency. Like all colonial settlers their power was the state. Loyalism was fed hand over hand both in terms of weaponry and political direction by the British security services, remove that crutch and it falls. You then have to address the question of what it isit woud fight for? An Independent Six Counties.

"But it is on that where we differ, and I believe on that point where your futility is most evident. By the way, you wax lyrical about how terrible it is for some minority (i.e. Protestants) to have a veto on everyone else's aspirations. This is a bit rich from a movement which commands practically zero support, and is in fact opposed by 99% of Irish people, but which takes upon itself the right to wage war anyway. You are assuming the right to veto peace Frank, to the utter disgust of the Irish people. But somehow that's all right - while a protestant veto cannot be tolerated. Just one of the problems with your position. This is fantasy politics, fantasy militarism, and a dead end from which it is vital this country escapes. Enough dead. No more in my name. No more in the name of the Irish people. You have no right to kill in order to force the liberation of a people who despise your methods, particularly when those methods cannot succeed. Your time is up. Go away."

They spat on the men and women of 1916. Why can't the British go away?

by Jacqueline Fallon Sat Mar 21, 2009 23:09

In the future, I could conceive of a situation whereby people of the Ulster Scots’ tradition could be persuaded to come into a United Ireland, if they were convinced that it was the only pathway to an everlasting peace, and that its Ulster Scots’ culture would be accommodated and respected as a separate entity within an Ulster Parliament in a United Ireland.

Points on the Road to an Everlasting Peace for Ireland:

* An End to British Rule

I believe there will always be conflict on this island as long as there is British rule in Ulster; the Ulster Scots must recognise this fact - as it is a fact (although neither can peace be achieved without them agreeing to it).

* Eradicating Sectarianism on the Island - the Curse of British Rule

Sectarianism is an ugly scar on this beautiful island and born out of ignorance with regard to the Reformation or in modern times just simple ignorance. The fact that people in Ulster refer to roads and political views as Catholic and Protestant just goes to show the utter stupidity of it all.

I believe all school children of both traditions should have the opportunity to sample each other’s cultures and learn from the misery caused by sectarianism - it should be part of the school curriculum. I have over the past few months being reading up myself on Scotland’s history and in the process have learned a good deal about the differing tribes that inhabited ancient Scotland, and it has given me more of an understanding with regard to the Ulster Scots and their tribal origins before they were planted on this island by British rule.

The deliberate misinterpretation of the Reformation by an English King VIII; the Flight of the Earls in 1607 and the subsequent Plantation of Ulster with English Protestants and Scots Presbyterians had calamitous consequences for both islands, with the majority of native Irish landowners in Ulster been driven from their lands and homes (the result of British rule’s planting of sectarianism on the island) - the lasting curse of British rule.

Recently, I watched a thought provoking documentary on the Reformation (made by some British politician, unfortunately, I can’t recall the lady’s name), but it was a good portrayal of the misinterpretation of the Reformation and the untold misery it caused in England and across Europe. The Reformation, which started out as an honourable quest by Martin Luther, who opposed the abuse of holy relics, and the buying of indulgences (a certificate purchased which ‘guaranteed you the right to a place in Heaven’) etc. The great tragedy was, the Reformation ended up been deliberately misinterpreted by the Roman Catholic English King Henry VIII for selfish reasons, whose sole motive for breaking with and denouncing Roman Catholicism was not for any laudable religious motives, but because he was refused a papal divorce. The resulting catastrophic war he orchestrated on Roman Catholicism resulted in the widespread birth of ugly sectarianism here and across Europe, with many monasteries and religious RC communities attacked and its people murdered. The sectarian war perpetrated by English King Henry VIII drove all authentic Christians underground - and none of it had absolutely anything at all to do with Christianity.

* Encompassing all Traditions in a United Ireland:

I believe if both traditions on this island could assemble together on neutral ground and negotiate a settlement for the Ulster province whereby Ulster’s future would be ruled by people drawn from both communities, but encompassed in an all embracing United Ireland, where the Ulster Scots’ tradition would be accepted as a separate entity. If this happened, I believe that Ulster Scots might agree to it and be willing to agree to come into a United Ireland - at least, that is what I hope would happen - as peace can’t, be achieved without them, surely. Also, I believe that if some arrangement with Britain could be agreed whereby future generations of people born of the Ulster Scots’ tradition would be entitled to possess a British Passport if they so wished, in a United Ireland setting, then this would also greatly assist in overcoming any concerns of the Ulster Scots would have regarding the loss of a material identity.

Conclusion:

I want peace not a temporary lull, but an everlasting peace for all traditions on this island, the only way I can see this happening is by a permanent end to British rule in Ireland. History teaches me one thing:
In the past, there were always young men/women who used force to fight British rule here, whether the majority wished them to or not. In the future, there will always be young men/women who will use force to fight British rule here, whether the majority wishes them to or not.

Related link:
http://www.flightoftheearls.ie/plantation.htm

p.s. I would like to clarify that, I am not claiming to represent anyone living or dead, but myself alone on this site - I never claimed to represent the people of Ireland (contrary to Mr Walsh’s intellectual opinion, a man who, unfortunately, is badly afflicted with a ‘Misinterpretation Disease’).

by Irishman Sun Mar 22, 2009 09:16

Frank, Jacqueline and others rest their case, as far as I can see on about 4 major propositions, namely

1. A military campaign can persuade the British to pull out. Of course, this will have to be at least at the level of the 70s so thousands will die (including many Irish people, not just British soldiers). How many - five thousand, ten thousand, twenty thousand - we can't tell you. But it will be worth it, since life is Hell under the British but will be Heaven once they leave. Those of us still alive can attest to it, and the dead can look down from above.
2. Once they pull out, Northern Protestants will be willing to negotiate their place in a united Ireland. Since we don't really understand their British fixation, and sure by definition it is inferior to our nationalism (to paraphrase George W Bush: 'We are right, and they are wrong'), they will just fold. Without a British prop their resistance is futile, and they will see this - we fought for 30 years against overhlemwming odds, but they are different. Weaker, less determined, less courageous. We can't be completely sure of this, but it is worth the risk. (If they don't follow our script, well, we'll have to fight them in a civil war - again, how many dead we don't know, or really care - but once more that will be worth it).
4. The men of 1916 were initially reviled but then gained support. We are in probably even a smaller minority but they were redeeemd in public opinion and we will be also. Of course, we are off to prison cells rather than Kilmainham execution yard (granted, not quite the same dramatic end, but no matter), but the same thing will happen to us. The Irish people are brainwashed and deluded anyway, so while it is impermissible for a Northern minority to veto the national will, it is absolutely ok for us to do so. What do the electorate know anyway? If people don't like it, they can fuck off, and start digging some graves in preparation for our war.
3. The end result will be a united Ireland. People in the North will send their elected representatives to Dublin rather than London. All in all, this united Ireland will be so marvellous that the many thousands of dead required to get there can enjoy their eternal rest safe in the knowledge that it was worth it.

Sounds a programme.