éirígí --are Dissidents silencing opposition?

[Christy Walsh]

I am neither a member of éirígí nor an associate. I have started this thread having read the two quotes I copy below; I did not specifically identify the two members of PW because I was simply using their remarks in generic sense for discussion rather than they should be held to the remarks and the context in which they were made.

One PW member, elsewhere on this forum, stated: "I supported the PIRA ceasefire in 94. I think SF had the opportuntiy to build their mandate into a major force and be quite a thorn in Britains side using passive ressitence and form a State within a State similar to the Bolivarian movement or similar to whats happening within Gaza."

The other PW member responded as follows; " I absolutely agree with this. The fact that the provos decided to administer NI for the Brits and led the vast bulk of the Nationalists into a cul de sac opened the way up for the reemergence of an armed campaign. If a sustained and effective but non violent oppositional strategy had been adopted I think pretty much everyone would have tied in sooner or later. "

Effectively what is being said is this --SF failed to adhere to the 'cause' therefore without SF there is not other alternative but the use of violence.

The following could be an alternative to violence and it is what éirígí state on their website;


Campaigns have the potential to empower, politicise and mobilise the people, who alone can provide the dynamic for such a transformation. Through campaigning on political, social, economic and cultural issues, éirígí aims to contribute to that dynamic.http://www.eirigi.org/about_us/index.htm

éirígí offer what both members above have refered to -and no violence is required --other than I would imagine --acts of 'civil disobedience'.

It would be unlikely for éirígí, or any other group, to make any meaningful headway because they are silenced, or burdened, by those who are only spoiling for a fight. I would imagine that there are many Republicans disallusioned by SF antics --but marginalised and isolated because of violent dissidents.

Can groups like éirígí take a more assertive role in opposition to SF and the GFA without addressing the negative impact that violent dissidents are causing? The politics of condemnation has been a much abused and one sided weapon in our past --but can Republicans keep making excuses for those who simply just want to start a war?

[Secret Squirrel]

You know what really riled me Christy ? Remember some folks were hassled by the RUC/PSNI because they were forced to walk on the road at Castle St because the footpath was undergoing some sort of repair work ? And the 'new police' used some legal mumbo jumbo as an excuse to prevent them from continuing on their way ? That was the turning point for me.

( I'm not a member of any political group nor have I ever voted.)

[Christy Walsh]

You know what really riled me Christy ? Remember some folks were hassled by the RUC/PSNI because they were forced to walk on the road at Castle St because the footpath was undergoing some sort of repair work ? And the 'new police' used some legal mumbo jumbo as an excuse to prevent them from continuing on their way ? That was the turning point for me.

( I'm not a member of any political group nor have I ever voted.)

I remember the work being done to the footpath but not the incident you refer? But possibly as you might be suggesting --people being stopped from going about their peaceful buisness would do more to highlight any problem with the political infrastructure of NI than going around killing people. Most people would see being inconvenienced as a much lesser evil than killing people.

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm near certain the citizens involved were on their way to demonstrate against the murderous british army glorifying war on the streets of Belfast.
I see the same murderous organisation plan to do the same thing next month.
Belfast City Council, or someone, said it was OK by them.

[Trow]

Eirigi will be the first to tell you that because they are anti GFA does'nt mean they are Pro Violent.

You'll find that the PSNI are heavy handed when it comes to anyone oppossing the GFA. You only have to look at the harrassment of Eirigi memebers during casual protests, sponsored walks or indeed the case of Gerry Mc Geough arrested while on electioneering work to realise that political policing still exists and that incidents like this can fuel the arguement for armed resistance.

It can also be argued that the Provos were in fact the original dissidents having split from a mainstream all those years ago. And having split, they went on to ''become the mainstream.''

[Secret Squirrel]

The 'new police' are doing themselves no favours when they use stunts like the one I referred to above.

[Christy Walsh]

My point was twofold, 1) that eirigi are obscured by those using violence and 2) that there is an alternative to the use of violence --thus it is not a means of last resort.

[Sam Lord]

I am neither a member of éirígí nor an associate and this thread has been started having read the comments of two other members on this forum support the use of violence with very flawed argument.


I am not a member of éirígí and I would be obliged if you would desist from quoting me as such.


start[/B] a war?

Let me translate that ... the politics of condemnation were not acceptable when the provos were killing ( in fact they spent their lives condemning the politics of condemnation) but now they have jumped to the other side of the barricade the politics of condemnation are very acceptable - in fact de rigeur.

[Trow]

My point was twofold, 1) that eirigi are obscured by those using violence and 2) that there is an alternative to the use of violence --thus it is not a means of last resort.

What is the alternative when groups like Eirigi or any individual voicing opposition to the status quo are politically policed, harrassed, stitched up, interned etc?

My arguement is that it is when this occurs others are more likely to turn to the gun. They see no other alternative. It's leanrned behavior in a sense were history has taught them that violence works.

[Sam Lord]

I am neither a member of éirígí nor an associate and this thread has been started having read the comments of two other members on this forum support the use of violence with very flawed argument.



I would also be obliged if you would desist from asserting that I am in favour of a military campaign at this point in time. At no time have I stated that on any thread.

[Apjp]

What is the alternative when groups like Eirigi or any individual voicing opposition to the status quo are politically policed, harrassed, stitched up, interned etc?

My arguement is that it is when this occurs others are more likely to turn to the gun. They see no other alternative. It's leanrned behavior in a sense were history has taught them that violence works.

You make good arguments as to why people turn to violence. Futile as this may sound, does the North have a police ombudsman? Then again ours down here isnt very good, so i s'pose that makes no differ. My own suspicion, admittedly just an opinion is that some people turn through violence through harassment like you said but that more turn to it for the thrill of it. Its as wrong to kill a catholic or anyone, especially today when there isnt even a reason for war up north like perhaps the provos understandably argued there was in the past, as it is for the 'murderous british army' to kill people in the middle east. One wonders though, what can be done to combat the harassment you state that the police are doing? Cant you video it where possible? thats what people out in corrib did this week when two gardai were allegedly saying they'd deport and rape some woman. Its a start to get proof-not that I dont believe you. But cold hard evidence could give you a case in the courts on specific matters perhaps, such as the foot path one? After all, as denzil did say in training day 'its not what ye know, tis what ye can prove!!!!' :p

[Christy Walsh]

I am not a member of éirígí and I would be obliged if you would desist from quoting me as such. I stated in the opening
this thread has been started having read the comments of two other members on this forum




Let me translate that ... the politics of condemnation were not acceptable when the provos were killing ( in fact they spent their lives condemning the politics of condemnation) but now they have jumped to the other side of the barricade the politics of condemnation are very acceptable - in fact de rigeur.

let me translate that for you
The politics of condemnation has been a much abused and one sided weapon in our past --but can Republicans keep making excuses for those who simply just want to [B
start[/B] a war?

Like I said the PIRA did not start the pogroms and murder gangs of previous years --they were a response to them --Dissidents are the only ones trawling for a war today.

[Christy Walsh]

I would also be obliged if you would desist from asserting that I am in favour of a military campaign at this point in time. At no time have I stated that on any thread.


Maybe I misunderstand your defence for violent action?

[Sam Lord]

I stated in the opening

this thread has been started having read the comments of two other members on this forum



Actually what you stated was (adding in the bit you left out):




I am neither a member of éirígí nor an associate and this thread has been started having read the comments of two other members on this forum support the use of violence with very flawed argument.




Member in the context of this sentence clearly indicates a member of éirígí.

[Christy Walsh]

Actually what you stated was (adding in the bit you left out):




Member in the context of this sentence clearly indicates a member of éirígí.

Either way you want to read that remains the same --I at no point relate to you as anything other than a member on this forum --the post is about eirigi advocates non violence --you had been defending violence --another indicator --I am sure no one will think you a member of eirigi.

[C. Flower]

This thread seems to be based on two misunderstandings. Firstly, I can see that Christy probably meant forum members, although its not 100% clear.

The second misunderstanding is that these two comments make the case for use of a strategy of non-violent opposition. Perhaps the writers, when they get the opportunity, might like to confirm that ?


One member elsewhere on this forum stated: "I supported the PIRA ceasefire in 94. I think SF had the opportuntiy to build their mandate into a major force and be quite a thorn in Britains side using passive ressitence and form a State within a State similar to the Bolivarian movement or similar to whats happening within Gaza."


The other agreed as follows; " I absolutely agree with this. The fact that the provos decided to administer NI for the Brits and led the vast bulk of the Nationalists into a cul de sac opened the way up for the reemergence of an armed campaign. If a sustained and effective but non violent oppositional strategy had been adopted I think pretty much everyone would have tied in sooner or later. "

[Christy Walsh]

The second misunderstanding is that these two comments make the case for use of a strategy of non-violent opposition. Perhaps the writers, when they get the opportunity, might like to confirm that ?

" I point that out and part basis for this thread --non-violence only if SF had not sold out... otherwise..

[C. Flower]

I point that out and part basis for this thread --non-violence only if SF had not sold out... otherwise..


Where is that said ? I read support for the cease fire.

[Secret Squirrel]

Sorry folks, but to correct myself, apparently the british army haven't confirmed that they will be marching in Belfast next month, but Belfast City Council have granted permission for the event.

[truth.ie]

As Far as I know Eirigi defend the right to armed struggle, but believe the time is not right.
When the ceasefire was called in 1994, never in my wildest dreams did I think it would lead to SF calling on people to join the States Forces from Stormont's steps.
I was informed that a Pan Nationalist bloc was to be formed who would fight for a United Ireland. The GFA smashed this illusion and opened my eyes. The project was to maintain the Status Quo.
When the Provos took the role of State enforcer and carried out attacks on behalf of the State against Republicans the line was drawn in the sand.
A missed opportunity by SF led to the rise in support for armed groups who show implacable opposition to the State, and this is music to the ears of the disenchanted in the working class youth.

[Apjp]

As Far as I know Eirigi defend the right to armed struggle, but believe the time is not right.
When the ceasefire was called in 1994, never in my wildest dreams did I think it would lead to SF calling on people to join the States Forces from Stormont's steps.
I was informed that a Pan Nationalist bloc was to be formed who would fight for a United Ireland. The GFA smashed this illusion and opened my eyes. The project was to maintain the Status Quo.
When the Provos took the role of State enforcer and carried out attacks on behalf of the State against Republicans the line was drawn in the sand.
A missed opportunity by SF led to the rise in support for armed groups who show implacable opposition to the State, and this is music to the ears of the disenchanted in the working class youth.

Was there a time when violence was to be condoned? For me there wasnt but I understand the reasons why it happened. I dont hold a grudge agains the provos as I think the oppresion caused the long war. The only thing I begrudge are people lying about their roles in it. I have a lot more respect for mcguinness than adams. People also forget that the south has a huge military history throughout the 20s. Even after the war of ind. and during the civil war, collins was supporting a northern armed struggle cos of the oppressions up there. Also Im pretty sure the 3000 or so people killed's families would have wanted peace. but if they dont hold grudges anymore, neither should politicians on their high horses, particularly agains sf and eirigi in Eire. I now refer to the south as Eire and the North as the north as we arent a republic. The real republican programme was even more equality minded than the 1916 proclamation. Twas the 1919 republican programme. im gonna google a copy of it later as i only know some of it from history class.

[Christy Walsh]

As Far as I know Eirigi defend the right to armed struggle, but believe the time is not right. That is an age old position that probably derived from one failed attempt at rebellion to another --usually understood that one generation could not hold another to any terms of a ceasefire --given the conditions are right --and that the resort to violence is a means of last resort.


When the ceasefire was called in 1994, never in my wildest dreams did I think it would lead to SF calling on people to join the States Forces from Stormont's steps. I was in Long kesh at the time and I can say no one in there thought that either.



I was informed that a Pan Nationalist bloc was to be formed who would fight for a United Ireland. That Dublin and SDLP were part of the pan Nationalist bloc 'fight' is the wrong word --but robustly negotiate for a united Ireland?


The GFA smashed this illusion and opened my eyes. The project was to maintain the Status Quo.
When the Provos took the role of State enforcer and carried out attacks on behalf of the State against Republicans the line was drawn in the sand.
A missed opportunity by SF led to the rise in support for armed groups who show implacable opposition to the State, and this is music to the ears of the disenchanted in the working class youth.

Like I suggest in the beginning of this thread, if SF failed to deliver, then that does not automatically conclude that the only way is through use of violence --I have referred to one group that I am aware of and maybe there is another??

Re:
armed groups who show implacable opposition to the State They do more to undermine any valid opposition to what you complain off about SF and GFA. They remove all avenue for discussion all platforms for debate --they create nothing but draw a line in the sand --literally republicans should support them or you are anti-Republican. Their violence and dogma does nothing but deminish respect for whatever their grip is. There are no longer loyalist murder gangs or pograms, or state initiated violence --that the state responds to their violence does not carry the same legitamacy as the abusive and oppresive the state once was --those days are over --dissidents are merely reminisent of them and trying to manipulate a war all on their own.

[Lapsedmethodist]

More waffle from the Land That Time Forgot ! Erigís website is virtual martyrs memorial so who's going to believe that they don't support violence ?

[Sam Lord]

Erigís website is virtual martyrs memorial so who's going to believe that they don't support violence ?

I went to have a look see and I can's say that I saw what you are claiming.

I did come across, however, good coverage of the recent rally against the SInn Fein cuts

YouTube - éirÃ*gÃ* at the rally against cuts, 26.03.11

[Secret Squirrel]

Don't despair Lapsed Methodist; myself and others ( no doubt ) would be more than happy to check out any evidence that you might submit, proving that those éirigi dudes are pro violence.

Fire away matey.

[Secret Squirrel]

On second thoughts, I'm putting you back on my 'ignore list'.
It's a shame to have the facility and not use it.
I'm sure you'll understand.

[Christy Walsh]

Where is that said ? I read support for the cease fire.

I missed your post previously.

The whole argument being put forward is that if the PIRA could do it then so too can the dissidents --when i pointed out the distinction between the two this was one of quite afew responses
On this thread Christy has been putting forward a violence of the provos understandable and violence of "dissidents" terrible argument - and really this just has to be opposed. http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=7568&page=2

[Christy Walsh]

More waffle from the Land That Time Forgot ! Erigís website is virtual martyrs memorial so who's going to believe that they don't support violence ?

I checked again and see no evidence to support any of your claim.

[C. Flower]

I missed your post previously.

The whole argument being put forward is that if the PIRA could do it then so too can the dissidents --when i pointed out the distinction between the two this was one of quite afew responses

No - the argument being put forward, so far as I could see, was that a non-violent campaign of opposition to the GFA and for a united Ireland could have won support but wasn't attempted.


"I supported the PIRA ceasefire in 94. I think SF had the opportuntiy to build their mandate into a major force and be quite a thorn in Britains side using passive ressitence and form a State within a State similar to the Bolivarian movement or similar to whats happening within Gaza."

The other PW member responded as follows; " I absolutely agree with this. The fact that the provos decided to administer NI for the Brits and led the vast bulk of the Nationalists into a cul de sac opened the way up for the reemergence of an armed campaign. If a sustained and effective but non violent oppositional strategy had been adopted I think pretty much everyone would have tied in sooner or later. "

[Christy Walsh]

No - the argument being put forward, so far as I could see, was that a non-violent campaign of opposition to the GFA and for a united Ireland could have won support but wasn't attempted.

Not in the context of the whole thread to which I include the link.

In addition --this current thread was started to counter argument for violence by showing that whatever hopes were invested in SF --could easily be redirected to eirigi? If you go back to the thread I refer, both posters were vehemently opposed to what I was and continue to say --that there is no justification for the violence --especially as there are alternative ways to opposing SF and the GFA (eirigi being one). The one quote I cited for you makes clear that what I have been saying
just has to be opposed.

Not going into other forum rules --but dissidents do not like debate and reason why I was banned for --'being anti-republican' for expressing the same views which I express here. Any resort to violence should always be constantly reviewed --even the PIRA did that and called a permanent ceasefire when they concluded that to continue would be futile or counterproductive.

Having started this thread I am wondering if eirigi are an urban myth?

[C. Flower]

Not in the context of the whole thread to which I include the link.

In addition --this current thread was started to counter argument for violence by showing that whatever hopes were invested in SF --could easily be redirected to eirigi? If you go back to the thread I refer, both posters were vehemently opposed to what I was and continue to say --that there is no justification for the violence --especially as there are alternative ways to opposing SF and the GFA (eirigi being one). The one quote I cited for you makes clear that what I have been saying

Not going into other forum rules --but dissidents do not like debate and reason why I was banned for --'being anti-republican' for expressing the same views which I express here. Any resort to violence should always be constantly reviewed --even the PIRA did that and called a permanent ceasefire when they concluded that to continue would be futile or counterproductive.

Having started this thread I am wondering if eirigi are an urban myth?
Ha! ha :)

I'm sure they are not: they have a councillor in Dublin, a website, and are visible on many demonstrations.

They are a small, new party and I don't think contributions to discussion forums are their top priority.

I will re-read the thread, but I still don't think those words have anything like the interpretation that you have put on them and neither poster is putting forward support for violence. That should be made clear.

When it comes to past actions in Irish history, 20th century and before, you would be hard put to it to find anyone who would universally disagree with all and every occasion that the Irish took up arms in the past and going that road doesn't seem to me to be the best way of addressing the current situation.

[Christy Walsh]

Ha! ha :)

I'm sure they are not: they have a councillor in Dublin, a website, and are visible on many demonstrations. I know.


I will re-read the thread, but I still don't think those words have anything like the interpretation that you have put on them and neither poster is putting forward support for violence. That should be made clear. In best light they are suggesting that violent responses to oppression and abuse in past Irish History are justification for violence today --even in the absence of the same pograms or death gangs that once existed.


When it comes to past actions in Irish history, 20th century and before, you would be hard put to it to find anyone who would universally disagree with all and every occasion that the Irish took up arms in the past and going that road doesn't seem to me to be the best way of addressing the current situation. That is probably most Nationalists view of things.

[Trow]

What is the alternative when groups like Eirigi or any individual voicing opposition to the status quo are politically policed, harrassed, stitched up, interned etc?

My arguement is that it is when this occurs others are more likely to turn to the gun. They see no other alternative. It's leanrned behavior in a sense were history has taught them that violence works.


You make good arguments as to why people turn to violence. Futile as this may sound, does the North have a police ombudsman? Then again ours down here isnt very good, so i s'pose that makes no differ. My own suspicion, admittedly just an opinion is that some people turn through violence through harassment like you said but that more turn to it for the thrill of it. Its as wrong to kill a catholic or anyone, especially today when there isnt even a reason for war up north like perhaps the provos understandably argued there was in the past, as it is for the 'murderous british army' to kill people in the middle east. One wonders though, what can be done to combat the harassment you state that the police are doing? Cant you video it where possible? thats what people out in corrib did this week when two gardai were allegedly saying they'd deport and rape some woman. Its a start to get proof-not that I dont believe you. But cold hard evidence could give you a case in the courts on specific matters perhaps, such as the foot path one? After all, as denzil did say in training day 'its not what ye know, tis what ye can prove!!!!' :p

The State has been exposed for their harrassment of groups like Eirigi. You cant even get placing a banner without being stopped and searched. And while all that is happening, pro GFA groups like SF discount anti GFA groups and their members as mavericks and yahoos. Not a word of condemnation for the way the PSNI treat peaceful protestors though.

Then when a cop gets killed they come out crying injustice. It was'nt so long ago that Sinn Fein were crying censorship and political policing themselves.

There's Hypocricy in it all. Maybe if groups like Eirigi could protest without the harrassment and get equal media space there'd be no bombing and shooting.

But everything anti GFA, even campaigning about water charges is censored. What's that telling people?

Sinn Fein and the pro Stormont admin fear the growth of Eirigi or any other working class group. You dont need guns or bombs when the truth of your politics is your weapon.

[C. Flower]

The State has been exposed for their harrassment of groups like Eirigi. You cant even get placing a banner without being stopped and searched. And while all that is happening, pro GFA groups like SF discount anti GFA groups and their members as mavericks and yahoos. Not a word of condemnation for the way the PSNI treat peaceful protestors though.

Then when a cop gets killed they come out crying injustice. It was'nt so long ago that Sinn Fein were crying censorship and political policing themselves.

There's Hypocricy in it all. Maybe if groups like Eirigi could protest without the harrassment and get equal media space there'd be no bombing and shooting.

But everything anti GFA, even campaigning about water charges is censored. What's that telling people?

Sinn Fein and the pro Stormont admin fear the growth of Eirigi or any other working class group. You dont need guns or bombs when the truth of your politics is your weapon.

It's normal for protestors to be harrassed. It happens in London too. Police everywhere beat protestors up. The media is owned by the rich and by governments.

That doesn't at all explain why a policeman was shot in Ireland.

[Christy Walsh]

It's normal for protestors to be harrassed.

Dare I say it, but the harrassment element usually makes something newsworthy -depending on the protest but I would imagine for civil disobedience to be effective it should likely show contrast between state abuses and legitimate peaceful protest.

Case of point: the current Shell protesters that would not have attracted a fraction of the attention it is getting now but for recorded Gardai comments.

[Trow]

It's normal for protestors to be harrassed. It happens in London too. Police everywhere beat protestors up. The media is owned by the rich and by governments.

That doesn't at all explain why a policeman was shot in Ireland.

Normal? One incident concerning Eirigi relates to a water charges banner placed on the Falls Road. When two members of the group went to retrieve it they were stopped in their vehicle and they and the vehicle were searched.

And compare the treatment of Sinn Fein protestors and anti GFA protestors at the last RIR Homecoming parade. Sinn Fein got to protest while non shinners were ''kettled'' on the Falls. Note the difference in treatment? Why?

It's outstandingly obvious that when you oppose Stormont or anything British in the most peaceful way in the 6 Counties you are viewed as a threat, a dissident, potential terrorist.

When you cant get protesting peacfully it opens up the door for militants. Does that explain why a cop gets killed?

[C. Flower]

Normal? One incident concerning Eirigi relates to a water charges banner placed on the Falls Road. When two members of the group went to retrieve it they were stopped in their vehicle and they and the vehicle were searched.

And compare the treatment of Sinn Fein protestors and anti GFA protestors at the last RIR Homecoming parade. Sinn Fein got to protest while non shinners were ''kettled'' on the Falls. Note the difference in treatment? Why?

It's outstandingly obvious that when you oppose Stormont or anything British in the most peaceful way in the 6 Counties you are viewed as a threat, a dissident, potential terrorist.

When you cant get protesting peacfully it opens up the door for militants. Does that explain why a cop gets killed?

No. It doesn't. The first demonstration I ever went to, I saw people being deliberately thrown by police onto the top of a spiked iron fence. I've seen people run down by police horses and hit with batons.

In none of those cases and the hundreds of thousands of similar other ones around the world did it occur to people to react by going out and shooting a cop.

[Trow]

Normal? One incident concerning Eirigi relates to a water charges banner placed on the Falls Road. When two members of the group went to retrieve it they were stopped in their vehicle and they and the vehicle were searched.

And compare the treatment of Sinn Fein protestors and anti GFA protestors at the last RIR Homecoming parade. Sinn Fein got to protest while non shinners were ''kettled'' on the Falls. Note the difference in treatment? Why?

It's outstandingly obvious that when you oppose Stormont or anything British in the most peaceful way in the 6 Counties you are viewed as a threat, a dissident, potential terrorist.

When you cant get protesting peacfully it opens up the door for militants. Does that explain why a cop gets killed?


No. It doesn't. The first demonstration I ever went to, I saw people being deliberately thrown by police onto the top of a spiked iron fence. I've seen people run down by police horses and hit with batons.

In none of those cases and the hundreds of thousands of similar other ones around the world did it occur to people to react by going out and shooting a cop.

Consider this, when anyone in the 6 Counties [Republican] voices oppossition to Stormont, it's failures, they are politically policed, classed as subversive and so on. No gun or threat of violence required.

That amounts to oppression in some peoples views and makes a farce of democracy to the extent were everything is democratically acceptable aslong as you toe the line and dont expose the failings of the status quo.

The War raged away in the 6 Counties with armed resistance while those at 100's of thousands of other protests were trampled upon and beaten down by the authorities. That there was no organised armed resistance to that in those situations might be a measure of will and circumstance. Do you know of anywhere were an occupying oppressive force was forced out without a shot being fired or someone in authority or linked to the regime being killed?

What's happening to Catholic cops in the 6 Counties today is comparable to what is happening to Afghans who join coalition forces to police. There's on average 3 of them being executed weekly and we hear less about it.

Besides, it's not the surge of harrassment on Eirigi that is directly responsible for cops being shot or bombed but it is a point that were peacful protest resistance is organised the state is so quick to classify those engaged as subversive to the point were they use anti terror legislation to harrass.

In my view, this fuels the militant arguement when they see that the so called reformed police force is directed to use anti terror law on one section of the community who oppose or seek to expose policy and failings amongst a political elite.

Come on now, what justification can there be for using anti terror legislation against people protesting on issues like water charges? It's telling of a regime wedded to a police state.

Compare the treatment of Republican protestors to that of Unionist dissidents like Jim Allistar [TUV] When he went about shouting he was out to bring down Stormont did he get harrassed, house searched, stopped in the street? No.

Eirigi are'nt responsible for the violence. At the same time i dont think that the violence is silencing them.

[matt]

Consider this, when anyone in the 6 Counties [Republican] voices oppossition to Stormont, it's failures, they are politically policed, classed as subversive and so on. No gun or threat of violence required.

That amounts to oppression in some peoples views and makes a farce of democracy to the extent were everything is democratically acceptable aslong as you toe the line and dont expose the failings of the status quo.

The War raged away in the 6 Counties with armed resistance while those at 100's of thousands of other protests were trampled upon and beaten down by the authorities. That there was no organised armed resistance to that in those situations might be a measure of will and circumstance. Do you know of anywhere were an occupying oppressive force was forced out without a shot being fired or someone in authority or linked to the regime being killed?

What's happening to Catholic cops in the 6 Counties today is comparable to what is happening to Afghans who join coalition forces to police. There's on average 3 of them being executed weekly and we hear less about it.

Besides, it's not the surge of harrassment on Eirigi that is directly responsible for cops being shot or bombed but it is a point that were peacful protest resistance is organised the state is so quick to classify those engaged as subversive to the point were they use anti terror legislation to harrass.

In my view, this fuels the militant arguement when they see that the so called reformed police force is directed to use anti terror law on one section of the community who oppose or seek to expose policy and failings amongst a political elite.

Come on now, what justification can there be for using anti terror legislation against people protesting on issues like water charges? It's telling of a regime wedded to a police state.

Compare the treatment of Republican protestors to that of Unionist dissidents like Jim Allistar [TUV] When he went about shouting he was out to bring down Stormont did he get harrassed, house searched, stopped in the street? No.

Eirigi are'nt responsible for the violence. At the same time i dont think that the violence is silencing them.

Somebody here posted this video-link on another thread a while back - which shows an ex-IRA man's interesting new role - it seems to confirm what you say here.
Éirigí are taken for particular consideration.
http://sonsofmalcolm.blogspot.com/2011/01/our-enemies-discuss-how-to-squash-us-in.html

[Fraxinus]

It's absolutely ridiculous how the PSNI are being refered to in the wake of this bombing as some sort of guardians of peace. As ye point out above, it is most definitely a police state where opposition to foreign and imperial rule is met with force.

[Lapsedmethodist]

I went to have a look see and I can's say that I saw what you are claiming.

I did come across, however, good coverage of the recent rally against the SInn Fein cuts

YouTube - éirÃ*gÃ* at the rally against cuts, 26.03.11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojw6g1jpKNw)

http://twitter.com/newryrepublican.

notice the tasteful border decoration, with peace doves being released by an angelic young - but not too young - girl. If they were prone to, or even ambivalent about, violence I'm sure that the border would have had something like a hooded figure brandishing an automatic weapon.

[Secret Squirrel]

brit Army (http://www.u.tv/News/RIR-too-busy-for-Belfast-parade/1fa0ae9f-643f-4143-8ec0-2f12d09025f4) 'too busy' for Belfast parade.

Good. :)

"....First Minister Peter Robinson branded the situation 'outrageous'... "

Even better. :)

[Sam Lord]

http://twitter.com/newryrepublican.

notice the tasteful border decoration, with peace doves being released by an angelic young - but not too young - girl. If they were prone to, or even ambivalent about, violence I'm sure that the border would have had something like a hooded figure brandishing an automatic weapon.

That looks like someones personal twitter account as opposed to "éirígí's website" which you claimed it was ....

[C. Flower]

Eírigí don't seem to be silenced. They're holding a series of debates, and demonstrations against Queen E's visit, and standing in the Local Elections.

[Christy Walsh]

Eírigí don't seem to be silenced. They're holding a series of debates, and demonstrations against Queen E's visit, and standing in the Local Elections. If we class 'debating' with the converted then maybe they are not --but, outside of that, they spend their time getting flak over violent dissident actions, threats and abuses, they spend their time trying to say they are different without using the 'C' word. And if they are ever lucky enough to be given any attention from the media it will be related to something about the use of violence, their position on use of violence, or whatever the last attack might be.

I would say violent dissidents have them pretty much sown up, silenced and irrelevant. Violent dissidents are a good way to keep anything intelligent that they might have to say --well off the agenda --in otherwords they have been silenced.

[Sam Lord]

And if they are ever lucky enough to be given any attention from the media it will be related to something about the use of violence, their position on use of violence, or whatever the last attack might be.



:)

If any party opposed to the status quo in Ireland is banking on media support they will be sadly disappointed. I suspect éirígí has pretty much ruled that out. It does not mean that you are silenced however. That is an absurd position. Even when the Shinners were banned from the airwaves altogether pre sell out they were not silenced.

[Christy Walsh]

:)

If any party opposed to the status quo in Ireland is banking on media support they will be sadly disappointed. I suspect éirígí has pretty much ruled that out. It does not mean that you are silenced however. That is an absurd position. Even when the Shinners were banned from the airwaves altogether pre sell out they were not silenced.

I do not discount that, and SF were negatively impacted by the obstacles placed in their way. OK so éirígí have not been silenced --they will continue in best spirit of defiance -but much of their energy and attention revolves around the use of violence --so if repeating for, lets say, the next 30 years that they do not represent violent dissidents is not being silenced and little else --then you are right and I am wrong.

[Sam Lord]

I do not discount that, and SF were negatively impacted by the obstacles placed in their way. OK so éirígí have not been silenced --they will continue in best spirit of defiance -but much of their energy and attention revolves around the use of violence --so if repeating for, lets say, the next 30 years that they do not represent violent dissidents is not being silenced and little else --then you are right and I am wrong.

Any party that opposes the status quo will have obstacles put in its way. There is nothing new about that. You have not uncovered something hitherto unknown. If you are a Communist Party, for example, they wil say that you are "stalinist" and "totalitarian" etc. The ruling circles do not lose any sleep when it comes to propaganda designed to maintain their position. If lies and obfuscations are all any progressive organisation has to deal with at the end of the day then they are doing well.

[Christy Walsh]

Any party that opposes the status quo will have obstacles put in its way.

The main obstacle éirígí has to constantly address is not created by the Brits or anyone else --but is created by violent dissidents. The use of violence is providing succour to the Brits which would I presume be an own goal on violent dissidents part who cant think beyond the desire to do violence.

In otherwords, violent dissidents are doing the Brits work for them by tying up any reasonable or valid objections to the GFA. In a nutshell the vast bulk of the Nationalist people would rather put up with a bad GFA than the best of violent dissidents.

[Sam Lord]

The main obstacle éirígí has to constantly address is not created by the Brits or anyone else --but is created by violent dissidents. The use of violence is providing succour to the Brits which would I presume be an own goal on violent dissidents part who cant think beyond the desire to do violence.

In otherwords, violent dissidents are doing the Brits work for them by tying up any reasonable or valid objections to the GFA. In a nutshell the vast bulk of the Nationalist people would rather put up with a bad GFA than the best of violent dissidents.

You keep restating the same thing over and over without really adding anything to an argument that makes little sense, tbh.

[Christy Walsh]

You keep restating the same thing over and over without really adding anything to an argument that makes little sense, tbh.

The thread is about the use of violence silencing any oposition to the GFA:éirígí --are Dissidents silencing opposition?


Any party that opposes the status quo will have obstacles put in its way. There is nothing new about that.

So do you now agree that the use of violence is a means to dismiss and silence any valid opposition to the GFA?


You have not uncovered something hitherto unknown. No I haven't and reason why I think those hell bent on starting a war all on their own (sorry not on their own exactly --there is the Peoples Front of Judia, the Peoples, Peoples Front of Judia and the Peoples, Peoples, Peoples Front of Judia ), anyway these violent little bands are bolstering the very thing they oppose --we can apply your words to violent dissidents, that their logic and reason does not contribute "anything to an argument that makes little sense".

[Sam Lord]

The thread is about the use of violence silencing any oposition to the GFA:éirígí --are Dissidents silencing opposition?


It is actually about your view that this is happening. A view that you are not providing any evidence for. Saying it over and over again is not an argument.



So do you now agree that the use of violence is a means to dismiss and silence any valid opposition to the GFA?


No. I do not think that any opposition to the GFA has been silenced.



No I haven't and reason why I think those hell bent on starting a war all on their own (sorry not on their own exactly --there is the Peoples Front of Judia, the Peoples, Peoples Front of Judia and the Peoples, Peoples, Peoples Front of Judia ), anyway these violent little bands are bolstering the very thing they oppose --we can apply your words to violent dissidents, that their logic and reason does not contribute "anything to an argument that makes little sense".

The thread title makes little sense to me and your posts to it are becoming increasingly incoherent. Your main purpose appears to have been to create a thread mixing up éirígí with those carrying out armed struggle. I don't know your reason for this ... SF spin perhaps?

[Christy Walsh]

Sam Lord maybe you should read the opening post of this thread. Does your difficulty to comprehend arise from your previous defence elsewhere of the use of violence as the only way? Or at least from previous discussion you were quite adament that violent dissidents could kill who they chose, if they so wished, I do not recall any better argument than 'sure the PIRA used to do it (and you promptly ignored the background in which they came about).


Effectively what is being said is this --SF failed to adhere to the 'cause' therefore without SF there is not other alternative but the use of violence.

The following could be an alternative to violence and it is what éirígí state on their website;

http://www.eirigi.org/about_us/index.htm

éirígí offer what both members above have refered to -and no violence is required --other than I would imagine --acts of 'civil disobedience'.

It would be unlikely for éirígí, or any other group, to make any meaningful headway because they are silenced, or burdened, by those who are only spoiling for a fight. I would imagine that there are many Republicans disallusioned by SF antics --but marginalised and isolated because of violent dissidents.

Can groups like éirígí take a more assertive role in opposition to SF and the GFA without addressing the negative impact that violent dissidents are causing? The politics of condemnation has been a much abused and one sided weapon in our past --but can Republicans keep making excuses for those who simply just want to start a war?


Your problem of understanding seems only to arise when violent dissidents appear to be the fault.

You stated above
Any party that opposes the status quo will have obstacles put in its way. There is nothing new about that. As an observer like most people the only sighting I ever get of éirígí spokespersons is when they are defending their position against the backdrop of some violent dissident attack (mostly killing Catholics to date) and if they are not doing that they are then at odds trying to explain why they are not spokepersons for the collective IR splinter groups hell bent on trying to start a fight with somebody.

Now you back track and say well violent dissidents are not doing damnage to éirígí or anyone else who wish to actually articulate something beyond chuckie ar la, no surrender, Ireland Up The Provies sorry --Up The Alphabet Soup Squads.

[RNU PRO]

What exactly is a 'dissident in terms of Irish Republicanism' Christy?

The term is derogatry to describe those Republicans who don't agree with Provisional Sinn Fein's analysis.

As such, it is not in anyway to properly address the unbroken promises given by S/F Leaders to grassroot Republican Activists across the country.

BTW, dissidents seem to be used to also describe political activists, as well as military activists....?

[C. Flower]

Sam Lord maybe you should read the opening post of this thread. etc.

Please would you include a link to the thread, if you want to assert that a poster has said something off this thread.

I have no recall of SL having said any such thing and I suggest that if you can't substantiate it you edit your posts.

[Christy Walsh]

Please would you include a link to the thread, if you want to assert that a poster has said something off this thread.

I have no recall of SL having said any such thing and I suggest that if you can't substantiate it you edit your posts.

Re Thread: Suspected Explosion in Omagh
at post #48 http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=7568&page=4
Sam Lord states:
... On this thread Christy has been putting forward a violence of the provos understandable and violence of "dissidents" terrible argument - and really this just has to be opposed.

At post #104 http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=7568&page=5

Sam Lord responds to a post made by Truth.ie



Originally Posted by truth.ie View Post
I supported the PIRA ceasefire in 94. I think SF had the opportuntiy to build their mandate into a major force and be quite a thorn in Britains side using passive ressitence and form a State within a State similar to the Bolivarian movement or similar to whats happening within Gaza.

(Sam Lord replied)
I absolutely agree with this. The fact that the provos decided to administer NI for the Brits and led the vast bulk of the Nationalists into a cul de sac opened the way up for the reemergence of an armed campaign. If a sustained and effective but non violent oppositional strategy had been adopted I think pretty much everyone would have tied in sooner or later.


Among other things these sort of attack upon my arguments that there is an alternative to violent dissidents baying for a war are not justified under the Republican clause of 'violence justified a menas of last resort'.

Again in this thread I make clear that non-violent Republicans cannot articulate anything beyond having to restate that they are non-violent and are not spokepersons for the violent dissidents.

Sam Lord has not previously nor in this thread ever enaged with me that the use of violence is counterproductive and obstructs anyone attempting to articulate how and where the GFA has failed. The whole motive for his posts appears to be to defend violent dissidents and undermine any suggestion that there is an alternative to SF and violent dissidents. As I have stated twice previously
Effectively what is being said is this --SF failed to adhere to the 'cause' therefore without SF there is not other alternative but the use of violence.

[Christy Walsh]

What exactly is a 'dissident in terms of Irish Republicanism' Christy?

...
BTW, dissidents seem to be used to also describe political activists, as well as military activists....?

I thought the thread title might have helped address the question which you now ask;
éirígí --are Dissidents silencing opposition?

Clearly I define dissidents as being the violent variety --if they feel that to be derogotory --I think that a tad triffling to their wanting to start a killing war all on their own but drag everyone else into it --the same conditions that gave rise to the Northern Conflict no longer exist, ie, Loyalist death squads, widespread discrimination in employment and housing and many other conditions which are no longer the case. In the main, Nationalist districts no longer need armed protection as was often argued to be the necessity in the past.

Regardless of what they say about the PSNI, Catholics or otherwise --if they kill a 100 of them it will not achieve anything --while much can be said about the Brits --SF and SDLP negotiated a settlement --the Brits are not all to blame over the GFA --I do agree SF appear to have betrayed and sold out many of their own supporters and members. They have made significant climb down on fundamental matters -whatever has occured --there is no clear and cognitive articulation of any of this from the violent alphabet soup brigades --merely an eagerness and desire to start a war.

[truth.ie]

So dissidents are defined as "violent Republicans"?
What is the cut off point where you say violence WAS acceptable but not now.
Can you give us a date or even a year?
I don't recall PIRA claiming to be waging war for better employment or against Loyalist attacks.

[truth.ie]

On the O.P, I joined the 32CSM in 1998. In my area there were maybe a dozen to 20 members at the time. Other areas had none.
Since then opposition has grown probably tenfold in my area, especially with the young. Geographically it has spread to areas from rural Kerry to North Antrim. Belfast is starting to crack and whole areas are walking away from the pacification project en masse.
So no, opposition is not being silenced, it's growing by the day.

[C. Flower]

Re Thread: Suspected Explosion in Omagh
at post #48 http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=7568&page=4
Sam Lord states:

At post #104 http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=7568&page=5

Sam Lord responds to a post made by Truth.ie

Among other things these sort of attack upon my arguments that there is an alternative to violent dissidents baying for a war are not justified under the Republican clause of 'violence justified a menas of last resort'.

Again in this thread I make clear that non-violent Republicans cannot articulate anything beyond having to restate that they are non-violent and are not spokepersons for the violent dissidents.

Sam Lord has not previously nor in this thread ever enaged with me that the use of violence is counterproductive and obstructs anyone attempting to articulate how and where the GFA has failed. The whole motive for his posts appears to be to defend violent dissidents and undermine any suggestion that there is an alternative to SF and violent dissidents. As I have stated twice previously

He engaged with you, as I can see from the quote, to say that he thought your position of supporting past actions of the provos but condemning today's similar actions as hypocritical.



Originally Posted by C. Flower

There are a lot of other ways of indicating opposition to the PSNI than blowing the legs of one of them.

I think that is a legitimate point and one worthy of discussion. And I think that many republicans today would say that while the right to oppose foreign occupation militarily is a right, it is not a right that necessarily has to be exercised at all times and that this point in time is not an appropriate one. I think the position of Eirigi, for example, is something like that.

At the same time I would note that Sinn Fein do not help the situation. I saw Marty on BBC last night praising the courage of the Northern Ireland police and condemning the bombers (remember: SF - the party that does not engage in the politics of condemnation - whatever happened to that?). There is something just so wrong about this. I can imagine how the total and absolute barefaced hypocrisy infuriates many and leads to **** them attitudes. On this thread Christy has been putting forward a violence of the provos understandable and violence of "dissidents" terrible argument - and really this just has to be opposed.

I think personally that there is a serious problem of premature militarism in Ireland, and I'm not the first by any means to have said so.

The vast majority see it as a "last resort" and if for no other reason than not alienating most of the population, that view should be respected.

On the thread topic, I've already said that I don't think eírígí is being silenced by violent dissidents - but I do find it interesting that the "RIRA" was able to get a prime slot on RTE TV news giving it's party political death threats.
At the moment no - one is being silenced, but that could easily be changed at any time.

By the way, I think the thread title is inadvertantly confusing and could easily be read to mean that eirigi is silencing its opposition - something I've never seen suggested and I don't think you intend to say.

The level of violence that the British army carried out in Ireland, for the time being, is now being inflicted on the people of Afghanistan (and before that in Iraq). They like to keep their hand in. They have no bother with dealing with "low level counter insurgency" situations for years on end.

[Sam Lord]

Does your difficulty to comprehend arise from your previous defence elsewhere of the use of violence as the only way? Or at least from previous discussion you were quite adament that violent dissidents could kill who they chose, if they so wished ....

Christy wishes to support his untruth that I said that "violence is the only way" and that I was adamant that "violent dissidents could kill who they choose" with the following two statements of mine:

[a] ... On this thread Christy has been putting forward a violence of the provos understandable and violence of "dissidents" terrible argument - and really this just has to be opposed.

and

[b]The fact that the provos decided to administer NI for the Brits and led the vast bulk of the Nationalists into a cul de sac opened the way up for the reemergence of an armed campaign. If a sustained and effective but non violent oppositional strategy had been adopted I think pretty much everyone would have tied in sooner or later.

With regard to [a]: If someone says to me "People who take drugs are scumbags ... I know that I used to do a lot of drugs but I wasn't a scumbag ... it's the ones now who are scumbags" then I think I have every right to oppose this for gross hypocrisy. It does not necessarily mean that I am in favour of taking drugs.

With regard to [b]: It is simply a political analysis (rightly or wrongly) and clearly not advocating any particular course of action.

I do not intend to engage with Christy on this thread any more because he has been corrected on these things before but still chooses to repeat untruths when it suits him. There is only so much intellectual dishonesty I can stomach.

And the OP is palpable nonsense anyway.

[Christy Walsh]

On the O.P, I joined the 32CSM in 1998. In my area there were maybe a dozen to 20 members at the time. Other areas had none.
Since then opposition has grown probably tenfold in my area, especially with the young. Geographically it has spread to areas from rural Kerry to North Antrim. Belfast is starting to crack and whole areas are walking away from the pacification project en masse.
So no, opposition is not being silenced, it's growing by the day.

I make no claims that there is not opposition to the GFA. I make no arguement that that opposition is not increasing.

There is alternative to the use of violence (thus the resort to violence is by choice and not as means of last resort). Your objection to this argument suggests that you are hell bent on wanting to see violence and not a resolution of the problems. If the problems were your priority and not the use of violence then you would either (A) see my point about the use of violence, or (B) point out some factual grounds to disprove my argument that there is any alternative to violence at all.

[Christy Walsh]

With regard to [a]: If someone says to me "People who take drugs are scumbags ... I know that I used to do a lot of drugs but I wasn't a scumbag ... it's the ones now who are scumbags" then I think I have every right to oppose this for gross hypocrisy. It does not necessarily mean that I am in favour of taking drugs.

It can be argued, as I have done, that there is alternative to violence today (the subject of this thread being one suggestion) whereas how the PIRA came about was against a background of huge civil rights abuses and death squads --the current desire for violence is contrived --whereas, even non supporters of the PIRA conceed that they had a point and the abuses were not contrived. (Todays disgruntled satisfaction with former comrades and the GFA is not justification for trying to start a war)

So Sam Lords anology with drug addicts is akin to a drug adict from the past explaining that he was not a scumbag because of the symptoms resultant from the drugs. Whereas the 'drug addict' today doesnt actually have the 'drugs available in the past' and so cannot say he is not a scumbag because feining symptoms in absence of having taken the drugs which were availbly previously.


With regard to [b]: It is simply a political analysis (rightly or wrongly) and clearly not advocating any particular course of action. I have shown a willingness to accept this --but Sam Lord repeatedly attacks what argument I have suggested that there is alternative to the use of violence --he offers no reason why there is not alternative to the use of violence today? By all means let me hear it if he has been misunderstood. --instead he argues 'well if the PIRA could shoot and bomb then so too can any of the Alphabet Soup Brigades today'. That is no justification for any of these groups to kill anyone? Circumstance have changed and none of these groups can try and start a war based on the PIRA conflict. The PIRA Conflict is over --the smoke has cleared and dust settled on that one since the GFA.


I do not intend to engage with Christy on this thread any more because he has been corrected on these things before but still chooses to repeat untruths when it suits him. There is only so much intellectual dishonesty I can stomach.

And the OP is palpable nonsense anyway.

I hope you hold yourself to that.

[C. Flower]

It can be argued, as I have done, that there is alternative to violence today (the subject of this thread being one suggestion) whereas how the PIRA came about was against a background of huge civil rights abuses and death squads --the current desire for violence is contrived --whereas, even non supporters of the PIRA conceed that they had a point and the abuses were not contrived. (Todays disgruntled satisfaction with former comrades and the GFA is not justification for trying to start a war)

So Sam Lords anology with drug addicts is akin to a drug adict from the past explaining that he was not a scumbag because of the symptoms resultant from the drugs. Whereas the 'drug addict' today doesnt actually have the 'drugs available in the past' and so cannot say he is not a scumbag because feining symptoms in absence of having taken the drugs which were availbly previously.

I have shown a willingness to accept this --but Sam Lord repeatedly attacks what argument I have suggested that there is alternative to the use of violence --he offers no reason why there is not alternative argument --.

Not at all - he said that there was an alternative worth discussing...


I think that is a legitimate point and one worthy of discussion. And I think that many republicans today would say that while the right to oppose foreign occupation militarily is a right, it is not a right that necessarily has to be exercised at all times and that this point in time is not an appropriate one. I think the position of Eirigi, for example, is something like that.


The actions of groups like the RIRA certainly muddy the waters, but they haven't stopped republicans like eírígí and others, not in favour of a violent campaign, from putting forward their political views. eírígi is taking part in the Local Elections at the moment, for example.

[Sam Lord]

eírígi is taking part in the Local Elections at the moment, for example.

The real reason for this absurd thread I would suspect ....:)

[Christy Walsh]

Not at all - he said that there was an alternative worth discussing... I have been consistent over the course of several threads --that the violence is wrong if for no other reason than there is an alternative path available. SL has never accepted anything I have said --he has never engaged with me the damaging effect which violence might have upon anyone who opposes the GFA but do not support violence --he has consistently attempted to contradict and undermine my whole suggestion that there is alternative at all.

In regard to éirígí I have lain out my views as to the effects violent dissidents have on the group --and that éirígí offer an alternative to violence --I have been pretty clear about that --his view was that groups like éirígí which attack the status quo will always be silenced --I reminded him that violent dissidents silence éirígí --as much of their time (as I have observed) is taken up having to constantly explain that they are non-violent and not spokespersons for any vilent group. OK technically that is not being silenced but it might as well be.

[C. Flower]

his view was that groups like éirígí which attack the status quo will always be silenced

I didn't pick that up at all. Of course, the media will not favour politics that favours nationalisation of the means of production. It is owned by very rich people who would stand to lose a lot.

[Christy Walsh]

I didn't pick that up at all. Of course, the media will not favour politics that favours nationalisation of the means of production. It is owned by very rich people who would stand to lose a lot.


:)

If any party opposed to the status quo in Ireland is banking on media support they will be sadly disappointed. I suspect éirígí has pretty much ruled that out. It does not mean that you are silenced however. That is an absurd position. Even when the Shinners were banned from the airwaves altogether pre sell out they were not silenced.


Then his next post states;

Any party that opposes the status quo will have obstacles put in its way. There is nothing new about that.

This thread raises the question about how much damage is caused to " éirííg --are Dissidents silencing opposition?" SL has never engaged with the thread but simply snipes at my objection to the use of violence.

[Christy Walsh]

The real reason for this absurd thread I would suspect ....:)

Being the person who started the thread I should know the reason why I started it --I made no secret about the reason --I even stated it up front in the opening post --so your suggestion that its someway related to the elections is way off the mark
...I have started this thread having read the two quotes I copy below; I did not specifically identify the two members of PW because I was simply using their remarks in generic sense for discussion rather than they should be held to the remarks and the context in which they were made.

One PW member, elsewhere on this forum, stated: "I supported the PIRA ceasefire in 94. I think SF had the opportuntiy to build their mandate into a major force and be quite a thorn in Britains side using passive ressitence and form a State within a State similar to the Bolivarian movement or similar to whats happening within Gaza."

The other PW member responded as follows; " I absolutely agree with this. The fact that the provos decided to administer NI for the Brits and led the vast bulk of the Nationalists into a cul de sac opened the way up for the reemergence of an armed campaign. If a sustained and effective but non violent oppositional strategy had been adopted I think pretty much everyone would have tied in sooner or later. "

Effectively what is being said is this --SF failed to adhere to the 'cause' therefore without SF there is not other alternative but the use of violence.

Instead of rambling about the thread being absurd maybe Sam Lord should engage with its intent --to start debate on the negative effects of violent dissidents on the articulation of any valid or reasoned objections or faults people have with the GFA? Non-violence is an available option? so how doea that justify someone killing today based on the rights or wrongs of PIRA killing in the past? None of Sam Lords' comments have made logical or cohesive sense --not least for their failure to have engaged with the whole basis of this thread. If he finds its intent so objectionable then maybe he would be well advised to read thread which he does like.

[C. Flower]

A straw man, in my opinion. That is not what was being said, but your own spin on it.

[Christy Walsh]

A straw man, in my opinion. That is not what was being said, but your own spin on it.

If that last remark is aimed at me... I started this thread --its title is a relatively good summary of what I intended, I have endeavoured to explain what I intended --I still adhere to the thread's intent. ... I am not responsible for other peoples motives.

In regard "your own spin on it" that is a rather negative spin I'd say to the course of excahnges between myself and Sam Lord. I say there is an alternative to violence and that that viloence is negatively impacting on non-violent opposition to the GFA --his response is generally that if PIRA are not scumbags then neither are violent dissidents --why he thinks that is a response to there being an alternative to violence I am not sure --but I treid engaging with that and explained how the PIRA existed under different circumstances --he keeps repeating that and made up some anology using drug addicts --I engaged there too -he has tactfully attempted to dislodge the thread topic.

[Sam Lord]

I don't engage in the politics of condemnation .......:D

[Christy Walsh]

I don't engage in the politics of condemnation .......:D
Neither do I. Being silent about human rights abuse, or murder is not my thing either.