Doesn’t appear to be an OP. Will the IRA apologise for that?
[Better off Dead]
“Gee, Ricky. Sorry I blew up your mom.”
Fuck.
here is a link to the story
oh, Abe, I think this is an incredible step forward for a very long and entrenched conflict in my country. If you want to make a debate about this, please start an appropriate thread.
The quote about blowing up Ricky’s mom is from the movie Better off Dead with John Cusack (One of very few good teen comedy movies). His friend had a jar a fermaldehyde(sp?) which Ricky’s mom drank, then lit up a cigarette.
Just a bit o’ levity.
I do hope that the apology means something and isn’t just empty words. I know who they are, obviously, but I don’t know enough about the IRA to evaluate the genuineness of the sentiments expressed. I guess I’m to cynical to have a lot of hope without concrete steps. At least it seems like they are going in the right direction.
Yes, yes. And it also requires both sides to forgive the losses caused by the other. Maybe this, too, can happen in time.
Yes, Twisty, this is historic indeed. Thanks for the link.
“The IRA is committed unequivocally to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Ireland.”
…But if a bunch of Marxist drug producers want advice on blowing up a church full of women and children in Colombia, don’t hesitate to give us a call.
Pass the sick bag.
How about we leave the nastiness to another thread and use this one to be thankful that progress is at last being made, however slow. This is a step forward towards peace in an incredibly complicated conflict and it would be good if we could acknowledge it as such.
“Without concrete steps”? What do you call being on ceasefire for the past five years and making two acts of unilateral decommissioning?
Oh, and Hemlock, you know perfectly well that there is absolutely no evidence that the Provos had anything to do with that church attack.
As for the genuineness, most people I’ve known in the republican movement (and that includes a number of people who’ve been involved in violence, although not AFAIK in any civilian deaths) would sincerely hold the beliefs expressed in the statement. Most acknowledge, and regret, that the IRA have committed some completely indefensible acts; there is very little equivalent of the loyalist “any Taig will do” attitude on the republican side.
I don’t honestly know how much this statement will do (although I have seen a few responses from victims families that indicate it’s having at least some positive effect), but I’ve no doubt of the sincerity behind it.
While some of the Statement may cause people to do a double take ie.
Umm come on lads that’s a bit rich. There is no question that civilians were if not targeted then ignored when planning some bombs eg. Enniskillen
I feel this is a very important step in the process. Interesting to see people who have been calling for this for years saying it’s not enough etc.
A bit ill-judged in a statement apologising only for the deaths of ‘non-combatants’?
Still, along with Alex Maskey laying flowers at the cenotaph etc., it’s a step in the right direction. Let’s hope in time we see a more comprehensive statement reciprocated by loyalist paramilitaries and the security forces.
Course there isn’t. It’s a little known fact that the IRA developed explosives that were selective about who they killed when detonated in public places. :rolleyes:
We call this the “anyone will do” attitude.
It is a step forward, but where the IRA is lying in their apology is where they say “we didn’t mean it”. It does not take a genius to anticipate the results of placing a bomb on the high street. But they still made a conscious decision that their political desires were more important than the lives and safety of innocent bystanders. That is terrorism and apologies don’t change that.
And they are pointedly not offering any apology for the killing of non-civilians who were only doing their jobs.
Futile, Hemlock, while it is agreed that many of the words in the apology are somewhat hollow, do you agree that it is better that they did issue this than if they hadn’t?
Oh, absolutely. It is undoubtedly a step forward. But you can’t help feeling that there are many within the IRA who are either in denial, or are hoping that they can change people’s perceptions of their past actions. The apology would have sounded a whole lot better if they’d been straight with everyone. “Yes, we didn’t care that much who got killed and we were very wrong.”
I also can’t be bothered with attempts at taking the moral high ground in comparison with loyalist terrorists. They are all guilty.
Nor do I believe that we should be obliged to give terrorists credit for feeling sorry about killing and congratulate them on not murdering anyone in the last five years.
As did the Allies in Dresden, the Americans in Hiroshima/ Nagasaki, etc. These things happen during wars. Of course they’re to be avoided as much as possible but, honestly, show me an army that’s engaged in any long-term violent conflict that hasn’t been responsible for civilian deaths at one time or another.
The Provos have admittedly shown a carelessness at times as to who might get hurt in their attacks. I condemn that attitude, and so do many other republicans. But I maintain that that is less morally repugnant than simply picking civilian targets off the street and shooting them… maybe that’s just me though.
Of course not. If their jobs contributed to the maintenance of British rule in Ireland, they would be seen as combatants of a sort and soldiers never apologise for killing combatants. shrug The dissident RAs would absolutely have a field day, and probably gain a lot of new converts as well, if the Provos ever apologised for those deaths.
Nice try, but your comparison is bogus. The IRA of the last 30 years was not an army. They never had the backing of the majority of the people in any country or any political mandate to engage in any war. It may seem a slim difference and irrelevent to those killed, but the IRA were responsible to no-one but themselves. They were terrorists.
Their jobs were maintaining the rule as wished by the majority of people within Northern Ireland. Or does their opinion not count compared to the IRA’s?
And policemen? Fair game too?
The thing is that it doesn’t really matter whether you think they were an army or not. They did, and still do. You’re absolutely right about it being irrelevant to those who were killed, though. I can’t for the life of me see how an atrocity is any less an atrocity just because it was committed by a group with a political mandate.
Well, Unionists have never felt that any majority opinion counted unless it was their majority opinion… I could give numerous examples to demonstrate this.
RUC men would certainly be seen as combatants, especially given the number of them who took active part in attacks on the nationalist community. I wouldn’t personally condone attacking them just because they were RUC, but I’ve given up trying to argue this issue with republicans more militant than I am (and yes, I have tried … )
Why did they issue it? Why now? They’re just trying to buy time because the UK/Irish govts are getting impatient with the lack of progress on more substantial areas.
I would be impressed if they :
- accepted that violence against anyone for political ends has no place in a democratic society
- admitted that their self-styled “military” campaign (and by definition the activities of all terrorists, unionist or republican) in the last 30+ years was in retrospect politically and morally indefensible
- accepted the primacy of democratically elected governments and their law-enforcement agencies
- renounced any pretence to sovereign status, any claim to represent anyone except its own individual members, any right to usurp the role of government agencies
- revealed the location of all stocks of weapons and murder vicitims’ remains
- promised to cooperate fully with constitutional authorities in Irelend, UK, or anywhere in bringing to justice perpetrators of terrorists acts commited from now on
- urged people of all faiths to forget past differences and tolerate different opinions.
That would put the retards in orange sashes on the spot. But no, these guys couldn’t handle it. No guns? No blowing kids’ knees off? It’s pathological.
I agree with this but, in the context of building a peace process, it’s important to try to understand the motivation of loyalists. The security forces were 90% Protestant and republican paramilitaries were picking them off at an alarming rate. This was seen as not so much an attack on the security forces but an attack on the Protestant community. They wanted to strike back but at who? Unfortunately for them, the IRA (in the main) didn’t parade around in uniform so ‘any Taig will do’ became the mantra. The only way to get at republican paramilitaries was to get at their communities in the same way as the IRA got at the Protestant community through the security forces.
Of course this is morally reprehensible but if we’re supposed to not be creating a ‘hierarchy of victims’, the logic, albeit twisted, needs to be recognised.
I don’t think you can create a scale of moral repugnance: the IRA London bombing campaign of the 1980s clearly targeted civilians (Oxford St., Harrods, etc.). And then there’s Warrington, Manchester, and Deal (yes, they were members of the armed forces, but for goodness’ sake, they were musicians).
Hemlock, what was democratically elected about the Gerrymandered governments in Northern Ireland? What was representative of their police forces that were corrupt and biased?
On the Apology, I think that they could have gone a lot further with it. I don’t understand how they can pick and choose who they feel sorry for murdering. As a pascifist I condemn any act of violence as a means of conflict resolution.
BUT,
It is a step forward. It is an affirmation of the Republican movements commitment to a peaceful resolution.
It annoys me that there has been no cooperation by the Loyalists with the GFA, but they get none of the scrutiny that the IRA do. It would certainly encourage republicans if they were shown that the Loyalists have no intention of returning to violence. But of course, we’ll be a long time waiting for it.