Adams says sorry

[Harry]

During the world wars did each side not regularly carpet bomb major citys?? Was London,Belfast,Manchester etc etc not carpet bombed by Nazi bombers?? It was a long time ago, war has moved on since those days. Comparing Dresden and trying to use it as some means to justify IRA bombs is scraping the barrel. War is horrible and innocents do die. No point comparing terrorists and legal armies. The British army aren't in the same league as the IRA. The British army isn't in the same league as the UVF,UDA etc. The IRA are in the same league as the UVF,UDA. They all used random violence and used terror to force their views on others. Don't confuse brave men who go into battle with those who shoot from the cover or plant a bomb and run. This includes my own and isn't aimed at the IRA.

[earl]

wasp said:

Earl wrote 'so WASP, do you support the British armies actions above? '

Obviously you did not read my previous posts and only took out the bits that you wanted to use. Try actually reading what I said in its entirety.

Anyway have you any comments to make on the Warrington bomb etc. Afterall much of my posts including the thread title are about it.

If you don't know my stance on the PIRA by now WASP, you never will.

[An Fear Dubh]

Your difficulty is the legitimacy of armed struggle by different groups. That is your political perspective, you see some armies as legitimate and some armed forces as not legitimate. Legitimacy is different according to your political perspective.

But let us accept that some view some as legitimate and some as not legitimate.

Now without saying who does what let us look at war. War is horrible and innocents get killed, but we support war by supporting various armies and military groups. Is the military tactic of bombing an acceptable tactic? If it is acceptable for one group then you can not deny the same tactic to another group just because you do not see them as politically legitimate.

Yes, Dresden was during WW2 and is now a long time ago. Weapons have become more sophisticated but still innocents are killed by bombs, sometimes it is by design and sometimes it is by 'error', no matter which side uses the bombs. I am not comparing one action against another or trying to create some sort of scale that puts some higher or lower. My argument is that the tactic of bombing is accepted as legitimate it just depends on which body is doing the bombing. If you can justify one group that uses the tactic of bombing then it is hypocritical to try and deny other groups the same tactic.

'Random violence' is another tactic that is generally used by all military bodies, snipers and shooting from cover is another tactic that is used by all military groups. Units that operate behind enemy lines use the tactic of planting bombs and running away. They do not stay beside their bomb and direct innocents and traffic away. Nor do they phone in warnings using codewords to help the local security identify the real from the hoax. But once that you accept that any of these tactics are legitimate for use by one side then they are legitimate by all. This is not just aimed at the British Army this is aimed at all.

[Harry]

Bombs are designed with the sole aim to kill or destroy. If you want to dehumanise it then yes bombing is acceptable in a war. Do i accept the IRA bombs as acceptable, never.

[An Fear Dubh]

You then admit a political bias that denies one group the same tactics of war. People do this all the time, but it is hypocritical. But to attribute one side only as cowardly is not logical but an emotive reaction without logic.

[Wasp]

If you agree that there is circumstances that allows the use of bombs as a tactic, which you (Wasp) have said is acceptable they you are being hypocritical when you deny those who oppose your ideology the same tactic. Either bombing is wrong in every case or it is an acceptable tactic.

No again that is twisting things, did you not see what I already wrote on this. The answer is simple, where were the military personnel in Warrington, La Mon etc? So these bombings can only be condemned but you are trying to place like with like when they are not. If a military target is targeted by a bomb then that is against the enemy, if it misses which can happen and hits civillians then it is a tragedy that everything must be done not to repeat it, but constantly targeting civillians where no military prescence is about such as busy high streets packed with shoppers is completely different.

I also said about the Quinn brothers and no-one yet has condemned it which is both shocking and surprizing. So I take it the Dublin and Monaghan bombs are not to be condemned either?

[Wasp]

anfeardubh said:

You then admit a political bias that denies one group the same tactics of war. People do this all the time, but it is hypocritical. But to attribute one side only as cowardly is not logical but an emotive reaction without logic.

That is far from fair and far from accurate. Harry has never said only one side, nor have I. He plainly said the uda etc as well and clearly stated that this wasn't aimed at just the ira. There is a big big difference in planting bombs in streets packed with shoppers, planted in such a way that people run from one bomb into the path of another to maximize fatalities and injuries than using a bomb to target enemy soldiers/bases etc.

[An Fear Dubh]

I am not twisting things, you can not accept some bombs but deny others to use bombs. Regardless of what we are told the intended target was supposed to be. In Warrington innocent people were killed. We are sometimes told that a bombs target was a military base but it later turns out that it was not a military base but something else (in Iraq it was a hospital). But for all we know the target may well have been the hospital in the first place and we are told it was an error to quell a public outcry. These tragedies are the result of bombs. We can not pick and choose which is the acceptable target only by admiting a political bias like myself and Harry have done. There were no military targets in Dresden but it was an acepted action of war. It happens over and over in different places, so I do not see what action can be taken to avoid it happening again. And to pretend or think that action can be done that totally eliminates the chance of 'error' is niave. Because error is not design but error. Only design can be eliminated by planning.

[Wasp]

Well we could go all week at this because your view of a bomb differs from mine. In all seriousness do you then not condemn the Dublin and Monaghan bombs etc as the same logic could be applied to them.

[An Fear Dubh]

As republicans we have never denied our actions, we recognize when innocents have been killed and acknowledge our part in their death. As we did with Warrington. The sophistication for Dublin and Monaghan bombs have been questioned by various expects as being beyond the known capabilities of Loyalist paramilitaries at that time. So the suggestion is that they had outside help or that someone else executed it on their behalf. But the British have not been forth coming with any information to any inquiry and while this lack of help and information is being denied the conclusions are open to question lacking sufficient information. So the British have denied their role in the Dublin and Monaghan bombs.
As a soldier in a war I recognize military tactics. I do not deny they exist. And innocents will be causalities of any war. I never set out to kill innocents but I am clever enough to recognize that in war innocents will be killed, and I am sorry for their injury and death.
My view of all bombs is that they kill and innocents may be caught up in their blast. You differ from me because you find the use of bombs as acceptable by one side but not by another. I make no such distinction

[earl]

I want to put the record straight. Any posts I've put up here are showing that I have complete distain for any millitary action that is not exclusively for self-protection. I condemn the actions taken by the British army highlighted above, as well as a multitude of others not mentioned, but equally, I condemn the PIRA's actions where they went on the offensive. I condemn the violent 'republican' tradition that's been cropping it's head up since the late 1800's. There were times in history, when the British government had left no other recourse open but violent reaction, but this should never have been the first course of action in many cases. I can't condemn all of the PIRA's actions, because there was a point when people were being burned out of their homes that someone had to take a stand for their neighbours. Equally, I can't condemn Loyalist actions where they were genuinely protecting themselves on the same basis.

But let's not get misty eyed and pretend this was a genuine war. There was always an avenue for peaceful remonstrations and political discourse after the civil rights movement. Had republicans taken the higher moral ground, stuck to the true principles of republicanism, rather than viewing the violent side as the way forward, we could have had a similar situation as exists now, occuring decades ago. And that would have left a far sweeter taste in everyones mouth.

I can't stand those who run around, pretending to be soldiers, re-living their childhood fantasies with real guns rather than with water pistols, who gamble with innocent peoples lives. I have no love for the PIRA, as they killed more of my people than any other faction. I hate them as much as I dispise the actions of the British army.

[Harry]

anfeardubh said:

You then admit a political bias that denies one group the same tactics of war. People do this all the time, but it is hypocritical. But to attribute one side only as cowardly is not logical but an emotive reaction without logic.

AFD i'm not denying one side anything. I bracket the IRA,UVF,UDA etc all in the one bracket. I fully supported the actions of Loyalists but in no way put our actions in the same league as that of the British army. It just isn't comparable. Of course i have problems with IRA bombs simply beacause of my political views and upbringing but my real gripe is with those who seek to use every excuse under the sun as a way of justifying attacks. Complete ignorance to the fact that the IRA used violence to force their political beliefs on others, used violence as a means to Irish unity. Loyalists killed random Catholics mostly in response in the interest of maintaining the Union, in the interest of letting Britain know they couldn't abandon us. The actions of Loyalists or Republicans isn't like those of the British army.

[Harry]

earl said:

I want to put the record straight. Any posts I've put up here are showing that I have complete distain for any millitary action that is not exclusively for self-protection. I condemn the actions taken by the British army highlighted above, as well as a multitude of others not mentioned, but equally, I condemn the PIRA's actions where they went on the offensive. I condemn the violent 'republican' tradition that's been cropping it's head up since the late 1800's. There were times in history, when the British government had left no other recourse open but violent reaction, but this should never have been the first course of action in many cases. I can't condemn all of the PIRA's actions, because there was a point when people were being burned out of their homes that someone had to take a stand for their neighbours. Equally, I can't condemn Loyalist actions where they were genuinely protecting themselves on the same basis.

But let's not get misty eyed and pretend this was a genuine war. There was always an avenue for peaceful remonstrations and political discourse after the civil rights movement. Had republicans taken the higher moral ground, stuck to the true principles of republicanism, rather than viewing the violent side as the way forward, we could have had a similar situation as exists now, occuring decades ago. And that would have left a far sweeter taste in everyones mouth.

I can't stand those who run around, pretending to be soldiers, re-living their childhood fantasies with real guns rather than with water pistols, who gamble with innocent peoples lives. I have no love for the PIRA, as they killed more of my people than any other faction. I hate them as much as I dispise the actions of the British army.

Far points Earl. Its hard to understand why i would say i support the actions of Loyalists when we killed so many innocent people. I take no pleasure in what we done, i don't rejoice in any actions we ever took and i realize how we forced our will on the majority. Those who supported violent acts would in my view of been in the minority within both communities, so between Loyalism ad Republicanism we inflicted years of terror on people who just wanted to live in peace. I still don't regret that we tried to fight back against the IRA but i realize the damage we inflicted and how many life's we ruined.

[An Fear Dubh]

I still believe that when circumstances develop and the prospect of a United Ireland loom that British Unionism will renege on all agreements to maintain a divided Ireland. I look to historical experiences and look for situations that might be comparable on some levels and I am unable to see circumstances where Britain removed themselves from the political scenario without force or the threat of force being implied.

Thus I conclude that it is only with the threat of force will Britain respect the majority will of the people of Ireland.

At the present time republicans have seen that greater achievements and political advancement for all the people living in the north and also those in the south can be made. And that 'armed struggle' was not creating political advancement, but was stalemated and stagnant. And that negative impacts were being felt more often. Therefore republicans were forced to conclude that the 'armed struggle' must be brought to a conclusion, to allow political stability. Thus growth and progress could be made.

Republicans accept that many actions carried out in the name of Unity were wrong, and did not advance the aspiration of Irish Unity. We also recognize that some within our ranks used and abused their positions for personal reasons. We also recognize that some targets selected were targeted for reasons that are questionable. We recognize that we can not undo the wrong and no apology will bring those innocents back. On a personal level I am sorry that innocents were killed. During my active involvement I believe I always acted in accordance with republican principles, and therefore I do not deny my past. And feel that at the time I did the right thing and given the choices again would do the same things.

I can understand when Wasp says that no apology from Adams would be acceptable. I do not look for him to change that view, it is legitimate. But I believe that the apology is genuine.

I believe that Republicans were right and justified in taking up arms against the State that existed in the North and in bringing that war to the British mainland, as the British government did not set about trying to resolve the circumstances that existed but set up to uphold the failed State. I understand that others do not see the justification for such an armed response. But without a doubt support existed within the Nationalist community for the armed struggle and that support was strong enough to continue for the entire period. This large support made the armed struggle legitimate.

I am not trying to compare the actions of the IRA with anyone. Nor do I put them on a par with the British Army. I am not setting up any scale or measure.

But once support is large enough that it has the backing from a large section of the society then. Regardless of resources or technical ability then all tactics of war are legitimate. Republican recognize that some individual actions were wrong, but the only reason why you see the IRA actions as wrong is because you are politically opposed to the idea of Irish Unity. In Iraq you have no problem with your political beliefs being imposed on the native population. Why is it wrong for the IRA to want to assert the will of the majority of people in Ireland?

[Harry]

I'm not saying what is right and what is wrong. I can deal with your attitude totally and truly AFD. A spade is a spade and whats done is done. I'd rather have someone who supports the cause and accepts all the actions that happened for that very same cause than those who offer token support and try and justify things with meaningless facts or opinions. Then distance their cause form the less gloryfying acts when things went wrong...it was still for the cause no matter what so be big enough to accept it as part of your struggle.

While i totally disagree with all your reasons and your long term goals i respect your frankness.