Sunday, March 08, 2009
RSF statement
No link but this has been reproduced on several republican forums, I’ve taken out the telephone numbers:
Press Release/Preas Ráiteas
For immediate release
For confirmation contact:Des Dalton:
Vice-President: ******
Richard Walsh (Publicity Officer)***** (Six Counties)
***** (26-Counties)Hard realities of situation in Ireland must be faced
Statement from Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, President, Republican Sinn Féin
For more than 20 years Republican Sinn Féin has been warning that the lessons of Irish history have been that as long as the British government and British occupation troops remain in Ireland there will be Irish people to oppose their presence here.
It is only a matter of days since Hugh Order, the head of the RUC, announced that undercover British troops were being brought back into this country.
While everyone regretted loss of life, the hard realities of the situation in Ireland must be faced.
ENDS
Mark McGregor @ 01:54 PM
Pathetic
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:03 PMI’m not trying to be snide, but was that a claim of responsibility or just general commentary?
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:05 PMNCM,
It’s unusual for RSF to comment on anything they aren’t connected with in anything but negative terms but as yet there is no claim of responsibility by anyone.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:07 PMGreat. They have a President, a Vice President and a Press Officer but no mandate, no policies, no power and no capability other than to release accusatory statements on the back of the atrocities of others.
A real force in modern Irish politics then.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:14 PMRuairí and his silver-haired friends are the legitimate goverment of Ireland, dontcha know? He is both spokesperson for the dead generations - and the spiritual commander of the living dead.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:18 PMI’m a little surprised RSF’s Press Officer didn’t post the statement directly on Slugger… the past few days they gave everyone here RSF’s latest on some pretty mundane matters in comparison.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:20 PMWhat’s your own take on these shootings, Mark?
A leap forward on the road to freedom? Or Grounghog Day all over again?
I think we should be told.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:20 PMI suppose Mark would say that this is theBritish Government and Sinn Fein’s fault. Aside from that predictable response, do you still support the use of armed struggle in the current environment? A simple Yes or No will do, Mark.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:28 PMPersumably the pizza delivery men are collaborators with the British war machine
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:30 PMpicador,
Don’t see why my view matters to you or anyone else but since you ask I’m completely opposed to such things.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:30 PMMark,
Well, as you are slugger’s resident disso propagandist, I was interested to see what formula of words you would come up with.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:37 PMRight up there with this:
REINDEER STRIKE ADVERTS HIT CHILDRENThe use of Christmas related advertising by multi-national companies to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of young children over the arrival of Santa has been condemned by a spokesman for Republican Sinn Fein.
Mick The Quill Ryan from Ballynanty, the RSF chairman in the north side of Limerick said that some companies are using the upcoming Christmas as a vehicle to sell their products while casting doubts over the arrival of Santa.
The fact that companies like a huge mobile phone firm can use advertising that features the reindeers talking about going on strike is in bad taste and affects the views
of children.We have had complaints from parents who say that their children are concerned about a reindeer strike and the fact that Santa depends on the reindeers to deliver the Christmas presents.
While an adult can appreciate the point being made by the advertising, young children do not have the same perspective and tend to repeat what they see and hear.
MEDIA INFORMATION FROM….
Mick The Quill Ryan, Chairman RSF Northside
120 Shanabooley Road, Ballynanty, LimerickPosted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:39 PMWho here believes this little gem from Orde:
Sir Hugh said: “There will be no troops back on the streets. I will die in a ditch over that — that is not going to happen.”
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:39 PMMark, assuming you have an insight to dissident republican thinking have you any idea how this will go down with the average non-SF supporter in nationalist areas?
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:40 PMRaivo Pommer
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)Teuer Geld
Er beruft sich hierbei auf ein Urteil des Landgerichts Coburg (Az.: 23 O 426/08). In dem Fall hatten der Beklagte und seine Ehefrau zusammen einen Kredit über 21 000 Euro aufgenommen. Als sie sich scheiden ließen, vereinbarten sie, dass die Frau den Kredit zurückzahlen werde. Im Gegenzug verpflichtete sich der Mann, zwei weitere Darlehen zu begleichen.
Diese Absprache teilten sie auch der Bank mit. Als die Frau die Tilgungen nicht leistete, kündigte die Bank das Darlehen und verlangte vom früheren Ehemann den offenen Schuldbetrag von 16 400 Euro. Zu recht, urteilte das Gericht: Denn die Absprache zwischen den früheren Eheleuten schütze den Beklagten nicht. Maßgeblich sei allein das Vertragsverhältnis zwischen der Bank und dem Mann. Der Beklagte sei durch die Scheidung oder die Abmachung der Eheleute untereinander nicht von seiner Schuld gegenüber der Bank befreit.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:44 PM^^^Either Google Translate is getting it very wrong or “mom” is a troll:
“He refers here to a ruling by the Landgericht Coburg (Az: 23 O 426/08). In this case, the defendant and his wife have a combined loan of EUR 21 000 recorded. When they were divorced, they agreed that the woman to pay back the loan will be. In return, the man, two more loans to be paid.
This arrangement also shared with the bank. As the woman who made no repayments, the bank announced the loan and demanded by the former husband, the amount of outstanding debt is 16 400 euros. At right, the court ruled, because the agreement between the former spouses does not protect the defendants. Was the sole contract between the bank and the man the defendant was covered by the agreement or the divorce of the spouses do not differ from his debt to the bank free”
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:48 PMAlan,
Wrong assumption. I have no insight to offer. I saw a press release not condemning events and thought that an addition to any debate on this that hasn’t previously appeared. As for how it goes down with non-SF republicans, I can only go on what I’ve read elsewhere and some are absolutely delighted, the rest aren’t.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:49 PMThanks Mark.
I can understand the gut reaction of some who see this as another strike against the brits. I have more trouble trying to see startegic thinking behind this that can bring irish unity closer. Stupid me.Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 03:52 PMIs Eirigi sitting on the fence, beside you, Mark?
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 04:03 PMRuairí Ó Brádaigh - the master of tautology.
“For more than 20 years Republican Sinn Féin has been warning that the lessons of Irish history have been that as long as the British government and British occupation troops remain in Ireland there will be Irish people to oppose their presence here”.
What a clever and insightful lesson that was.In translation - there will always be inadequate and immature young Irish people, who, in order to distance themselves from their own sad and tragic lives, will project their thoughts on to a bigger cause ...the notion of restoring the four green fields for Mother Ireland.
In the process, said sad b*******, will ignore public opinion at large, delude themselves that they are the rightful government of Ireland, and get their kicks from murdering other working class people.
These people are in no position to lecture the rest of us, for they themselves will never learn the lessons of history. They will never come to terms with the fact that theirs is a futile and pointless cause, driven in the main by a bunch of middle aged psychopaths, who really ought to know better.
Perhaps it is poignant at these times to remember the words of Commandante Che;“Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.”
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 04:04 PM‘While everyone regretted loss of life, the hard realities of the situation in Ireland must be faced. ‘
Well Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, Richard Walsh and other patriots. You are right, the hard realities must be faced.
If that includes terminating your command with extreme prejudice, who would complain? Given your committment to a democratic socialist 32 county republic, lets put that proposition to a vote. OK?
A fundamental plank in your electoral platform/manifesto, whatever, must be this.
‘We will wound them. And when they are writhing on the ground, and only then, given our courage and committment, we will kill them.
Breatnach is a facile coward. Statment ends’
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 04:18 PMI think it’s a bit odd that commenters here can decide that - seeing as Mark is a republican who is critical of SF - he must therefore have in insight into, or a degree of support for last night’s murder in Antrim.
I’ve little sympathy for any strand of Irish Republicanism as it’s manifested itself during my lifetime, but in a democracy, it is undoubtedly a legitimate political tradition (more legitimate than it was in the 1960s when most politics on these islands were largely class-based) and deserves to be given the kind of breathing space that it needs to conduct itself in a democratic way.
Here is the way that I think it is useful to look at this situation:
Republicanism in general is in something of a hole. It may have achieved it’s electoral high water-mark already and many of the internal contradictions that it has laboured under since the 1960s are unravelling. The buoyant economy may have provided an invaluable sticking-plaster that has covered these fissures up for the past 15 years. However, with a strong pragmatic representation, it has more resources at it’s disposal to adapt than it ever has had before.
To highlight the past positions or the compromises that many republicans have made - compromises that have saved thousands of lives and given democracy a chance to work in Northern Ireland perhaps for the first time - would seem to be counterproductive. I don’t care if the guns used here were ones that could have been decommissioned in recent years - I doubt if anyone really believes that SF ever had the degree of authority to commandeer and decommission every weapon held by republicans.
We were all asked to go along with a charade that this was the case in order to get where we are today - and as a result, we’ve seen the emergence of a more mature democratic tradition within republicanism - both inside SF, and lately outside of it.
Looking through the comments here, I suspect that some participants would rather see leading SF figures be made to look stupid, hypocritical or weak in the light of this nihilistic attack.
I’d sooner see SF being able to take a step backwards, consider it’s response, and then provide it to an audience that wishes the party well in it’s development as a democratic force - even if many of us don’t wish it well as a political one in the long term.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 04:19 PMWhat exactly was so wrong with using politics, not violence, to achieve strategic goals towards a united Ireland? And shooting a couple of off-duty Army engineers getting pizza is hardly something to be proud of (oh, and the pizza guys for good measure). The chance of this backfiring against the folks who did this is high, I believe… is that why no one is claiming responsibility?
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 07:09 PM“He is both spokesperson for the dead generations - and the spiritual commander of the living dead.”
The 1916 people didn’t have much of a mandateTraditional republicanism is always suspicious of electoral politics.
Gerry Adams isn’t the Pope, the changes he made can be undone, and possibly will be.
Are SF ‘proper’ republicans in the sense of people who went before them?
Is that a valid question? Because winning elections has *nothing* to do with that alleged status.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 07:34 PMThanks to the courage of the SAS, the British Army, the UDR, the RUC and the 1,000,000 British Citizens in Northern Ireland, the PIRA have been defeated and surrendered their weapons, and Sinn Fein have accepted British rule in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Belfast Agreement.
However, even after surrendering, the IRA (their is no difference between the PIRA, RIRA or CIRA) continue to murder at Omagh, Robert McCartney, Denis Donaldson, Paul Quinn and now Antrim.
Posted by on Mar 08, 2009 @ 07:37 PM