Omagh is the last venue that armed republicanism might be expected to have put in an appearance. It takes some nerve. There, the levels of abhorrence for the phenomenon are probably higher than they are elsewhere. Its presence is unwanted, its visitation unsolicited and viewed as a deeply insulting intrusion.
Omagh was the site of the largest loss of human life in the country as a result of the North’s violent conflict. As such it would be thought that whatever else it did armed republicanism would balk at planting a bomb there. The town had become a veritable psychological shrine, a place which, because of the horrendous violence inflicted on it, cried out against republican physical force with the trauma spawned words ‘never again’.
Today’s bomb attack which took the life of a young PSNI member outside his home is like similar attacks in recent years, both futile and brutal. The dead man, a 25 year old Catholic, was a mere three weeks out of his training; basically a rookie. The attack was standard copy, the template inherited from the Provisional IRA: an under car booby trap bomb. It was every bit as futile and as callous as the double killing of RUC constables John Graham and David Johnston in Lurgan in June 1997, the last members of the force to have been killed by the Provisional IRA. It was just as wrong.
A bomb in Omagh on a Saturday afternoon conjures up the most terrible of images. The BBC reported that ‘neighbours rushed to help him and some used fire extinguishers to put out the flames from the explosion. He died at the scene.’ That such words should again be written abut Omagh beggar belief. Armed republicanism which has inflicted so much carnage already on the Tyrone town has returned, like a grave wrecker, to desecrate the memory. The term ‘Omagh bomb’ is one that almost everybody believed had been exorcised to the year 1998. Not for the first time has armed republicanism demonstrated its infidelity to sensitivity.
The death of the PSNI member will be a source of consolation to only the fundamentalist few. There are many republicans who do not support the PSNI but who would strenuously oppose seeing it targeted. It will of course be claimed that today’s killing was a blow for Irish freedom. But it is a gross contradiction to talk of Irish freedom if the Irish are unable to be free from the violence of armed republicanism. The people responsible may well be carrying on in the physical force tradition but they wage political violence on behalf of themselves and no one else. Theirs is a war against the national will. Infinitely much more invasive than the British rule they claim to be opposing, it flies in the face of national self determination while masquerading as a defence of it.
Today’s victim is the fourth member of the British security forces to have died at the hands of armed republicanism in two years. It is a miniscule achievement compared to what the Provisional IRA managed throughout most of its campaign. Yet for all their military prowess the Provisionals ultimately secured very little in terms of republican objectives. They now sit ensconced in a British administration at Stormont in full support of the police force their descendants are currently determined to kill. Gerry Adams who for decades approved attacks like today’s was one of the first to condemn the Omagh incident. There should be a strategic lesson somewhere in there for any republican discerning enough to find it.
Unfortunately, while a lesson that has been absorbed by many it will never be learned by all. There will always be some who without any chance of altering the future remain determined to repeat the past.
Ineffectual and immoral, armed republican violence is a scourge that can only deliver blight in place of betterment.
288 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 288 of 288 Newer› Newest»AM,
'Funny, it has the complete opposite effect on me.'
I sort of noticed.
'That is the same 'Pope' who is going to beatify John Paul II, who presided over the near total destruction of the Catholic Church and did nothing while so many were abused.' His words mean nothing to me'
We have been telling you this for months and you have been calling us heretics for doing so!!
John McGirr,
"They killed God, for starters!
They control global capitalism.
They are formenting war and unrest in the Middle East.
They are currently committing genocide on the Palestinians.
Yes they deserve their place on my list"
If I worked in Hamas' Human Resources department I would be pleased to inform you that your recent application for employment has been accepted.
Larry,
indeed. But I will not last as the JD is hitting me!!!
Colonel Blimp was of course from a film. Quite a good wee film, from 1943, and the colonel was not, as is usually portrayed, backward looking and regressive, but patriotic & energetic.
So it's entirely your interpretation 'for being a pompous prat', and if that's how you see me (obviously is) that is absolutely fine.
How I see you, but much more your friends on here, is of a set of backslapping 'good old boys', referencing these antique ideas, which last had credibilty in Griffith's referencing the Dual Monarchy. All of which might be fine; many other nationalists (e.g. in Serbia, Croatia) are still there. The problem is that you (& they) sustain the rationale for this little campaign of violence.
Does that strike you as suitably 'pseudo'?
Set of dopey arses.
Robert,
"Do many of them still consider themselves the 'Lost Tribe'?"
'I don't know, Nelson McCausland's phone is currently engaged.'
That amused me so much! Sad, I know.
Happy Easter.
Colm,
what have you told the PSNI about WP gangsterism?
'Set of dopey arses.'
Sort of confirms your Colonel Blimp status. Maybe I should follow the advice of Napoleon that when an opponent is destroying himself don;t intervene.
was of course from a film. Quite a good wee film, from 1943, and the colonel was not, as is usually portrayed, backward looking and regressive, but patriotic & energetic.
'The problem is that you (& they) sustain the rationale for this little campaign of violence.'
Confirms how much you have lost it. Earlier in the thread you were praising me for doing the opposite of this. Get in quick and delete it before anybody notices. Just like you did when you expressed a wish that Gerry McGeough be shot dead.
Don't go to bed. This is so funny.
John,
did you mean Nelson McGinn?
Colm,
I shouldn't think many on here see me as a 'backslapping good old boy'.
I do agree with you in regard to Michaela Harte, but little else, (not that this would keep you awake at night).
Just another dopey arse.
I'm not a 'delete quick' kind of person, Anthony.
It will have to live on in the record. We shall see, longer run, which is the more laughable contribution.
Too much JD this night? Perhaps this one isn't for publication. Feel free not to.
this has been a super goodfriday
Robert should ye not be ringing Jim Alister?
Loved the Napoleon advice too.
Shoot McGeough?? i knew i musta missed something real good when i saw those deleted posts.
Happy Easter 1+all
BTW Robert if ye have any cash national assets down/up here are being unloaded, you could buy the GPO book of Kells or even Senator Norris, his arse has been rented before i think, sold could be a new experience for him.
Colm,
you are not a delete quick type of person ... except when you were caught calling for the shooting of a republican by the British state. Yeah we know.
'We shall see, longer run, which is the more laughable contribution.'
Well for now you have the field all to yourself.
Robert,
'If I worked in Hamas' Human Resources department I would be pleased to inform you that your recent application for employment has been accepted.'
Apart from the God thing, maybe.
And just the other week I was being upbraided for being anti-Islam.
Colm,
we publish all your insults. Why stop now? For too much JD you aren't doing too well against a drunken supporter of nationalistic genocide!! Surely you should be winning hands down. Maybe you have drunk more than me. Or maybe you should drink more and you will not sound so pompous.
John,
why not upbraid you for being anti-Islam? You are anti-everything.
mackers
steady on old boy, John is certainly not antieverythingarian, he loves the GAA the RC church and wee Irish coleen primary school teachers getting more tv time than the banking crisis.
dont missrepresent people now, there's enough of that already.
AM,
'why not upbraid you for being anti-Islam? You are anti-everything.'
I am for the men of 1916, and all who have given their all for Ireland.
I love my God, my country, and my familly.
Anything that opposes them, I hate with a passion.
Thanks Anthony,
"you are not a delete quick type of person ... except when you were caught calling for the shooting of a republican by the British state"
I didn't delete anything, though I did apologise for that part of the comment, so I suppose both are still there.
There was no 'caught'; I acknowledge it openly.
It's all kicking off on the Quill tonight!!
Colm,
If you had actually read the comments on this thread, you would have seen a wide variety of reactions to the killing of Ronan Kerr - some approval, some ambivalence, some forceful opposition. Why dismiss everyone here as a bunch of "backslapping good old boys" and "dopey arses"? It just proves Anthony's point.
John,
I thought the Romans killed Jesus!
Alfie,
'I thought the Romans killed Jesus!'
Not at all! It was the Jews!
Larry,
"Robert should ye not be ringing Jim Alister"
I will be if he becomes an MLA! It's a tantalising prospect - if only for the entertainment value of having an opposition at Stormont albeit a one man show.
Colm,
you did delete. Only you or myself can delete your comments I did not delete. So who did? You did. You know what they they say about when you are in a hole ...
John,
was Jesus not King of the Jews?
AM,
"'That is the same 'Pope' who is going to beatify John Paul II, who presided over the near total destruction of the Catholic Church and did nothing while so many were abused.' His words mean nothing to me'"
'We have been telling you this for months and you have been calling us heretics for doing so!!'
I guess if I didn't have a sneaking view that you were not entirely wrong I wouldn't have stuck around.
But what you see as the 'Catholic Church', I see as traitors who have done what the Provos have done to the Republican movement.
We see the same thing but have differing diagnoses!
Robert
when my degree ends there's the option of conflict resolution studies at M.A. + PHD
i think job prospects and longevity of contract very promising, such a pity i'm 47 already. I could be on a winner career wise.
Robert
will begin new job by introducing John to an Israeli 18-30s holiday.
AM,
'was Jesus not King of the Jews?'
He was the King of the Jews. The Jews who were faithful accepted Christ. Those who rejected him, started a new religion, after the fall of Jerusalem, in 70 AD. This new religion, expressed in the Talmud, is the one I reject.
Larry,
don't bet on it. You are a former republican prisoner. That will hobble any progress with or without a PhD
You are blinded by your prejudice, Anthony.
The comments I made, now copied (from above) were:
"Sammy Brush was (& is) alright. Nearly a pity he wasn't a fraction more accurate in his return fire.
Dixie, indeed. "how can Republicanism which can't even unite itself unite a people or a country?"
You all should have a little wise up.
12:43 AM, April 07, 2011
Fionnuala Perry, you are right that I should not have wished anybody dead, in that exchange of fire; I tend towards an admiration for those brisk young men (like Sammy Brush or Brendan Hughes) who do the right thing in a tough situation. Call me an old romantic.
Much better that their neighbours, or friends, or relatives, who maybe have a more developed sense of social responsibility, should pass information so that these thugs could cool their heels for a few years of jail, rather than being a pathetic martyr.
7:53 PM, April 07, 2011"
Any other deletion, which I barely remember, was because of a multiple (2? 3?) posting issue in the site.
Larry,
"such a pity i'm 47 already."
"The sadness of life is not that it ends so soon but that we wait too long to begin it"
John,
And here was I believing it was imperialist Roman soldiers who nailed Jesus to the cross when it was really those treacherous, covetous Jews in disguise...
Incidentally, do you not think Jesus was a traitor to his people by not leading an armed insurrection against those foreign forces occupying his people's lands?
Colm
yes you are right. The comment on hoping Brush shot McGeough is still in. I did not notice it. Mea Culpa.
Larry,
'will begin new job by introducing John to an Israeli 18-30s holiday.'
LOL, 18-30, I wish. Are you sure you are only 47? I kind of thought you were older, I am 49!
mackers
i was refering to the neverending agro...thus longevity potential of such a career.
my head of faculty on my enquiring as to employability reminded me you practically need a 'wrap sheet' these days to get into government....there are ex prisoners employed in Ulster Uni.
i'm not stressing either way mackers, i love travel and speak+teach ingerlit velly well.
be nice to watch the smouldering republican disagreements ignite from afar...VERY AFAR.
Alfie,
he deserved crucified, the traitor. Or at least a bomb put beneath his chariot!
John,
49. Laughed at that. You might have 49 kids but I guess you are about 82. I am 13
night all.
Oiche Mhaith
Alfie,
"Who killed Jesus?
The Liberal Catholics of our country are now making another concession to Interfaith charity and Brotherhood benevolence. They are saying, "It was not the Jews who crucified Christ; it was the Romans."
I should like to ask these Liberal Catholics a few pointed questions on the subject of Our Lord's death.
Was it the Romans who came out to seize Him in the Garden of Olives with swords and clubs on the night of His Passion, and who brought Him bound to the High Priest, and then to Pontius Pilate, demanding that He should be killed?
Was it a Roman who betrayed Jesus with a kiss, and was it to Romans He was sold for thirty pieces of silver?
Was the High Priest a Roman, who rent his garments and accused Our Lord of blasphemy when He declared Himself to be the Eternal Son of God?
Was it a Roman crowd which stood before the tribunal of Pontius Pilate and shouted: "If this man were not a malefactor we would not have handed Him over to you ... His blood be upon us and upon our children!"
Was it the Romans who disowned Jesus as the King of the Jews, and did not want the inscription placed over His head on the Cross when He hung, crowned with thorns, and with nails in His hands and His feet?
Was it God's judgement in Heaven that the Romans had killed Christ, and was that why the Power of the Almighty some thirty years later razed the Temple of Jerusalem to the ground, and left not one stone upon a stone, and has never allowed it to be rebuilt from that day to this?
In the prayers of the Mass for Good Friday of Holy Week, the priest refers to the "perfidious Jews" as the ones who betrayed and crucified Christ. Should he be saying the "perfidious Romans"? And has it been wrong for the Church to put it the first way for as long as her history?
When Our Lord hung upon the Cross, His first recorded words were, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
Do the Liberal Catholics really think Our Lord was referring to the Jews when He said, "They know not what they do"? Was it the Jewish Chief Priests, the Scribes, and the Ancients, with whom He sat daily teaching in the Temple and who, when He was crucified, wagged their heads and mocked Him and shouted: "He saved others; himself He cannot save" -- was it these who knew not what they did, and whom Our Lord asked the Father to forgive?
Saint Luke tells us clearly that Jesus said this of the Roman soldiers who "dividing his garments, cast lots." And Saint Matthew tells us that these same Romans, after Jesus expired on the Cross, cried out in one voice with their Centurion, "Indeed, this was the Son of God!".
John
thought a few wild weeks with nubile olive skinned Jewish maidens might mellow your 2011 anger.
It worked for me, i travelled back and forward through the Philippines and outa 90 million taigs i found a wee prod. Havent looked back since.
only church ive been in this 20 odd years was COI twice, but my mrs recons its too romanist.
so what the fek was the 800 yrs about here?
get yerself out more granda!
u can stick a bomb under my chariot if ye like...we dont own one...
Anthony,
Maybe Jesus should have joined the Judean People's Front instead of trying to be God. Then he could have sold out and got himself a nice seat in a powersharing executive with the Romans in Jerusalem.
John,
imagine wakening up to that on the morning after the night before. He's dead now whoever killed him and he ain't coming back!
Alfie,
his da sold him out. Big god sat on his hands as usual while the mob done little god in.
There is not the remotest possibility that I will ever buy into a word of any of it.
Alec,
‘The undemocratic imposition of partition against the expressed wishes of the Irish people and, it's maintenance by force has always been the basis of republican resistance to British occupation.’
The expressed wishes of the Irish people are clearly for partition as preferable to ending partition violently. Seems a salient political reality which we as republicans should take account of.
Every thing is maintained by force in society. If we violate traffic lights some force will be brought to bear on us. In the North every law is backed by British force, from those relating to drunken driving to assault or domestic killing. If that force is underpinned by widespread consent then it becomes democratic.
‘There will always be republicans willing to use physical force in order to achieve full independence.’
While true the question remains if it is right to use that force. I don’t think physical force republicans have been persuasive on this.
‘The only way to deny republicans a rational basis for carrying out armed actions would be to have a national referendum on the issue of sovereignty.’
Which presupposes there is a rational basis for carrying out armed actions. I have spoken to so many armed republicans over the years who openly admit that their arguments are not based on reason but tradition and a right they assume to have.
‘Republicans have nothing to fear from a true national consensus free from artificial engineering.’
Republican armed force might just be the element of artificial engineering in the sense that it implies force if the referendum doesn’t go its way.
The fairest referendum should allow people to vote on two issues. Do they want a united Ireland and do they approve of armed force to achieve Irish unity. It can hardly be denied that the Irish people have the right to express opinions on both.
That should address the issues. Armed republicans would have to decide after that what course of action would constitute the right response given that not violating the rights of the Irish people seems to be central to their discourse.
John,
‘the crocodile tears being shed over a British military policeman who had betrayed his own community.’
But his community seems to support his actions much more so than they support the people who killed him. What did his community mandate him to do that he betrayed it on? I think it mandated him to be a cop. I don’t like that. I feel it takes away everything we fought for, but it is what it is. The notion of killing him flies in the face of so much of what I believe these days.
I find serious problems with this particular type of republican analysis. We are never going to get the perfect model John. Everything has some contradictions within it. In trying to work these things out and think them through I try to arrive at what is the least contradictory position. Not always easy and I am sure I get it as wrong as often as the next. I just find the republican physical force arguments more contradictory than the case against. I would feel totally uneasy if I were part of that tradition.
begorragh mackers yer an early bird...to be sure.
couldn't resist checking what tail end posts came through after last night.
'big God sat on his hands while little God got done in' ...great.
don't want to sound like a back-slapper, but that started my day off really well. Enjoyed all those posts last night!
Physical force republicanism is up against it. Best it can do is a 1950s style endevour. Why in 2011 does anyone want to spend a decade or two in jail over that? Adams and co. have successfully transfered 'tradition' for temporary popularity. The people certainly have no time for violence.
The irony is the small scale actions keep SF support up and PSNI overtime at a premium, little else. But the up side is it makes total gobshites of Adams and McGuinness professions of republicanism. No doubt they'll be glorifying 'murder' in some graveyard tomorrow.
Larry,
was up as I wanted to walk the dog. So you can slap my back, I'll slap yours, John McGirr will slap both, and then Marty will slap all three, followed by Nuala ad infinitum. Our problem is that we cannot think and need some Lord Snooty to do our thinking for us. And even in a recession there is always work for Lord Snooty
AM,
'He's dead now whoever killed him and he ain't coming back!'
Until tomorrow at His Rising.
'But his (Ronan Kerr's) community seems to support his actions much more so than they support the people who killed him.'
Just like the crowd on Palm Sunday soon changed to the crucifying Jewish mob.
It shows us the danger of follwing the crowd, which is fickle and can move from one position to another and then back again.
wee marty seems to be off radar, and we are supposed to be hooking up tomorrow.
Hope he's rushing about the shops getting supplies and not back at Ann Summers, it just doesn't cut-it.
John,
he must be taking Viagra tonight if he is rising tomorrow!
There are always dangers in the mob. Are you telling us to abandon democracy in favour of something else? Even when we don't behave democratically as we often don't, I still come back to it being the best form of rule. It is frustrating and messy but ...
"It shows us the danger of follwing the crowd, which is fickle and can move from one position to another and then back again."
It's called democracy, John. Or should only Real/Continuity pre-Vatican II Catholics have the right to make decisions for the community? How can you say that you desire Irish freedom then?
Alfie,
discerning comment. These days many of the things I object to in religion are manifest in physical force republicanism. The view I have that people have the right to be free from religion applies to physical force republicanism. Also if we value the right to dissent it is hard to object to people dissenting from the nation. Obligatory nationalism poses a serious problem for me. Yet partition is based on consent and I find it an anathema.
Yet pretending not to understand where the armed republicans come from as SF try to do is transparently fraudulent. They just hold the ideas we used to hold. Yesterday Adams told the armed republicans to go and read the 1916 Proclamation. That is pouring petrol on the fire. These people actually believe in the Proclamation and tend to justify their stance with reference to it.
Anthony,
"Yet partition is based on consent and I find it an anathema."
Partition is based on consent to the extent that most people prefer it to armed republican attempts to unite Ireland. Until the recession hit, polls consistently showed most people on the island were in favour of unification, though I think support for it has dropped in the Republic since the financial crisis worsened. Nevertheless, Alec McCrory has a point when he says that partition is antidemocratic, but I can't see how armed actions that have a much weaker democratic basis are the solution to the problem.
Alfie,
I think with or without the recession most people in the country favour Irish unity. But they willingly and knowingly give their approval to a mechanism which denies them the outcome that they favour. And that is what makes it democratic. Had they voted against the GFA I would agree that partition is not democratically endorsed. I don't like the outcome, am opposed to it but don't feel I have the right to violently oppose it.
Alfie,
'It's called democracy, John. Or should only Real/Continuity pre-Vatican II Catholics have the right to make decisions for the community?'
Democracy is not a god at whose altar I worship.
John,
'Democracy is not a god at whose altar I worship.'
Thought that. At least it is a frank assessment of your position which doesn't get you tied in knots trying to argue against partition being anti-democratic.
John,
How would you suggest a united Ireland be governed if not by democracy? Who should run the country? The Catholic Church? That didn't work out too well the last time...
Alfie,
‘I am not opposed in principle to armed campaigns.’
Well, only pacifists are opposed in principle. I don’t believe in pacifism. But armed force has to be the last resort and never the first. The physical force tradition tends to look to use it as a first resort.
Anthony,
"But armed force has to be the last resort and never the first."
What do you think of the intervention in Libya? I am inclined to think that it was justified since Gaddafi was using heavy weaponry on civilian populations and was probably about to raze Benghazi. However, I think the West should have removed Gaddafi rather than merely implementing a no-fly zone. On the other hand, the very same thing could be about to happen in Yemen, Bahrain and Syria - can the West realistically intervene in all of these countries?
Robert,
‘The GFA has been democratically endorsed - no one can seriously contest that.’
Like it or not there is no getting away from that.
‘Armed oppositional Republicanism neither seeks nor commands a mandate for violence outside of it's own ideological justification – no one can seriously contest that. It is the driver of political conflict in Ireland.’
This is one of the major achievements of the GFA. It has completely outmanoeuvred republicanism and in particular its armed component. Now the armed activity looks more driven by factors internal to itself than it ever did.
‘It seems to me that people within the Nationalist community have opted for consumerism over Connolly.’
But that is a phenomenon not restricted to Ireland – The Marxism that Connolly espoused has been marginalised in areas where it once had resonance.
Larry,
I agree that armed struggle is totally ineffective. It might have took many of us a long time to learn that but that it the lesson to be to taken on board. It has no more right to inflict its armed force on society than those who wish to kill doctors providing abortion services or beat gays out of religious conviction. The gay or the doctor can always be blamed by their attackers as driving them to do it but in the end it is their religious opinion that is the driver.
AM.
'...doctors providing abortion services...'
Administering death to the innocent, a service? And people talk about hypocricy.
The most dangerous place is in the womb, where it should be the safest. Those who advocate killing the defenceless should surely not see much wrong in killing the guilty.
John,
'Administering death to the innocent, a service? And people talk about hypocricy.'
The problem here is abortion is not regarded as murder, the mothers are not murderers nor are the doctors who carry it out.
Religion for the most part regards it as murder but then religion is just an opinion which none of us are bound by. Just as the golf club can't prescribe on abortion. And as you know I am no fan of abortion.
Do you agree with killing abortion doctors as well?
AM,
'The problem here is abortion is not regarded as murder, the mothers are not murderers nor are the doctors who carry it out.'
In some places it is seen as murder by the law, in some places it is not. What a terrible risk to take by thinking that the UK government are right and others wrong. The verdict of most people, most of the time is that it is murder.
Even the doctors see it as the killing of human life. You should have heard some of the conversations I had with doctors going into abortion clinics in London. They had no such pretence, but openly agreed they were killing children for money, on more than one occasion.
Do you believe in infanticide? If not, why not? If a child can be killed up to, and including during their birth, what changes that it is wrong to kill them a few seconds later?
'Do you agree with killing abortion doctors as well?'
I am pleased that they can kill no more, and I would not regard their killing as I would an innocent human being. I guess they would use something of the justification that Alfie's friends are using in trying to kill Gaddafi or that they did when they murdered Saddam Hussein.
John,
'In some places it is seen as murder by the law, in some places it is not.'
It would appear to be legal in those countries where religion has had more influence than it deserves.
'The verdict of most people, most of the time is that it is murder.'
Seen no evidence for this whatsoever. Most people I doubt have been surveyed.
'Even the doctors see it as the killing of human life.'
Some maybe. Most I imagine don't. But I don't do the stats.
'Do you believe in infanticide?'
No.
'If not, why not?'
Because I believe it is wrong.
'If a child can be killed up to, and including during their birth, what changes that it is wrong to kill them a few seconds later?'
Abortion is not permitted a few seconds short of the 9 month period. But regardless of that I have serious issues with abortion and do not approve of it. But I defer to a woman's right to choose.
Should abortion doctors be legitimate targets? If you don't want to answer just say so and we will leave it at that
AM,
"'If a child can be killed up to, and including during their birth, what changes that it is wrong to kill them a few seconds later?'"
'Abortion is not permitted a few seconds short of the 9 month period.'
It is in many countries. (Even the 1967 Act as amended allows it in some circumstances).
Here is a typical definition:
"What is partial-birth abortion?
Partial-birth abortion is a specific medical procedure which induces a late-term (second or third trimester) abortion. It is also known as intact dilation and extraction, or D&X abortion. In a partial-birth abortion, the woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is vaginally delivered to the point that its head is exposed. The doctor then has the option of performing one of several procedures on the fetus with the intent of aborting it. The term partial-birth abortion has come into common usage since 2003, largely because "intact D&X" can also refer to a non-abortive method of removing a miscarried fetus from its mother, and therefore does not always imply abortion. The term is opposed by some pro-choice groups, however, due to its employment of the word "birth" to describe the procedure."
The few doctors targeted have tended to be those who carried out these late-term assassinations.
Should abortion doctors be legitimate targets?
Yes.
John
It is in many countries. (Even the 1967 Act as amended allows it in some circumstances/.
Partial birth abortion should be permissible where the life of the mother is at risk. Outside of that I find it abhorrent. It is however carried out in very limited cases.
The notion of doing it as birth control is very disturbing. There is so much else available for birth control.
I briefly read up on it prior to replying and saw some opponents quoting the bible so immediately switched off. The secular arguments against are so much more persuasive.
I find it awful that anyone would want to see abortion doctors killed. I didn't force you into the admission. It was something you volunteered. Fair play to you for being upfront about it but I find it dangerous and disturbing.
I wouldn't even advocate killing clerics who are paedophiles
AM,
‘Partial birth abortion should be permissible where the life of the mother is at risk. Outside of that I find it abhorrent. It is however carried out in very limited cases.’
It is allowed in more cases than that;
“The Act was amended in 1990 by the HFE Act 1990. The effect was that the Infant Life Preservation Act was decoupled from the Abortion Act thus allowing abortion to full term for disability, life of the mother and health of the mother.“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom
‘I briefly read up on it prior to replying and saw some opponents quoting the bible so immediately switched off. The secular arguments against are so much more persuasive.’
I agree, I have never seen it as religious, which you seem to.
‘I find it awful that anyone would want to see abortion doctors killed.’
Adams and McGuinness can be seen as potential legitimate targets, I wouldn’t necessarily agree with carrying it out though, in the current climate.
A ‘Doctor’ such as George Tiller is in no way innocent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller
‘Fair play to you for being upfront about it but I find it dangerous and disturbing.’
I find abortion, particularly when indistinguishable from infanticide, dangerous and disturbing. He should have been in gaol, not cutting up partially born babies, to finance his lavish lifestyle.
‘I wouldn't even advocate killing clerics who are paedophiles’
I would. I guess we disagree on the death penalty.
John
'It is allowed in more cases than that.'
Which is what I find abhorrent about it. In 1986 I fell out with a friend who supported termination at any stage. She fell out with me because I quizzed her about it. I found her view so intolerable. She later took her won life and I never got the chance to speak to her again which was upsetting for its own reasons.
'I have never seen it as religious, which you seem to.'
I see a lot of it as religious crankiness. There is never in my view a religious reason for doing or not doing anything. I am a secularist who finds it disturbing. Those involved in targeting doctors seem to be religious cranks. I don't know of any that are not.
'Adams and McGuinness can be seen as potential legitimate targets'
Maybe by yourself but by very few others.
'I wouldn’t necessarily agree with carrying it out though, in the current climate.'
Deferring to opinion polls?
A ‘Doctor’ such as George Tiller is in no way innocent.
Tiller's death was nothing short of murder. Juries and committees had time and again found in his favour.
I guess we disagree on the death penalty.
For sure.
John,
"I guess they would use something of the justification that Alfie's friends are using in trying to kill Gaddafi or that they did when they murdered Saddam Hussein."
Great. Next you'll be calling me an imperialist or a West Brit. I oppose US/UK interventions in foreign countries, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, unless there is a serious, pressing humanitarian crisis in the country in question. I believe there was/is such a crisis in Libya and that Gaddafi's vicious counterinsurgency gave adequate justification for intervention. On the other hand, there was no pressing humanitarian crisis in Iraq eight years ago that required an invasion of that country. Despite the atrocities Saddam Hussein had committed in the past, he was not then attacking his own people in the manner that Gaddafi has been doing in Libya for the last couple of months. When a tyrant is killing civilians in large numbers and shelling towns and cities, the international community must act; however, to intervene in a sovereign state in the absence of a humanitarian crisis risks starting a deadly conflict. This, I think, is the crucial difference between Iraq in 2003 and Libya today.
How far the Libyan intervention should go is another matter. I am inclined to think that the best outcome for Libya would be actively assisting the rebels in removing Gaddafi and his regime.
PS. Though I do not have a major ethical objection to abortions carried out in the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy (because there is compelling evidence that the foetus is unconscious and cannot feel pain for at least the first 24 weeks), I would agree with you and Anthony about late-term abortions. However, I find it strange that you approve of the killings of Ronan Kerr and George Tiller, but you describe the execution of Saddam Hussein as murder. Surely if Saddam Hussein was murdered, then Ronan Kerr was too?
Alfie,
religion it seems is just pick and choose. None of them seem to adhere to 'Thou Shalt not kill.' They always find some get out clause.
Mackers
just watched the Easter parade on tv last night and the threats to everyone.....everyone not in the graveyard in Derry it seems.
Near loughed til i cried. Jim Carey couldn't have written that script. GAA PSNI SF RC church it was great listening. They may be all dodgy enough but these dissidents keep landing in jail. Hard to take it serious.
How thew hell did this thread end up on abortion again?
Physical force nationalism is over, your assertion that revolutionaries are social climbers with bombs has been proven here too many times already.Why give ones life to secure something for Cowan or Adams in the future. LUNACY.
AM,
‘Which is what I find abhorrent about it.’
So at agree that late-term abortions are no different to infanticide.
‘She later took her won life and I never got the chance to speak to her again which was upsetting for its own reasons.’
Sorry to hear that.
Alfie,
‘How far the Libyan intervention should go is another matter. I am inclined to think that the best outcome for Libya would be actively assisting the rebels in removing Gaddafi and his regime.’
What about Syria, do you want your allies to bomb them too? Or why not bomb the Jewish State to prevent its further holocaust of the Palestinian people? At least Gaddafi helped the Irish Nation in its time of need.
‘I would agree with you and Anthony about late-term abortions.’
I think any sane person must reject this. Obama not only supports this, but says that children born can be left to die. Maybe we should be bombing the USA!
‘Surely if Saddam Hussein was murdered, then Ronan Kerr was too?’
Saddam Hussein was murdered by a kangaroo court set up by a puppet state established and supervised by war criminals. Ronan Kerr was executed for being a member of a British paramilitary police force. No comparison.
John,
"What about Syria, do you want your allies to bomb them too?"
If the situation in Syria gets worse and the government there are killing thousands of civilians and threatening to raze cities, then then the West (or preferably the UN) ought to intervene if it can.
"Or why not bomb the Jewish State to prevent its further holocaust of the Palestinian people?"
I believe the UN should have intervened in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict long ago. Israel's brutal war on Gaza should have been stopped by force if necessary.
Re late-term abortions:
"Obama not only supports this, but says that children born can be left to die."
I'm not a big fan of Obama, but my understanding is that, like Anthony, he only supports late-term abortions where the physical health of the mother is seriously at risk. When he was a state senator in Illinois, he opposed so-called "born alive" legislation, which would have extended the law's protection to any aborted foetus that shows any sign of life, even if doctors are certain that it cannot survive. Obama stated that he would have supported legislation if it were framed in a way that did not pose a threat to abortion rights granted by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. In any event, one could argue that protection already existed for viable foetuses in Illinois law, for it has long stated that if an abortion is performed when the foetus is deemed to be viable, the doctor must:
1)Choose the method of abortion least likely to harm the foetus.
2)Have in attendance a second doctor who can immediately take over care of the child if it's born alive.
3)Use every available means to keep any born-alive child living and healthy.
Source: Factcheck.org
Nevertheless, I find late-term abortions of viable foetuses immoral. There would have to be a serious physical risk to the mother's life for me to condone one; even then, I think every effort must be made to save the foetus.
"Saddam Hussein was murdered by a kangaroo court set up by a puppet state established and supervised by war criminals. Ronan Kerr was executed for being a member of a British paramilitary police force. No comparison."
Firstly, that "puppet state" is immeasurably more democratic and representative than Saddam's brutal regime, though I think hanging him was wrong. Secondly, Ronan Kerr and the police force of which he was a member have far more support amongst the nationalist and republican communities in the North than your "allies". But you don't care for such profane notions as democracy, do you?
Alfie,
‘If the situation in Syria gets worse and the government there are killing thousands of civilians and threatening to raze cities, then then the West (or preferably the UN) ought to intervene if it can.’
Do you remember Saddam’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’? Do you remember when St Patrick’s day was brought forward a week, so as to bomb Iraq on schedule? Why do you believe reports from a few self-interested nations about Libya, when Russian satellites contradict their lies?
http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2011/03/libya-war-us-invading-libya-for-oil.html
‘I believe the UN should have intervened in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict long ago. Israel's brutal war on Gaza should have been stopped by force if necessary.’
But of course that will never happen, ‘Israel’ is not bound by international laws.
I’m with Louis Farrakhan on this one. Listen to the same link and he exposes the lies about Gadhafi and the real intentions of those in their illegal military exploits.
Gadhafi is not an enemy of Ireland, unlike some of those opposing him. I will never understand Irishmen (and women, for my pc friends) who want to pursue wars against small nations abroad and think it wrong to fight for their own freedom. (Oh, I forgot, we are free here, so says MH.) Victory to the oppressed nations, victory for a free Ireland, victory to Gadhafi!
John,
"Do you remember Saddam’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’?"
Of course, but there are independent news organisations and journalists on the ground in Libya who have seen and documented the carnage. Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn are against the intervention, but they do not deny the brutality Gaddafi has visited on his own people.
"Do you remember when St Patrick’s day was brought forward a week, so as to bomb Iraq on schedule?"
Unfortunately, I was ill at the time, so I don't remember anything about that. A Google search revealed nothing - could you tell me more?
"Why do you believe reports from a few self-interested nations about Libya, when Russian satellites contradict their lies?"
I believe respected, independent newspapers like The Guardian and The Irish Times rather than a UFO website and a discredited Russian news station that provide no evidence whatsoever to support their claims. I mean, Russia Today is a pro-Kremlin version of Fox News.
"I’m with Louis Farrakhan on this one."
You're siding with a rabidly anti-Semitic, egotistical loon. Then again, you are defending Gaddafi...
"Gadhafi is not an enemy of Ireland, unlike some of those opposing him."
But he is undoubtedly a brutal enemy of the people of Libya.
"I will never understand Irishmen (and women, for my pc friends) who want to pursue wars against small nations abroad and think it wrong to fight for their own freedom."
What does the term 'Irish freedom' mean for you, John? Is it the ability of the people to make their own decisions or is it forcing another war on this country regardless of the people's wishes? I don't think you'll ever be happy until the Irish people are doing what they're told by your "allies".
Alfie,
‘… there are independent news organisations and journalists on the ground in Libya who have seen and documented the carnage.’
But the anti-Libyan forces are stirred up and controlled by the CIA. Why pick on Libya with all the hundreds of similar cases? If you want to see a country that is even worse, look to ‘Israel’ where European Jews are wiping out an indigenous population, in breach of all law.
"Do you remember when St Patrick’s day was brought forward a week, so as to bomb Iraq on schedule?"
‘Unfortunately, I was ill at the time, so I don't remember anything about that. A Google search revealed nothing - could you tell me more?’
The treacherous cabal, of Adams and McGuinness and co, were feted in New York a week early to enable the US to bomb Iraq on schedule.
"I’m with Louis Farrakhan on this one."
You're siding with a rabidly anti-Semitic, egotistical loon. Then again, you are defending Gaddafi...'
Yes. So you don’t like Farrakhan. But I hope you listened to him. Not sure of the relevance of him being supposedly ‘anti-Semitic’? Either what he is saying is true or false. I prefer to go by what is said, rather than attack the person saying it.
‘What does the term 'Irish freedom' mean for you, John?’
See Terence MacSwiney’s ‘Principles of Freedom’ where the first chapter answers this. It is very short and and very important.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13132/13132-h/13132-h.htm
John,
"But the anti-Libyan forces are stirred up and controlled by the CIA."
The rebels are not anti-Libya; they are anti-Gaddafi. From what I've seen, heard and read of them, they were inspired by the recent revolutions in other Arab countries and decided to rise up against the repressive, antidemocratic regime in their own country. I don't think the rebels needed any stirring up from the CIA, nor have I seen evidence that this took place, though the US may now be supplying them with weapons. But wasn't Gaddafi claiming a few weeks ago that the rebels were actually foreign Al-Qaeda fighters and local youths high on hallucinogenic drugs?
Human Rights Watch has documented the use of cluster bombs in Misrata by Gaddafi's forces. Perhaps over a thousand civilians were killed by his brutal counterinsurgency and I am certain that if the West had not acted before his forces reached Benghazi, Gaddafi would have killed thousands more.
"Why pick on Libya with all the hundreds of similar cases? If you want to see a country that is even worse, look to ‘Israel’ where European Jews are wiping out an indigenous population, in breach of all law."
If there are worse situations in other countries - including Israel/Palestine - where mass slaughter of civilians is taking place or is imminent, then I think the UN should intervene if it can.
"So you don’t like Farrakhan. ... I prefer to go by what is said, rather than attack the person saying it."
Indeed, you are right; I shouldn't have insulted Farrakhan. It's just that a lot of what he says seems crazy to me. His remarks on Libya contained a lot of rhetoric, but little in the way of facts to back it up. It is true that Gaddafi has invested some of the oil revenues back into Libya, but much of the country, especially the east, remains impoverished. It must also be said that Gaddafi used a significant proportion of these revenues to enrich himself and his family. More importantly though, Gaddafi established a corrupt, repressive dictatorship in Libya. His security forces arrest, torture and sometimes assassinate dissidents. So the people of Libya have good reasons to be "dissatisfied".
"See Terence MacSwiney’s ‘Principles of Freedom’ where the first chapter answers this. It is very short and and very important."
OK, I will read it.
John,
the same thing was said about Solidarity, that it was winded up by the CIA. I am always wary about that type of explanation. It fails to explain the deep indigenous dissatisfaction that exists towards the regimes that govern them.
Alfie
‘What do you think of the intervention in Libya?’
I instinctively distrust all Western military interventions. If they intervened because their own people demanded that they do so - against what they (Western governments) wanted - to protect civilians rather than interests I could go along with it. But they tend to intervene in spite of the wishes of their own people who suspect they are really only about going to war and little else. Who really believes the US is interested in promoting human rights? When they all failed to intervene in Rwanda I simply refused to buy into humanitarian military interventionism. But the issues pertaining to it are more complex than much of the discussion allows for. In principle the major powers should be forced to intervene in spite of themselves by their own people as an act of international solidarity with those on whose behalf the intervention would be made. But when is that ever going to happen?
Larry,
Saw it and thought it resembled a caricature. While totally at odds with the case I have heard it presented much better. I feel sad that some young person could be motivated into losing their life or take somebody else's over that. And yet we were all there.
‘Physical force nationalism is over.’
I wish it were true. I think there will always be a self replicating strain. But that doesn’t amount to republicanism having a future.
Anthony,
But don't you think that Gaddafi had to be stopped from razing Benghazi and killing more civilians even if the motives of those Western governments who would be stopping him were selfish?
Alfie,
we live in a world where good motives alone seldom get things done.
Gadaffi attacks on civilians should have been stopped. And if the only way to prevent them is Western intervention then so be it. This type of argument was made by Fred Halliday and his obit on TPQ was the subject of some discussion. But who should protect the civilians from the attacks from Western interventionism? We know for certain that regime change figures in the interventionists' considerations and once the new regime does what the one replaced did there will be no intervention.
The consequence of an all out anti-interventionist stance is Rwanda.
Alfie
‘If the situation in Syria gets worse and the government there are
killing thousands of civilians and threatening to raze cities, then
then the West (or preferably the UN) ought to intervene if it can.’
But the UN is the West. And the five big Powers never make decisions that are not political and are humanitarian.
‘I believe the UN should have intervened in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict long ago. Israel's brutal war on Gaza should have been stopped by force if necessary.’
I have felt this myself. But we know it will not happen.
The issue in my mind is that if human rights are to be universally protected how could such a position be reached? If one man is imprisoned unjustly in some far off place should the west bomb it? At present I think intervention is supposed to be used to stop genocide not to implement regime change or impose solutions to problems of internal strife.
John,
‘What about Syria, do you want your allies to bomb them too?’
They are hardly any more the friends of Alfie than George Weigel is your friend. Yet you cite him approvingly. He is a theologian of war against other nations.
‘ At least Gaddafi helped the Irish Nation in its time of need.’
He didn’t. He helped the IRA. And of course when it suited him he didn’t. Hitler helped the ‘Irish nation’ in that sense. Didn’t make him any less repressive
‘Saddam Hussein was murdered by a kangaroo court set up by a puppet state established and supervised by war criminals. Ronan Kerr was executed for being a member of a British paramilitary police force. No comparison.’
In terms of culpability for repression there is no comparison between Ronan Kerr and Saddam Hussein. The latter was a big time major league war criminal. I didn’t agree with his execution but that is besides the point.
Alfie
‘I just go with what makes sense to me. Atheism does, Christianity doesn't.’
Nor any other religion for that matter. I would believe in god immediately if there was a god to believe in. Just makes no sense to me. And while atheism doesn’t give us the answers to everything it does not have to explain the ridiculous.
John McGirr,
"Gadhafi is not an enemy of Ireland, unlike some of those opposing him."
There are echos of the arab proverb, `the enemy of my enemy is my friend' in much of your debate with Alfie. The problem with your enemy's enemy is that he is a recognised despot and international pariah. That he is not, in your opinion, an enemy of Ireland is hardly a basis upon which the tyrannical nature of his regime in Libya can be justified or should be supported by people here. Indeed as I recall there were three Irish nationals killed at Lockerbie.
"I’m with Louis Farrakhan on this one."
Not the sort of admission one should be making in public John!
What's your opinion on the UFO, `The Wheel' that was to appear last month according to his predictions?
John
‘So at agree that late-term abortions are no different to infanticide.’
I don’t think we agree on that at all. Where it is a perfectly healthy normal baby yes. But how often would that happen? How do you feel about the two unborn who were killed at Omagh? Is that infanticide?
‘Sorry to hear that.’
She was strange John with very fixed views but I really liked her. She made her decision and I wish it had been otherwise.
Robert,
'The problem with your enemy's enemy is that he is a recognised despot and international pariah.'
But those who recognise him as such are no better. Of course if they go into the rogue nuclear state of Israel then their moral justification would increase.
"I’m with Louis Farrakhan on this one."
'Not the sort of admission one should be making in public John!'
I'd better not tell you that I agree with much of what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says too, (I suppose I shall soon be accused of being pro-Islamic).
'What's your opinion on the UFO, `The Wheel' that was to appear last month according to his predictions?'
I didn't hear about that one, I shall google it, and learn more!
John McGirr,
"But those who recognise him as such are no better"
Propaganda aside, anyone with a television or access to the internet can arrive at an independent judgement on the Gadaffi regime and it is not good. The despotic recognition is global rather than purely governmental.
"I'd better not tell you that I agree with much of what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says too"
This reinforces my belief that your world view is guided on the principle that, as pointed out previously, your enemy's enemy is your friend. Accordingly I could hazard a guess that you view Mugabe as a stand up guy also.
"I suppose I shall soon be accused of being pro-Islamic)."
Why should this be a problem?
John & Alfie,
Thought you might find this from Ed Moloney interesting:
Gaddafi’s surrender in 2004 to George W Bush’s demand that he dismantle his ‘weapons of mass destruction’, as overt a genuflection towards Washington as it was possible to make.
The other act, which happened years before, is less well known. When the IRA (http://thebrokenelbow.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/semtex1.jpg&h=311) made the arrangements for the arms shipments of the 1980’s, Joe Cahill, who had been chief of staff when the relationship with Gaddafi began, accepted a Libyan insistence that the real identities of the IRA personnel involved in the operation, from leaders like ‘Slab’ Murphy and Micky McKevitt through to the foot soldiers who had been sent to Libya to train in the weaponry, be recorded by the Libyans. Each man was obliged to fill out a form detailing exactly who they were which was then handed over to Libya intelligence. When Gaddafi began to repair relations with Britain in the early to mid 1990’s he handed over those details to MI6 along with the manifest of weapons shipped from his armories, a concession that facilitated the demand during the peace process that the IRA decommission its weapons. Muammar did the dirt on his old mates, in other words, to save his skin.
Post a Comment