Why have the RIRA and the 32csm not gained significant support since their inception?

[tireoghan]

Why has the RIRA military campaign been largely ineffective since the groups inception; not only in failed strikes but in recruitment terms?
Why have THE 32csm not gainned significant support throughout Ireland and particularly within the occupied six counties since their emergence?

I have posted a similar thread on the RSF section.I would genuinely like to know the thoughts on this from those inside the movement and what they think could be done to change that.
Id appreciate no unconstructive jibes from other groups when discussing this if at all possible.

[Carlos McJackle]

i dont really think the rira may deem it prudent to discuss on this site how they intend to refine their military capacity , honestly . If they do they do , if they dont they dont . If your really that interested apply to join them .

[Newry Republican]

Why has the RIRA military campaign been largely ineffective since the groups inception; not only in failed strikes but in recruitment terms?
Why have THE 32csm not gainned significant support throughout Ireland and particularly within the occupied six counties since their emergence?

I have posted a similar thread on the RSF section.I would genuinely like to know the thoughts on this from those inside the movement and what they think could be done to change that.
Id appreciate no unconstructive jibes from other groups when discussing this if at all possible.

Why do you not start just one thread on the main discussion forum entitled "Why have the RIRA, 32csm, RSF, CIRA not gained significant support"

(By the way they have gained more support in recent times than they ever had)

[tireoghan]

i dont really think the rira may deem it prudent to discuss on this site how they intend to refine their military capacity , honestly . If they do they do , if they dont they dont . If your really that interested apply to join them .

I obviously did not ask in relation to military strategy; what I was getting at was PR; thought the history of the IRA and indeed the IRB public relations played a major role in garnering support from the population...this is more the line I was going.

I wouldnt join the RIRA as I dont think there is anything to be gainned at the minute from a low-level offensive.


Why do you not start just one thread on the main discussion forum entitled "Why have the RIRA, 32csm, RSF, CIRA not gained significant support"

(By the way they have gained more support in recent times than they ever had)

I didnt start a thread on the main discussion forum for two reasons;

1/ I didnt want the threads turned into a squabbling match between pro and anti GFA er's; I thought if I keep to the involved groups own section there might be less chance of that. I wanted to get the opinions of those involved in RSF and the 32csm.

2/ Secondly I dont think it would be fair to lump the RSF and the 32csm movement in together as there could very well be different reasons why the two groups believe they have not garnered significant support.

[Foyleview]

[QUOTE=Carlos McJackle;99317]i dont really think the rira may deem it prudent to discuss on this site how they intend to refine their military capacity .
:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_laugh::icon_laugh::icon_ lol::icon_lol: Nearly fell of my chair....

[Foyleview]

lets be fair they have only had twenty four years..

[tireoghan]

lets be fair they have only had twenty four years..

Thats constructive. I dont know why people reply if its only gonna be silly jibes. Thats sort of reply will only start off a real slagging match. If you havent a constructive contribution to make dont contribute.

[Foyleview]

Thats constructive. I dont know why people reply if its only gonna be silly jibes. Thats sort of reply will only start off a real slagging match. If you havent a constructive contribution to make dont contribute.

looking for a m. o. d. s job ? did n t think there was a vacency. SUCH A NICE GUY THOUGH...
in 1986 r o b walked out in a huff whenever he did nt get his own way. since then they have failed to build a significant organisation or garner public support. my comment may have been short and to sensitive individuals may have struck a cord but it was on topic and relevant.

don t worry though i m sure there s an equal amount in the reverse comming down the line directed at me. i do take my fair share incase you did not notice.

[tireoghan]

looking for a m. o. d. s job ? did n t think there was a vacency. SUCH A NICE GUY THOUGH...in 1986 r o b walked out in a huff whenever he did nt get his own way. since then they have failed to build a significant organisation or garner public support. my comment may have been short and to sensitive individuals may have struck a cord but it was on topic and relevant.

don t worry though i m sure there s an equal amount in the reverse comming down the line directed at me. i do take my fair share incase you did not notice.

What does this sentence mean?

I know the circumstance around the 1986 split and recognise that they have failed to build significant support - it was me who outlined that. In my opinion your comment wasnt really constructive and didnt answer the question posed; its not about sensitivity its about proper reasoned debate.
The last thing that I want was a squabbling match on ere; I know you take yer fair share but you give it too; so when you give you have to be prepared to take.

But back on topic.

[Foyleview]

[QUOTE=tireoghan;99423]What does this sentence mean?

it means
Are you looking for a moderators job ? i was not aware there was a vacency.
You are a nice guy though.

[CMe]

Why have the RIRA and 32 not gained significant support?

First, the obvious, which cannot and should not be discounted in terms of the emotional impact it had on Republicanism.

Omagh.

Omagh had a profound impact on the future of Republicanism. It decimated Republicans at the time much as it did the town, in terms of giving an awful knock. It made people, who were leaning towards perhaps supporting if not overtly, at least tacitly, the emerging dissident campaign, completely back off. The repercussions from this lasted for years. It was a spectacular own goal that came at a great cost.

Omagh had more of an impact in that it was immediately used as an emotional tug; people who questioned mainstream Republicanism were tagged straight away as 'Omagh bombers', which isolated the political thought further. The thinking was you either supported SF or you wanted more Omaghs, which of course was not true but packed an emotional punch.

There are many conspiracy theories about Omagh but the end result is that it did more to damage 'dissident' republicanism, it effectively hobbled any serious threat from it at the start. It was a gift to the British, and to SF, who were both at the time sharing a strategy to keeping the Republican Movement united in order to push through their peace strategy.

Another factor contributing to a lack of support: the concentrated effort by the Irish and British, and the US government, to effectively intern potential leaders of a dissident effort, most specifically the Rupert agenda which put Michael McKevitt behind bars on what is arguably spurious charges. The fact that he for all intents and purposes has been made into the public face of Omagh shows how strong the campaign of demonisation was/is, given how little outside or even Republican support he has received to date. Omagh made him a pariah, and that allowed the governments to lock him up and throw away the key, which suited them as they saw him as dangerous to the Adams project.

As well, the prison conveyor belt, which is a government strategy, that sucks up many of the younger and willingly active members, effectively takes them off the streets so their input is mooted. This actively hinders growth.

The murder of Joe O'Connor and the campaign of intimidation was/is also a factor in lack of support for the dissidents that cannot be discounted. Since the signing of the GFA, many republicans who questioned the SF direction had been threatened, attacked and intimidated, most especially so in the early days of the agreement. This sent a powerful, powerful message to the grassroots: stay away or this is for you, too. It contributed to and created a climate of fear within republican communities. This made people afraid to speak out lest they be treated the same. A campaign of ostracisation within the close-knit communities was also in operation, where people who openly questioned the movement, despite their history in the movement, were socially isolated, and anyone who associated with them were tainted with the same brush.

The splits within the dissident camp did not help attract anyone to their cause or move their cause forward. With the Campbell/McKevitt split it was seen by the outside as a pull between crime and intellect. Whether that was true or not, the perception did not help. The rumours of criminal connections that the dissidents had were effective in keeping people away.

Operating against this sort of backdrop, without any strikingly charismatic leadership, meant that the dissident campaigns were hobbled from the start. In addition, another weakness was the fact that they were compromised, both by the state and by the Provisional IRA, who continue to keep a close watch on these groups and have "double agents" working with or in them. So the dissident groups were starting from a weak position, with a weakened team of people who were working at cross purposes, some for the Republic, some for the Provos, and some for the Brits.

Combine this also with the wider sentiment which was not broadly supportive of an armed campaign anymore, and who saw it as pointless, they were not in the best position to attract support.

In addition, the 32 was never seriously taken, at least after Omagh, as a political force. The UN Submission argument, while it had its merits, in isolation as it was being flogged, was not enough to hang a political campaign on, or to present as a solid alternative to the peace process, which at the time was an unstoppable engine. Other political positions put forth by the 32 have been too dense for consumption, and end up being seen as a fig leaf for the "real" reason for the 32. Unfortunately, the dual-approach is more negative than positive, and undermines credibility for the political side. Either be a military group or don't, but riding the two horses ultimately creates problems for the political group, as it makes it look like a front instead of a serious political player.

The idea of trying to re-run rhetoric from the 70s in today's changed context also is unattractive and should be knocked in the head if there is any hope of attracting anyone to a future project. The dissidents, rightly or wrongly, are seen as stuck in a time-warp and people don't want to go back to the 70s when the vision of the future they have is much brighter.

So in conclusion, you have a combination of factors that have contributed to why the Real and 32 have not gained significant support over the years.

If the dissident argument is to gain any ground in the future, they will need to address the context of today. They are gaining public sentiment on their side as people are feed up with the ineptitude of SF and expect more delivery on the promises that were made. However for dissidents to take advantage of this means that they have to cross the rubicon of "reformism". In addition, they would be wise to put the armed struggle into cold storage, until, if ever, conditions dictate that it is needed. Focusing time and energy on a campaign that is going nowhere is a waste, especially when that time and energy could be better spent on devising and implementing a political strategy that has a chance of success.

And that's all for now.

[tireoghan]

[QUOTE=tireoghan;99423]What does this sentence mean?

it means
Are you looking for a moderators job ? i was not aware there was a vacency.
You are a nice guy though.

No foyle view I am not looking a moderators job; its one thing contributing to the forum but a whole other thing trying to sort out all the hanlans; wouldnt have the pateince for it (or the time). But I commend that lads that do a sterling job. Why would you think I was looking a job? I take it as complement though as Im sure it was intended.

[tireoghan]

Why have the RIRA and 32 not gained significant support?

First, the obvious, which cannot and should not be discounted in terms of the emotional impact it had on Republicanism.

Omagh.

Omagh had a profound impact on the future of Republicanism. It decimated Republicans at the time much as it did the town, in terms of giving an awful knock. It made people, who were leaning towards perhaps supporting if not overtly, at least tacitly, the emerging dissident campaign, completely back off. The repercussions from this lasted for years. It was a spectacular own goal that came at a great cost.

Omagh had more of an impact in that it was immediately used as an emotional tug; people who questioned mainstream Republicanism were tagged straight away as 'Omagh bombers', which isolated the political thought further. The thinking was you either supported SF or you wanted more Omaghs, which of course was not true but packed an emotional punch.

There are many conspiracy theories about Omagh but the end result is that it did more to damage 'dissident' republicanism, it effectively hobbled any serious threat from it at the start. It was a gift to the British, and to SF, who were both at the time sharing a strategy to keeping the Republican Movement united in order to push through their peace strategy.

Another factor contributing to a lack of support: the concentrated effort by the Irish and British, and the US government, to effectively intern potential leaders of a dissident effort, most specifically the Rupert agenda which put Michael McKevitt behind bars on what is arguably spurious charges. The fact that he for all intents and purposes has been made into the public face of Omagh shows how strong the campaign of demonisation was/is, given how little outside or even Republican support he has received to date. Omagh made him a pariah, and that allowed the governments to lock him up and throw away the key, which suited them as they saw him as dangerous to the Adams project.

As well, the prison conveyor belt, which is a government strategy, that sucks up many of the younger and willingly active members, effectively takes them off the streets so their input is mooted. This actively hinders growth.

The murder of Joe O'Connor and the campaign of intimidation was/is also a factor in lack of support for the dissidents that cannot be discounted. Since the signing of the GFA, many republicans who questioned the SF direction had been threatened, attacked and intimidated, most especially so in the early days of the agreement. This sent a powerful, powerful message to the grassroots: stay away or this is for you, too. It contributed to and created a climate of fear within republican communities. This made people afraid to speak out lest they be treated the same. A campaign of ostracisation within the close-knit communities was also in operation, where people who openly questioned the movement, despite their history in the movement, were socially isolated, and anyone who associated with them were tainted with the same brush.

The splits within the dissident camp did not help attract anyone to their cause or move their cause forward. With the Campbell/McKevitt split it was seen by the outside as a pull between crime and intellect. Whether that was true or not, the perception did not help. The rumours of criminal connections that the dissidents had were effective in keeping people away.

Operating against this sort of backdrop, without any strikingly charismatic leadership, meant that the dissident campaigns were hobbled from the start. In addition, another weakness was the fact that they were compromised, both by the state and by the Provisional IRA, who continue to keep a close watch on these groups and have "double agents" working with or in them. So the dissident groups were starting from a weak position, with a weakened team of people who were working at cross purposes, some for the Republic, some for the Provos, and some for the Brits.

Combine this also with the wider sentiment which was not broadly supportive of an armed campaign anymore, and who saw it as pointless, they were not in the best position to attract support.

In addition, the 32 was never seriously taken, at least after Omagh, as a political force. The UN Submission argument, while it had its merits, in isolation as it was being flogged, was not enough to hang a political campaign on, or to present as a solid alternative to the peace process, which at the time was an unstoppable engine. Other political positions put forth by the 32 have been too dense for consumption, and end up being seen as a fig leaf for the "real" reason for the 32. Unfortunately, the dual-approach is more negative than positive, and undermines credibility for the political side. Either be a military group or don't, but riding the two horses ultimately creates problems for the political group, as it makes it look like a front instead of a serious political player.

The idea of trying to re-run rhetoric from the 70s in today's changed context also is unattractive and should be knocked in the head if there is any hope of attracting anyone to a future project. The dissidents, rightly or wrongly, are seen as stuck in a time-warp and people don't want to go back to the 70s when the vision of the future they have is much brighter.

So in conclusion, you have a combination of factors that have contributed to why the Real and 32 have not gained significant support over the years.

If the dissident argument is to gain any ground in the future, they will need to address the context of today. They are gaining public sentiment on their side as people are feed up with the ineptitude of SF and expect more delivery on the promises that were made. However for dissidents to take advantage of this means that they have to cross the rubicon of "reformism". In addition, they would be wise to put the armed struggle into cold storage, until, if ever, conditions dictate that it is needed. Focusing time and energy on a campaign that is going nowhere is a waste, especially when that time and energy could be better spent on devising and implementing a political strategy that has a chance of success.

And that's all for now.


Good argument and well put maith thu

[Nijinsky]

[quote=Foyleview;99426]

No foyle view I am not looking a moderators job; its one thing contributing to the forum but a whole other thing trying to sort out all the hanlans; wouldnt have the pateince for it (or the time). But I commend that lads that do a sterling job. Why would you think I was looking a job? I take it as complement though as Im sure it was intended.


Pass no heed of him. He's not worth wasting any time over

[Comrade Ryan]

lets be fair they have only had twenty four years..

Again with the ill-informed post from the johnny-come-lately.

You have made this mistake before but obviously the embarrassment was not enough to prevent you from making it again.

There is a different between the CIRA & RSF - RIRA & 32CSM.

Please do take the time to learn this - its not very complicated.

The RIRA & 32CSM came about with the departure of a group in 1997 - hence not 24 years.

[Comrade Ryan]

Why have the RIRA and 32 not gained significant support?

First, the obvious, which cannot and should not be discounted in terms of the emotional impact it had on Republicanism.

Omagh.

Omagh had a profound impact on the future of Republicanism. It decimated Republicans at the time much as it did the town, in terms of giving an awful knock. It made people, who were leaning towards perhaps supporting if not overtly, at least tacitly, the emerging dissident campaign, completely back off. The repercussions from this lasted for years. It was a spectacular own goal that came at a great cost.

Omagh had more of an impact in that it was immediately used as an emotional tug; people who questioned mainstream Republicanism were tagged straight away as 'Omagh bombers', which isolated the political thought further. The thinking was you either supported SF or you wanted more Omaghs, which of course was not true but packed an emotional punch.

There are many conspiracy theories about Omagh but the end result is that it did more to damage 'dissident' republicanism, it effectively hobbled any serious threat from it at the start. It was a gift to the British, and to SF, who were both at the time sharing a strategy to keeping the Republican Movement united in order to push through their peace strategy.

Another factor contributing to a lack of support: the concentrated effort by the Irish and British, and the US government, to effectively intern potential leaders of a dissident effort, most specifically the Rupert agenda which put Michael McKevitt behind bars on what is arguably spurious charges. The fact that he for all intents and purposes has been made into the public face of Omagh shows how strong the campaign of demonisation was/is, given how little outside or even Republican support he has received to date. Omagh made him a pariah, and that allowed the governments to lock him up and throw away the key, which suited them as they saw him as dangerous to the Adams project.

As well, the prison conveyor belt, which is a government strategy, that sucks up many of the younger and willingly active members, effectively takes them off the streets so their input is mooted. This actively hinders growth.

The murder of Joe O'Connor and the campaign of intimidation was/is also a factor in lack of support for the dissidents that cannot be discounted. Since the signing of the GFA, many republicans who questioned the SF direction had been threatened, attacked and intimidated, most especially so in the early days of the agreement. This sent a powerful, powerful message to the grassroots: stay away or this is for you, too. It contributed to and created a climate of fear within republican communities. This made people afraid to speak out lest they be treated the same. A campaign of ostracisation within the close-knit communities was also in operation, where people who openly questioned the movement, despite their history in the movement, were socially isolated, and anyone who associated with them were tainted with the same brush.

The splits within the dissident camp did not help attract anyone to their cause or move their cause forward. With the Campbell/McKevitt split it was seen by the outside as a pull between crime and intellect. Whether that was true or not, the perception did not help. The rumours of criminal connections that the dissidents had were effective in keeping people away.

Operating against this sort of backdrop, without any strikingly charismatic leadership, meant that the dissident campaigns were hobbled from the start. In addition, another weakness was the fact that they were compromised, both by the state and by the Provisional IRA, who continue to keep a close watch on these groups and have "double agents" working with or in them. So the dissident groups were starting from a weak position, with a weakened team of people who were working at cross purposes, some for the Republic, some for the Provos, and some for the Brits.

Combine this also with the wider sentiment which was not broadly supportive of an armed campaign anymore, and who saw it as pointless, they were not in the best position to attract support.

In addition, the 32 was never seriously taken, at least after Omagh, as a political force. The UN Submission argument, while it had its merits, in isolation as it was being flogged, was not enough to hang a political campaign on, or to present as a solid alternative to the peace process, which at the time was an unstoppable engine. Other political positions put forth by the 32 have been too dense for consumption, and end up being seen as a fig leaf for the "real" reason for the 32. Unfortunately, the dual-approach is more negative than positive, and undermines credibility for the political side. Either be a military group or don't, but riding the two horses ultimately creates problems for the political group, as it makes it look like a front instead of a serious political player.

The idea of trying to re-run rhetoric from the 70s in today's changed context also is unattractive and should be knocked in the head if there is any hope of attracting anyone to a future project. The dissidents, rightly or wrongly, are seen as stuck in a time-warp and people don't want to go back to the 70s when the vision of the future they have is much brighter.

So in conclusion, you have a combination of factors that have contributed to why the Real and 32 have not gained significant support over the years.

If the dissident argument is to gain any ground in the future, they will need to address the context of today. They are gaining public sentiment on their side as people are feed up with the ineptitude of SF and expect more delivery on the promises that were made. However for dissidents to take advantage of this means that they have to cross the rubicon of "reformism". In addition, they would be wise to put the armed struggle into cold storage, until, if ever, conditions dictate that it is needed. Focusing time and energy on a campaign that is going nowhere is a waste, especially when that time and energy could be better spent on devising and implementing a political strategy that has a chance of success.

And that's all for now.

Great summation. You are a very welcome addition here.

[Liam Lynch]

Why have THE 32csm not gainned significant support throughout Ireland and particularly within the occupied six counties since their emergence?

Another poster gave a detailed post concerning their beliefs as to why, some technically correct some politically off the mark. No doubt Omagh was a defining catalyst which allowed both governments, particularly the Irish government, to ignore the core message of the 32CSM and to treat anti GFA sentiments as a security issue. It also allowed PSF to hasten its acceptance of terms it instinctively knew were diametrically opposed to what it was supposed to represent. But I think that the fact that the 32CSM has come through all of that and is growing on the otherside of it testifies to the veracity of our analysis.

The 32CSM from the outset defined the conflict in modern terms and set in train a modern challenge to the political dispensation which was developing. We met that development with a contemporary argument and augmented it with a contemporary, and evolving, political strategy based on engagement in the current context. We devised positions and strategies which sought to challenge the established status quo but also sought to challenge republicanism in general to seek a new dispensation for itself to bring it into the next century. This is ongoing.

It is clear as the peace process evolves that the alleged gains to be had for the separatist position are slowly but steadily ebbing away as the political and electoral reality dawns on even some of its most ardent supporters. All of that ebbing needs a political home relevant to a modern context and the 32CSM are providing that along the basic principle building that alternative on an inclusive and democratic basis. Our strategy documents reflect this as does the increased interest in them.

The argument as we have defined it cannot go away and even as the language of the peace process evolves out of the 'don't mention the war' phase and enters a more critical and inquiring form it also begins to ask the questions which the 32CSM sought to ask of both governments and the political parties who negotiated and signed the GFA. That's the reality of what we face and I believe the 32CSM are realistically facing it and securing support for doing so.

[boiler-1888]

Omagh, Put us back 10 years. If that horrible event hadn't happened then things would be alot different today.

[Foyleview]

[quote=Foyleview;99426]

No foyle view I am not looking a moderators job; its one thing contributing to the forum but a whole other thing trying to sort out all the hanlans; wouldnt have the pateince for it (or the time). But I commend that lads that do a sterling job. Why would you think I was looking a job? I take it as complement though as Im sure it was intended.


thanks it was.
i was just commenting because of you atempt to moderate my posts.

[Foyleview]

Omagh, Put us back 10 years. If that horrible event hadn't happened then things would be alot different today.

now is the lesson, not to engage in this type of activity ?

why dont you call for a totally peaceful type of engagement ?

I know i would have more time for your arguements.

[Comrade Ryan]

now is the lesson, not to engage in this type of activity ?

why dont you call for a totally peaceful type of engagement ?

I know i would have more time for your arguements.

Whose arguments?

Have you made the distinction between RSF & 32CSM & CIRA & RIRA yet?

[Foyleview]

Whose arguments?

Have you made the distinction between RSF & 32CSM & CIRA & RIRA yet?

well i thought we were talking about the arguements of the 32 against the g f a.

no

[Comrade Ryan]

well i thought we were talking about the arguements of the 32 against the g f a.

no

Well its just that when coming off with one of your trademark attempts at being smart, which only goes to demonstrate your ignorance, you said sure they've only had twenty four years.

Which demonstrates once again that you cannot distinguish between RSF and 32 CSM, which was only formed following a departure in 1997.

But i'm even giving you the benfit of the doubt here in saying that you probably meant RSF when referring to them 'only having had twenty four years' as they themselves have only had twenty two.

Take a bit of advice, before trying to pass yourself off as a long serving republican, do a bit of elementary background reading, it saves countless red-faces.

[Hessian Peel]

now is the lesson, not to engage in this type of activity ?

why dont you call for a totally peaceful type of engagement ?

I know i would have more time for your arguements.

As if any serious Republican gives a toss what you think.

[Carlos McJackle]

hes a troll , only here to drag every discussion down to a pathetic level . I dont even believe hes a sinn fein member or supporter , just someone taking the pish out of the site .

[Its Time]

I would blame the MI5 operation at omagh mainly, though I think the 32's have steadily been building momentum and can go nowhere else but up

[Foyleview]

Again with the ill-informed post from the johnny-come-lately.

You have made this mistake before but obviously the embarrassment was not enough to prevent you from making it again.

There is a different between the CIRA & RSF - RIRA & 32CSM.

Please do take the time to learn this - its not very complicated.

The RIRA & 32CSM came about with the departure of a group in 1997 - hence not 24 years.

11 years - 24 years---surely enough time if the there was any support at all for stratagy. cira and rira should disband and remove the threat of violence from irish towns and the irish people.

What s the difference in them anyway ?

[Foyleview]

As if any serious Republican gives a toss what you think.
obviously an expert on serious republicans ??
don t you think you opinion of yourself a tad over inflated ?

[Foyleview]

hes a troll , only here to drag every discussion down to a pathetic level . I dont even believe hes a sinn fein member or supporter , just someone taking the pish out of the site .


yea...try addressing my points instead of trying to get personal.

[tireoghan]

I would blame the MI5 operation at omagh mainly, though I think the 32's have steadily been building momentum and can go nowhere else but up

Omagh seems to be the central issue as to why the 32csm and the 'RIRA' have not achieved significant support; and I personally think it is an issue that has to be addressed by the movement. If Republicans in those organisations genuinely think that British intelligence were involved in any way at Omagh it is their responsiblity to investigate and expose any British agents and publically acknowledge so; otherwise it is simply a conspiracy theory. I think that Omagh is a stain on their reputation and one which will be very hard to remove; especially within Co Tyrone which is a crucially important County to gain support in for any future strategy.

[Carlos McJackle]

32 csm have called repeatedly over the years for a full independent cross border public enquiry into the Omagh case . There is no reason for any republican not to co-operate fully with such an enqury . That is the correct arena for the issue to be addressed . That is how republicans intend to address it . That is the only manner in which the issue can be addressed . It is not 32 csm who are preventing the issue from being addressed , far from it .

[belfast rep]

32 csm have called repeatedly over the years for a full independent cross border public enquiry into the Omagh case . There is no reason for any republican not to co-operate fully with such an enqury . That is the correct arena for the issue to be addressed . That is how republicans intend to address it . That is the only manner in which the issue can be addressed . It is not 32 csm who are preventing the issue from being addressed , far from it .

thats a fair point

[tireoghan]

32 csm have called repeatedly over the years for a full independent cross border public enquiry into the Omagh case . There is no reason for any republican not to co-operate fully with such an enqury . That is the correct arena for the issue to be addressed . That is how republicans intend to address it . That is the only manner in which the issue can be addressed . It is not 32 csm who are preventing the issue from being addressed , far from it .

Out of interest I wonder would the 32CSM co-operate with a Cross-Border inquiry; what would the terms of reference of such an inquiry need to be (ie independance, neutrality etc) in order for them to participate?
I still think that the 32csm (rightly or wrongly) is tainted by the bombing of Omagh and the ongoing talk of British involvment in the bombing; if any such knowledge of these circumstances is known by either the 32csm or the RIRA it is imperative to their future development that the truth comes out.

[Carlos McJackle]

[QUOTE]Out of interest I wonder would the 32CSM co-operate with a Cross-Border inquiry;

we wouldnt call for one for 7 years now if were not prepared to co-operate

what would the terms of reference of such an inquiry need to be (ie independance, neutrality etc) in order for them to participate?

fully independent

I still think that the 32csm (rightly or wrongly) is tainted by the bombing of Omagh and the ongoing talk of British involvment in the bombing; if any such knowledge of these circumstances is known by either the 32csm or the RIRA it is imperative to their future development that the truth comes out.

which makes it all the more probable that those who wish to prevent the truth from coming out will act to prevent such an enquiry . Who is preventing it ?

[Comrade Ryan]

11 years - 24 years---surely enough time if the there was any support at all for stratagy. cira and rira should disband and remove the threat of violence from irish towns and the irish people.

What s the difference in them anyway ?

Oh yeah, one org, two orgs, 11 years, 24 years, 13 years difference, when really its only 11 years difference, sure who cares about facts.

Don't try to put your lack of the most basic knowledge down to simply not caring.

You have proven yourself time and time again to be a troll.

Back under the bridge.

[kev86]

Oh yeah, one org, two orgs, 11 years, 24 years, 13 years difference, when really its only 11 years difference, sure who cares about facts.

Don't try to put your lack of the most basic knowledge down to simply not caring.

You have proven yourself time and time again to be a troll.

Back under the bridge.

:eusa_clap:

[ardonian]

I think our membership of the 32s would prove the title wrong.. Why have the RIRA and the 32csm not gainne significant support since their inception

[jamie9988]

gained more than CIRA and RSF maybe they should join forces or sumtin.

[Takeshi]

I just don't think it's possible for them to generate the kind of support they need for any worthwhile campaign. If you look at the Provos, their support didn't come from their own effort to generate support. It came from the pograms of '69 and the criminalization policies of the brits that lead to the hunger strikes. They were able to effectively harness the discontent of the people at these events, but they were not able to create them.

The problem facing the RIRA and CIRA is that there hasn't been a similar event that they could use as a reason for a renewed campaign. Things are quiet now, and most people are just getting on with their lives. The reality of continued british occupation is removed from their daily lives and they have no reason to do anything about it.

[tireoghan]

I just don't think it's possible for them to generate the kind of support they need for any worthwhile campaign. If you look at the Provos, their support didn't come from their own effort to generate support. It came from the pograms of '69 and the criminalization policies of the brits that lead to the hunger strikes. They were able to effectively harness the discontent of the people at these events, but they were not able to create them.

The problem facing the RIRA and CIRA is that there hasn't been a similar event that they could use as a reason for a renewed campaign. Things are quiet now, and most people are just getting on with their lives. The reality of continued british occupation is removed from their daily lives and they have no reason to do anything about it.

Except for the British Army trainning in rural areas of Tyrone and Fermanagh with low flying helicopters and camoflaged soldiers running through fields preparing for war in other countries...suppose some Irish people choose to ignore the fact the Brits use Ireland as a trainning ground for terrorism.

[kildare brigade]

gained more than CIRA and RSF maybe they should join forces or sumtin.

it would never work mo chara , 2 many differences between us.they should of joined us and walked out of leinster house

[boiler-1888]

it would never work mo chara , 2 many differences between us.they should of joined us and walked out of leinster house
Whats the major differences? I wasnt born in 86 so where does that leave me?

[MarkyMark]

I dont think blowing up 28 people in the majority nationalist town where their only elected representative was located did them much good

[boiler-1888]

Of course it did Omagh was a tragety but i believe British elements made it turn out the way it did.

[mozil]

while omagh was was a tragedy and wouldn't really support 32csm or the rira after what happened at omagh I do believe they did not intentially target civillian by phoning in the wrong location of the bomb:
Taken from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing

On August 13, the maroon Vauxhall Cavalier was stolen from Carrickmacross, County Monaghan in the Republic of Ireland. The perpetrators replaced its Republic of Ireland number plates with false Northern Ireland plates. On the day of the bombing, they parked the car filled with 500lbs of explosives outside a clothes shop on Omagh's Market Street. They could not find a parking space near the intended target, the Omagh courthouse. The car bomb detonated at about 3pm, in the crowded shopping area.

That morning, three phone calls had been placed warning of an attack in Omagh. At 14:32, a warning was telephoned to Ulster Television saying "There's a bomb, courthouse, Omagh, main street, 500lb, explosion 30 minutes." The office received a second warning saying "Bomb, Omagh town, 15 minutes" one minute later. The next minute, the Coleraine office of the Samaritans charity received a call stating that a bomb would go off on "main street" about 200 yards from the courthouse. The recipients passed on the information to the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).

BBC News stated that the police "were clearing an area near the local courthouse, 40 minutes after receiving a telephone warning, when the bomb detonated. But the warning was unclear and the wrong area was evacuated." The warnings mentioned "main street" when no "main street" existed in Omagh at that time. The nature of the warnings lead the police to move people over to the area where the bomb was actually placed. The courthouse is roughly 400 meters from the spot where the car armed with the explosive device was parked.
In a statement on the same day as the bombing, RUC Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan accused the RIRA of trying to deliberately direct civilians to the bombing site. British government prosecutor Gordon Kerr QC has called the warnings "not only wrong but... meaningless" and stated that the nature of the warnings made it inevitable that the evacuations would lead to the bomb site. The RIRA has strongly denied that they intended to target civilians. They have also stated that the warnings were not indended to lead people to the bombing site. During the 2003 Special Criminal Court trial of RIRA director Michael McKevitt, witnesses for the prosecution stated that the inaccurate warnings were accidental.

[Hoops1888]

I dont think blowing up 28 people in the majority nationalist town where their only elected representative was located did them much good

Mark how many catholics have the RIRA kidnapped, made them drive a bomb to an army barracks and then detonate it?

[Hoops1888]

while omagh was was a tragedy and wouldn't really support 32csm or the rira after what happened at omagh I do believe they did not intentially target civillian by phoning in the wrong location of the bomb:
Taken from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing

On August 13, the maroon Vauxhall Cavalier was stolen from Carrickmacross, County Monaghan in the Republic of Ireland. The perpetrators replaced its Republic of Ireland number plates with false Northern Ireland plates. On the day of the bombing, they parked the car filled with 500lbs of explosives outside a clothes shop on Omagh's Market Street. They could not find a parking space near the intended target, the Omagh courthouse. The car bomb detonated at about 3pm, in the crowded shopping area.

That morning, three phone calls had been placed warning of an attack in Omagh. At 14:32, a warning was telephoned to Ulster Television saying "There's a bomb, courthouse, Omagh, main street, 500lb, explosion 30 minutes." The office received a second warning saying "Bomb, Omagh town, 15 minutes" one minute later. The next minute, the Coleraine office of the Samaritans charity received a call stating that a bomb would go off on "main street" about 200 yards from the courthouse. The recipients passed on the information to the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).

BBC News stated that the police "were clearing an area near the local courthouse, 40 minutes after receiving a telephone warning, when the bomb detonated. But the warning was unclear and the wrong area was evacuated." The warnings mentioned "main street" when no "main street" existed in Omagh at that time. The nature of the warnings lead the police to move people over to the area where the bomb was actually placed. The courthouse is roughly 400 meters from the spot where the car armed with the explosive device was parked.
In a statement on the same day as the bombing, RUC Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan accused the RIRA of trying to deliberately direct civilians to the bombing site. British government prosecutor Gordon Kerr QC has called the warnings "not only wrong but... meaningless" and stated that the nature of the warnings made it inevitable that the evacuations would lead to the bomb site. The RIRA has strongly denied that they intended to target civilians. They have also stated that the warnings were not indended to lead people to the bombing site. During the 2003 Special Criminal Court trial of RIRA director Michael McKevitt, witnesses for the prosecution stated that the inaccurate warnings were accidental.


Mozil I can asure you that Wiki isn't always correct.

Anyways while we're on the subject (Omagh bombing) can anyone confirm this for me it was over 10 years so the memory isn't the best.

The RIRA planted the car bomb, gave a warning then rang back up as stated above my question is when the bomb first went off did the RUC say that only one warning was given straight after the bomb went off?

[kildare brigade]

the RIRA gave warnings but they wernt reported this was the RUC idea 2 take support away from them and it worked set them back 10 years its the same sick trick they pulled on bloody friday

[Hoops1888]

No I don't mean it like that.

Did the RUC say after the Omagh bomb that a warning was given but they drove the people towards the bomb. But then it came out awhile later that the RIRA noticed they were putting the people towards the bomb so they then rang up to tell them as stated they rang three or four times, but this never came out till awhile later is that right? If it makes sense.

[kildare brigade]

No I don't mean it like that.

Did the RUC say after the Omagh bomb that a warning was given but they drove the people towards the bomb. But then it came out awhile later that the RIRA noticed they were putting the people towards the bomb so they then rang up to tell them as stated they rang three or four times, but this never came out till awhile later is that right? If it makes sense.

not 2 sure i was told the RUC drove the people towards the bomb

[Eilish]

Why have the RIRA and 32 not gained significant support?

First, the obvious, which cannot and should not be discounted in terms of the emotional impact it had on Republicanism.

Omagh.

Omagh had a profound impact on the future of Republicanism. It decimated Republicans at the time much as it did the town, in terms of giving an awful knock. It made people, who were leaning towards perhaps supporting if not overtly, at least tacitly, the emerging dissident campaign, completely back off. The repercussions from this lasted for years. It was a spectacular own goal that came at a great cost.

Omagh had more of an impact in that it was immediately used as an emotional tug; people who questioned mainstream Republicanism were tagged straight away as 'Omagh bombers', which isolated the political thought further. The thinking was you either supported SF or you wanted more Omaghs, which of course was not true but packed an emotional punch.

There are many conspiracy theories about Omagh but the end result is that it did more to damage 'dissident' republicanism, it effectively hobbled any serious threat from it at the start. It was a gift to the British, and to SF, who were both at the time sharing a strategy to keeping the Republican Movement united in order to push through their peace strategy.

Another factor contributing to a lack of support: the concentrated effort by the Irish and British, and the US government, to effectively intern potential leaders of a dissident effort, most specifically the Rupert agenda which put Michael McKevitt behind bars on what is arguably spurious charges. The fact that he for all intents and purposes has been made into the public face of Omagh shows how strong the campaign of demonisation was/is, given how little outside or even Republican support he has received to date. Omagh made him a pariah, and that allowed the governments to lock him up and throw away the key, which suited them as they saw him as dangerous to the Adams project.

As well, the prison conveyor belt, which is a government strategy, that sucks up many of the younger and willingly active members, effectively takes them off the streets so their input is mooted. This actively hinders growth.

The murder of Joe O'Connor and the campaign of intimidation was/is also a factor in lack of support for the dissidents that cannot be discounted. Since the signing of the GFA, many republicans who questioned the SF direction had been threatened, attacked and intimidated, most especially so in the early days of the agreement. This sent a powerful, powerful message to the grassroots: stay away or this is for you, too. It contributed to and created a climate of fear within republican communities. This made people afraid to speak out lest they be treated the same. A campaign of ostracisation within the close-knit communities was also in operation, where people who openly questioned the movement, despite their history in the movement, were socially isolated, and anyone who associated with them were tainted with the same brush.

The splits within the dissident camp did not help attract anyone to their cause or move their cause forward. With the Campbell/McKevitt split it was seen by the outside as a pull between crime and intellect. Whether that was true or not, the perception did not help. The rumours of criminal connections that the dissidents had were effective in keeping people away.

Operating against this sort of backdrop, without any strikingly charismatic leadership, meant that the dissident campaigns were hobbled from the start. In addition, another weakness was the fact that they were compromised, both by the state and by the Provisional IRA, who continue to keep a close watch on these groups and have "double agents" working with or in them. So the dissident groups were starting from a weak position, with a weakened team of people who were working at cross purposes, some for the Republic, some for the Provos, and some for the Brits.

Combine this also with the wider sentiment which was not broadly supportive of an armed campaign anymore, and who saw it as pointless, they were not in the best position to attract support.

In addition, the 32 was never seriously taken, at least after Omagh, as a political force. The UN Submission argument, while it had its merits, in isolation as it was being flogged, was not enough to hang a political campaign on, or to present as a solid alternative to the peace process, which at the time was an unstoppable engine. Other political positions put forth by the 32 have been too dense for consumption, and end up being seen as a fig leaf for the "real" reason for the 32. Unfortunately, the dual-approach is more negative than positive, and undermines credibility for the political side. Either be a military group or don't, but riding the two horses ultimately creates problems for the political group, as it makes it look like a front instead of a serious political player.

The idea of trying to re-run rhetoric from the 70s in today's changed context also is unattractive and should be knocked in the head if there is any hope of attracting anyone to a future project. The dissidents, rightly or wrongly, are seen as stuck in a time-warp and people don't want to go back to the 70s when the vision of the future they have is much brighter.

So in conclusion, you have a combination of factors that have contributed to why the Real and 32 have not gained significant support over the years.

If the dissident argument is to gain any ground in the future, they will need to address the context of today. They are gaining public sentiment on their side as people are feed up with the ineptitude of SF and expect more delivery on the promises that were made. However for dissidents to take advantage of this means that they have to cross the rubicon of "reformism". In addition, they would be wise to put the armed struggle into cold storage, until, if ever, conditions dictate that it is needed. Focusing time and energy on a campaign that is going nowhere is a waste, especially when that time and energy could be better spent on devising and implementing a political strategy that has a chance of success.

And that's all for now.

this was a great answer.... condensed alot of on the mark truths/realities...