Would you like to see a united Ireland?

TOMASJ

and in particular he despised the Royal Ulster Constabulary

.

the British Army presence in the North is surely the only reason the peace process came about.

Your having us on here, all the british army and there cronies in the UDR and RUC done in the six counties was harass and set up for murder nationalist 24 7

TOMASJ

GuanYin
can I ask why I got a infraction for saying the exact same things to you as you said to Mayo Exile, (Keep it civil) Mayo Exile is only trying to argue his view on the situation as are you and all other posters.). are alternative views to pro british posters being censored, if folk dont read both sides of the argument how can they make a judgement on anything that is being discussed, so much for free speech

GuanYin

TOMASJ wrote: »

.
Your having us on here, all the british army and there cronies in the UDR and RUC done in the six counties was harass and set up for murder nationalist 24 7

I'm recounting my conversation with my friend.

He claims in cases where the British Army interfered with the RUCs actions, the RUC would react aggresively and threatheningly towards British soldiers claiming they didn't "understand the situation" and resented the BA involvement. The soldiers, my friend says, built up as much resentment towards the RUC as anyone because not only were they (the BA) being blamed and associated with the RUC, but they saw that the RUC felt they were above everyone.

As I'm not Irish and have no vested interest, I don't see any reason why my friend would lie about it, as he has openly said he has no sympathy towards catholic or protestant factions in the North and has disdain for all involved.

Maybe this attitude was unique to the SAS or indeed my friends troop, I can't say, but if you want to call me or my friend a liar, or are going to dispute this, you had better have some very compelling evidence.

GuanYin

TOMASJ wrote: »

GuanYin
can I ask why I got a infraction for saying the exact same things to you as you said to Mayo Exile, (Keep it civil). are alternative views to pro british posters being censored, if folk dont read both sides of the argument how can they make a judgement on anything that is being discussed, so much for free speech

Because my statement of civility was a moderating direction - calling someone a smart@ass has nothing to do with censorship or either side of the debate. It is just uncivil.

I'm a politics mod, I get to do that. You don't.

The issue is closed, I warned you about questioning my modding in the forum, you seem to have ignored the warning.

If you post about my moderating again, even as a reply to this, you'll get a month ban.

Mayo Exile - if you want to be petulent, I'll happily ban you.

This thread could do with less nonsense and more discussion and debate.

On topic from now.

TOMASJ

but if you want to call me or my friend a liar, or are going to dispute this, you had better have some very compelling evidence

I would never dream of calling you or your friend a liar as I do not know either of you, but I will call the british army including the SAS liars, murderers, terrorists,

Hagar

GuanYin wrote: »

From a neutral point of view, history can point out that despite the obvious incidents of sectarianism, the British Army presence in the North is surely the only reason the peace process came about.

That is not a neutral point of view by any means, at best it could be considered naive at worst blatant whitewashing of the facts.

oscarBravo

TOMASJ wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

So do you agree that when the SAS shoot a young school boy, they are scumbags terrorists, common mugger, psychopath, cold-blooded murder, to use a few of the favourite terms used by the anti republican posters on the board,

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the full details of the incident in question.

But - working on the assumption that you would describe them as such - would you be willing to apply the same standards to the PIRA, and describe the cold-blooded murderers of Det Gda Gerry McCabe as scumbag terrorists and psychopaths? Would you go further and agree that a political party that aligns itself with those killers is deserving of scorn?

GuanYin

TOMASJ wrote: »

I would never dream of calling you or your friend a liar as I do not know either of you,

I'm glad you accept the testimony then

but I will call the british army including the SAS liars, murderers, terrorists,

The SAS as a body may have lied, it is pretty common for military bodies to do so (The Irish Army have lied on more than one occasion that I can think of). There are probably individual liars within the SAS, it doesn't make every SAS member a liar.

There are, regrettably murderers within many military organizations, including the SAS, the regular British Army, the US Army forces, the Irish Army forces and of course paramilitary forces such as the IRA and UVF. Again, it doesn't really mean that an organization and all its members are murderers.

The SAS are not a terrorist group under any rational definition.

Your claims are extremist, propagandaist and lacking in logic.

It's like saying "I saw a black dog, therefore all dogs are black".

IF this thread doesn't get back towards discussing a United Ireland and away from this foolish blame game, it's getting locked.

oscarBravo

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Are you actually trying to tell me, that after saying this:

I will happily defend the actions of the British armed forces when they have operated within their mandate.

that you can go on to say this:

Nope. I didn't give them their mandate, and I don't claim to always agree with their mandate. That doesn't change the fact that they have a mandate, and that that makes them different from the IRA.

Ah, nice ninja edit.

OK, you got me. I'm prepared to revise my previous statement to "I will happily defend the actions of the British armed forces when they have operated within a mandate that doesn't extend to the mass-murder of innocent civilians."

Now, I've played the game. I've met you halfway. Are you prepared to admit that your logic completely exonerates the actions of anyone who ever kills anyone for any reason ever?

GuanYin

Hagar wrote: »

That is not a neutral point of view by any means, at best it could be considered naive at worst blatant whitewashing of the facts.

So had the UVF, IRA and RUC been allowed to escalate their violence, unchecked, the peace process would have been achieved?

The Unionist and Nationalists would have had a reason to sit down and talk?

Hagar

No, the violence escalated to a point where talking to enemies and accepting compromise was the only way to bring it to a halt. There was no compromise from the Unionists before that as several failed attempts at power sharing through various parliments show.

GuanYin

Hagar wrote: »

No, the violence escalated to a point where talking to enemies and accepting compromise was the only way to bring it to a halt. There was no compromise from the Unionists before that as several failed attempts at power sharing through various parliments show.

And it would not have been far worse without British involvement? Do you believe if the IRA felt it could win against the RUC they would have settled for a peace process? Do you believe the UVF would have stood by and allowed this?


By the way, I've spoken to many NI Catholics who quite happily suggest that the wrongdoing of BA soldiers were not the majority. My inclination would be to take the opinion of the less politically extreme.

Mayo Exile

Ah, nice ninja edit.

OK, you got me.

Now, I've played the game.

I was never trying to "get" you oscarBravo. If you think so, apologies in advance. I don't see what we are debating in here (well in this part of the thread away) as a "game". It's too serious a subject for that.

I've met you halfway. Are you prepared to admit that your logic completely exonerates the actions of anyone who ever kills anyone for any reason ever?

No problem. I'll admit I was too "exact" on that! Was merely trying to use the point when state armies and/or armed groups do it for the defence of their political beliefs.

I'll never budge though over why people see a difference in it when one side (the state) does it and the other side (armed groups) may do the same thing.

Ok? Halfway?

GuanYin

I don't see this thread topic as being anyway discussed.

Closed