Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

trendyvicar

realies wrote: »

In January 1988 Loyalist paramilitaries received a huge haul of South African weapons. This consisted of 200 AK47 assault rifles, 90 Browning pistols, 500 fragmentation grenades, 30,000 rounds of ammunition and 12 RPG 7 rocket launchers.The weapons were divided between the UDA, the UVF and Ulster Resistance, the organisation set up by Ian Paisley, Peter Robinson and Alan Wright.Brian Nelson, the agent of the British army intelligence and the UDAs chief intelligence officer, was a key personality in this arms transaction The deal was completed and final arrangements were made in December 1987. Nelson informed military intelligence of developments at every stage of the proceedings; he passed on all the details including the method to be used to smuggle in the weapons. No action was taken.

In a jail journal, written by Nelson and obtained by the BBC's Panorama team in 1992 he states:

In 1987 I was discussing with my handler Ronnie the South African operation when he told me that because of the deep suspicion the seizure would have aroused, to protect me it had been decided to let the first shipment into the country untouched.

In the six yeas before the arrival of the weapons, from January 1982 to December 1987, loyalist paramilitaries killed 71 people of whom 49 were sectarian/political in nature. In the 6 years following, from January 1988 to 1 September 1994, loyalists killed 229 people of whom 207 were sectarian/political in nature.

This was all done under the watchful eye and control of British intelligence services,

TV there have been a number of posts on this thread already pointing out the facts that you so blindly ignore, But keep on posting your views as it sure beats reading stormfront

Once again, you fail to provide any credible links.

The weapons got through, but you have not proved that they were let through by the security forces. Perhaps the huge haul of PIRA weapons were also deliberately let through?

In fact, most of them were seized by The RUC within a very short time period. Why the hell did they do that?

I have just fallen around the floor laughing at your comments about me ignoring posts on this thread. I have hammered away at nearly every post made regarding collusion and in fact it is The Republicans on this thread who have ignored vast swathes of the comments and questions I've made.

You and your Republican friends live in a fairy tale world - you're just not used to having your fantasies challenged on this forum.

And to be honest realies, it's been easy...

Sunnyisland

trendy vicar wrote: »

Once again, you fail to provide any credible links.

The weapons got through, but you have not proved that they were let through by the security forces. Perhaps the huge haul of PIRA weapons were also deliberately let through?

In fact, most of them were seized by The RUC within a very short time period. Why the hell did they do that?

I have just fallen around the floor laughing at your comments about me ignoring posts on this thread. I have hammered away at nearly every post made regarding collusion and in fact it is The Republicans on this thread who have ignored vast swathes of the comments and questions I've made.

You and your Republican friends live in a fairy tale world - you're just not used to having your fantasies challenged on this forum.

And to be honest realise, it's been easy...

Your not challenging anything you are ignoring everything put to you by very credible links already posted,re the South african arms Many of the weapons were later seized by British authorities, the largest single cache being taken from Davy Payne, the British ex-paratrooper and UDA Brigadier on 8 January 1988. Between a half and a third of the weapons however still remain in the hands of loyalist paramilitaries.

And to be honest tv most people couldn't be bothered to keep answering your strawman comments and thats easy to do.

trendyvicar

realies wrote: »

Your not challenging anything you are ignoring everything put to you by very credible links already posted,re the South african arms Many of the weapons were later seized by British authorities, the largest single cache being taken from Davy Payne, the British ex-paratrooper and UDA Brigadier on 8 January 1988. Between a half and a third of the weapons however still remain in the hands of loyalist paramilitaries.

And to be honest tv most people couldn't be bothered to keep answering your strawman comments and thats easy to do.

You and your comrades on here have been thrashed by me. But the reality is realies, the whole 'collusion is no illusion' campaign isn't aimed at people like me is it? It is aimed at those who are already pre-disposed to believe a 'narrative' that presents The UK State and it's security forces as capable of just about anything in Northern Ireland. This group includes The Nationalist population of Northern Ireland who've been conditioned by 'the troubles' and before to distrust anyone in a uniform, the people in The ROI who have grown up with an even older anti-British narrative and gullible fools in places like America. These types have no interest in doing any analysis on the collusion issue and if they use the internet, it's only to confirm their pre-existing prejudices. I doubt there's anything I can say that will disillusion those types.

For the record, it wouldn't have bothered me if collusion had been widespread - it would have meant a much quicker end to the troubles and possibly less lives lost. That's life...

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

For the record, it wouldn't have bothered me if collusion had been widespread - it would have meant a much quicker end to the troubles and possibly less lives lost. That's life...

The mask hasn't just slipped, it's actually fallen off.

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

For the record, it wouldn't have bothered me if collusion had been widespread - it would have meant a much quicker end to the troubles and possibly less lives lost. That's life...

I'm always amused by these idiotic notions of alternate realities which is the reason that I never initiate them but seeing as the game has started I'll put my boots on and get stuck in.

If there had been greater collusion between the anti-Catholic state sanctioned militias and the anti-Catholic murder squads there would have been more innocent Catholics killed.

That would probably have led to greater enrollment in Republican groups, greater support from the US and UK diaspora for Republican groups, more destruction in the UK and more retaliatory attacks on innocent Protestants. The conflict would have escalated and the British would probably have gotten sick of subsidizing the failed state of NI and threatened to withdraw support for the the Unionist militias.

See? I can play that stupid game too.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm always amused by these idiotic notions of alternate realities which is the reason that I never initiate them but seeing as the game has started I'll put my boots on and get stuck in.

If there had been greater collusion between the anti-Catholic state sanctioned militias and the anti-Catholic murder squads there would have been more innocent Catholics killed.

That would probably have led to greater enrollment in Republican groups, greater support from the US and UK diaspora for Republican groups, more destruction in the UK and more retaliatory attacks on innocent Protestants. The conflict would have escalated and the British would probably have gotten sick of subsidizing the failed state of NI and threatened to withdraw support for the the Unionist militias.

See? I can play that stupid game too.

You got the word STUPID right, but nothing else.

What you describe didn't happen in South America or elsewhere for that matter.

Say now can you see...

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

You got the word STUPID right, but nothing else.

What you describe didn't happen in South America or elsewhere for that matter.

Say now can you see...

I find your views to be deeply vile and terrifying, not to mention contradictory. One one hand you berate, rightly so those who would excuse Republican terror but, on the other hand you have no problem with what amounts to state sponsored sectarian death squads that would seek to oppress a very large minority of it's population. You sir are the epitome of a fascist.

Also, I'm intrigued with the reference to the USA, that's the second posting where you have made that reference. I'm scratching my head in bewilderment as to what that has to do with the conversation at hand.

trendyvicar

karma_ wrote: »

I find your views to be deeply vile and terrifying, not to mention contradictory. One one hand you berate, rightly so those who would excuse Republican terror but, on the other hand you have no problem with what amounts to state sponsored sectarian death squads that would seek to oppress a very large minority of it's population. You sir are the epitome of a fascist.

Also, I'm intrigued with the reference to the USA, that's the second posting where you have made that reference. I'm scratching my head in bewilderment as to what that has to do with the conversation at hand.

What are you on about? I merely said it wouldn't have bothered me if collusion had been widespread, as it would have finished the troubles earlier.

As for being a fascist - you amuse me. Anyone who wanted to smash The IRA and maintain The Union was a fascist in the eyes of Irish Nationalists - moderate or militant. Your labels don't worry me...

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Which is why I said I disagree with him

No problem there.

....what's your point?

I agree with him and think your wrong. Your opinion as stated has no legal factual basis under the Rome Statutes which he interprets.

I have no issue with you disagreeing. You asked how there was a difference and I answered.

Legally Ivor Callely was entitled to his "expenses" too, based on bullcrap "interpretations"....

Still doesn't mean it's morally right or that I have to accept a disagreeable interpretation and lower my own ethics to comply.

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

You got the word STUPID right, but nothing else.

It's your stupid game. Don't start crying when you get tackled. Man up.

What you describe didn't happen in South America or elsewhere for that matter..

I understand that when it comes to S. America you have some perverse admiration for the US backed dictators and their death squads (sounds vaguely familiar) but South America =/= NI.

There was nothing in NI worth keeping from a British strategic POV - a point they conceded as a precursor to the IRA ceasefire.

Indeed the failed state of NI has been nothing but a burden for the English tax-payer and I'd imagine the average English person would be more than happy to cut it loose given the economic facts and an opportunity.

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I have no issue with you disagreeing. You asked how there was a difference and I answered.

Legally Ivor Callely was entitled to his "expenses" too, based in "interpretations"....

Still doesn't mean it's morally right or that I have to accept a disagreeable interpretation and lower my own ethics to comply.

Fair enough.

However such arguments I believe, while well intentioned and noble in intent eventually have their limits, the outcome of WWII being an example here. You can't disconnect from the consequences of reality.

KeithAFC

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Let all that hatred out,and justify the murder of innocents.

I think it is Republicans who need to just accept that they weren't going to be allowed to just bomb the PUL people into a United Ireland. Perhaps when they accept that and accept the PIRA surrendered, then things will move on. So far, the Republican movement has not accepted that, so things will carry on like they have.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think it is Republicans who need to just accept that they weren't going to be allowed to just bomb the PUL people into a United Ireland. Perhaps when they accept that and accept the PIRA surrendered, then things will move on. So far, the Republican movement has not accepted that, so things will carry on like they have.

Ignoring your little as always digs, Things have moved on, Sure aren't you all now taking your directions from MMG & co now Ask some of your older friends/relatives did they think they would have ever see the day when the PUL would be sharing power with SF, that the queen would visit croke park and our garden of remembrance, That you be actually debating arguing sharing opinions on a republican thread based in the republic. Never thought I would see the day myself but there you go keithAFC things are carrying on & changing,it might be slow but its happening.

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I have no issue with you disagreeing. You asked how there was a difference and I answered.

Legally Ivor Callely was entitled to his "expenses" too, based in "interpretations"....

Still doesn't mean it's morally right or that I have to accept a disagreeable interpretation and lower my own ethics to comply.

Fair enough.

However such arguments I believe, while well intentioned and noble in intent eventually have their limits, the outcome of WWII being an example here. You can't disconnect from the consequences of reality.

Consequences, eh ?

Guess that's as good a term as any for the fact that right-minded people hate those who murder innocents.

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

Ignoring your little as always digs, Things have moved on, Sure aren't you all now taking your directions from MMG & co now Ask some of your older friends/relatives did they think they would have ever see the day when the PUL would be sharing power with SF, that the queen would visit croke park and our garden of remembrance, That you be actually debating arguing sharing opinions on a republican thread based in the republic. Never thought I would see the day myself but there you go keithAFC things are carrying on & changing,it might be slow but its happening.

One key point you are missing. Martin Mcguinness is working for the good of Northern Ireland. Not the Irish Republic. Martin Mcguinness is working for a country in the UK. Martin Mcguinness is contributing in getting jobs to Northern Ireland. So in that respect, he can keep on doing his job.

A lot of Republicans make this point a lot. Martin Mcguinness is just working for a British pay cheque.

K-9

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think it is Republicans who need to just accept that they weren't going to be allowed to just bomb the PUL people into a United Ireland. Perhaps when they accept that and accept the PIRA surrendered, then things will move on. So far, the Republican movement has not accepted that, so things will carry on like they have.

They hardly surrendered, SF/IRA are now in Government so hardly surrender, hardly a defeat now Keith.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's your stupid game. Don't start crying when you get tackled. Man up.



I understand that when it comes to S. America you have some perverse admiration for the US backed dictators and their death squads (sounds vaguely familiar) but South America =/= NI.

There was nothing in NI worth keeping from a British strategic POV - a point they conceded as a precursor to the IRA ceasefire.

Indeed the failed state of NI has been nothing but a burden for the English tax-payer and I'd imagine the average English person would be more than happy to cut it loose given the economic facts and an opportunity.

You believe everything a politician says do you?

KeithAFC

K-9 wrote: »

They hardly surrendered, SF/IRA are now in Government so hardly surrender, hardly a defeat now Keith.

But it was a defeat. That is exactly what it was. The whole goal was to get a United Ireland and bomb the country into Smithereens. The fact that after 30+ years of fighting for them, the best they could do was having to work at Stormont for a country in the UK is actually rather pathetic. Hunger strikers, blanketmen and so on and that is the best they can do.

trendyvicar

K-9 wrote: »

They hardly surrendered, SF/IRA are now in Government so hardly surrender, hardly a defeat now Keith.

It wasn't an unconditional surrender, but surrender it most certainly was. If The PUP were sat in The Dail in an independent United Ireland there would be no discussion over whether The UVF had surrendered or not. This would apply whatever perks The PUP had secured.

The illusion of the 'score draw' is an Irish Nationalist fiction continuously fertilised by SF, because to do otherwise might well have meant a bullet in the head for certain SF/IRA leaders from their erstwhile PIRA comrades.

By the way, The UK State actually wanted SF in Stormont (providing PIRA surrendered) - that way they were roped into the system, instead of causing problems outside the system. This had been UK State policy from as early as 1972. The idea of ex-terrorists (freshly castrated) in a subordinate UK assembly does not worry the UK State establishment at all - at the end of the day, it wasn't generally their kith and kin who were slaughtered by The IRA.

Of course, the 'score draw' fiction isn't generally meant to be addressed at The UK State is it? No, it's meant to include The RC and Protestant communities in NI. Unfortunately, this would suggest a tribal conflict had taken place in NI with 'The Brits' saving the day. Not exactly Republican theology eh?

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Consequences, eh ?

Guess that's as good a term as any for the fact that right-minded people hate those who murder innocents.

Nice demonstration of that continuing disconnect Liam.

In Post #451 you said that:

Where did I even suggest that I objected to "taking on" or "fighting back" ?

The problem with trying to match this statement with your opinion is that unless you could fight the "planned perfect war" (i.e. little or no civilans killed waging it) you'd end up doing nothing if you couldn't fight such a war.

As a probable consequence, taking WWII as an example again, the Nazi gas chambers would have ended up finishing their dirty work. More innocent civilians would have probably ended up dying than actually happened. When applied to enough historical examples in reality, isolationist opinions such as yours can end up leading to worse outcomes than desired.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

One key point you are missing. Martin Mcguinness is working for the good of Northern Ireland. Not the Irish Republic. Martin Mcguinness is working for a country in the UK. Martin Mcguinness is contributing in getting jobs to Northern Ireland. So in that respect, he can keep on doing his job.

A lot of Republicans make this point a lot. Martin Mcguinness is just working for a British pay cheque.

One point your forgetting is MMG & SF are working for the better of all Ireland and if you want to think that they are working for british pay cheques ,well go ahead. Now keith I asked you could you or others twenty years ago have seen SF in a power sharing government running from storment ? 20 years from now who knows, Personally i just hope the bombs and bullets are still stopped.
Goodnight

Chuck Stone

A surrender happens when one side capitulates after suffering a defeat. I don't remember the IRA capitulating. What happened was a stalemate.

The BA couldn't defeat the IRA and vice versa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHKFzPmDjAo&feature=related

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Consequences, eh ?

Guess that's as good a term as any for the fact that right-minded people hate those who murder innocents.

Nice demonstration of that continuing disconnect Liam.

In Post #451 you said that:

Where did I even suggest that I objected to "taking on" or "fighting back" ?

The problem with trying to match this statement with your opinion is that unless you could fight the "planned perfect war" (i.e. little or no civilans killed waging it) you'd end up doing nothing if you couldn't fight such a war.

As a probable consequence, taking WWII as an example again, the Nazi gas chambers would have ended up finishing their dirty work. More innocent civilians would have probably ended up dying than actually happened. When applied to enough historical examples in reality, isolationist opinions such as yours can end up leading to worse outcomes than desired.

For those murdered ? I doubt it. Unless you have a similar view to that of other murdering terrorists?

Nodin

Liam Byrne wrote: »

For those murdered ? I doubt it. Unless you have a similar view to that of other murdering terrorists?

Evading the point with the usual emotional jibe Liam? Trying answering the mans argument, for once.

michael999999

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A surrender happens when one side capitulates after suffering a defeat. I don't remember the IRA capitulating. What happened was a stalemate.

The BA couldn't defeat the IRA and vice versa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHKFzPmDjAo&feature=related

Ah but the keyboard warriors on PULSE have all the muppets that follow follow believing otherwise!

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A surrender happens when one side capitulates after suffering a defeat. I don't remember the IRA capitulating. What happened was a stalemate.

The BA couldn't defeat the IRA and vice versa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHKFzPmDjAo&feature=related

You actually believe that sh*t do you? Where's PIRA now? What's that border drawn on the map of Ireland?

I mean, you do actually know what PIRA were fighting for don't you?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

What's that border drawn on the map of Ireland?

I've traveled back and forth across that border countless times and you know what? I never seen that line drawn across the land.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wow! Three roll eyes smileys!

You must be really annoyed.

Chuck Stone

michael999999 wrote: »

Ah but the keyboard warriors on PULSE have all the muppets that follow follow believing otherwise!

Thankfully I haven't wasted one second of my life on that website and have no interest in doing so in the future.

If I want a dose of fantasy I can watch Harry Potter on DVD.

Liam Byrne

Evading the point with the usual emotional jibe Liam? Trying answering the mans argument, for once.

Since when is murder mere "emotional jibe" ? Jesus H!! Those were real people that the IRA blew to bits, you know - not a video game!

As for engaging in an argument on this topic with CS - that boat sailed in the post where he tried to pretend that an organisation that murdered way more people wasn't as bad as the other equally-despicable-but-sless-culpable shower of murdering thugs.

Sunnyisland

trendy vicar wrote: »

You actually believe that sh*t do you? Where's PIRA now? What's that border drawn on the map of Ireland?

I mean, you do actually know what PIRA were fighting for don't you?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sitting in government and making decisions on the future of NI. Dont you read any of the posts here :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

KeithAFC

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A surrender happens when one side capitulates after suffering a defeat. I don't remember the IRA capitulating. What happened was a stalemate.

The BA couldn't defeat the IRA and vice versa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHKFzPmDjAo&feature=related

The PIRA did capitulate. The PIRA was riddled with informers. British agents buying PIRA men houses and so on. The PIRA was coming to an end. That is why Sinn Fein decided to go to the negotiating table.

It was a surrender.

Nodin

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Since when is murder mere "emotional jibe" ? Jesus H!! Those were real people that the IRA blew to bits, you know - not a video game!

As for engaging in an argument on this topic with CS - that boat sailed in the post where he tried to pretend that an organisation that murdered way more people wasn't as bad as the other equally-despicable-but-sless-culpable shower of murdering thugs.

Dear Christ......if running away from a point and attempted emotional blackmail were olympic events you'd have broken the 9 second barrier.

Here, we'll go again

The Westerner wrote:

The problem with trying to match this statement with your opinion is that unless you could fight the "planned perfect war" (i.e. little or no civilans killed waging it) you'd end up doing nothing if you couldn't fight such a war.

Try addressing the above. Do please attempt to leave the "O Noes" stuff out.

K-9

KeithAFC wrote: »

But it was a defeat. That is exactly what it was. The whole goal was to get a United Ireland and bomb the country into Smithereens. The fact that after 30+ years of fighting for them, the best they could do was having to work at Stormont for a country in the UK is actually rather pathetic. Hunger strikers, blanketmen and so on and that is the best they can do.

Well its better than the alternative Keith or maybe you'd prefer they still bombed?

We'd basically 10-15 years of a stalemate after the hunger strikes, neither side was going to win or lose.

KeithAFC

K-9 wrote: »

Well its better than the alternative Keith or maybe you'd prefer they still bombed?

We'd basically 10-15 years of a stalemate after the hunger strikes, neither side was going to win or lose.

There was two objectives.

1) - Get a United Ireland by force
2) - Defend the Union

Number 2 won and number 1 failed.

Chuck Stone

KeithAFC wrote: »

Herp de derp

You're outside the spectrum of people I'm interested in discussing these matters with.

Stop trying to get my attention.

You're embarrassing yourself.

michael999999

K-9 wrote: »

Well its better than the alternative Keith or maybe you'd prefer they still bombed?

We'd basically 10-15 years of a stalemate after the hunger strikes, neither side was going to win or lose.

Dont worry about keith, he would be hiding under hes bed with hes keyboard and the rest of pulse if there was still trouble!

Easy be tough when everything is finished!

Oh by the way is the leader of the loyalists still hiding in Scotland with hes alsations?

Liam Byrne

Try addressing the above. Do please attempt to leave the "O Noes" stuff out.

What is there to address? The post implies that there's no grey area between "doing nothing" and "deliberately murdering civilians", which is so much rubbish that it wasn't worth responding to.

R P McMurphy

michael999999 wrote: »

Dont worry about keith, he would be hiding under hes bed with hes keyboard and the rest of pulse if there was still trouble!

Easy be tough when everything is finished!

Oh by the way is the leader of the loyalists still hiding in Scotland with hes alsations?

His dogs were taken from him

michael999999

R P McMurphy wrote: »

His dogs were taken from him

I think he had them stuffed!

KeithAFC

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're outside the spectrum of people I'm interested in discussing these matters with.

Stop trying to get my attention.

You're embarrassing yourself.

You are embarrassing yourself by trying to put Republican propaganda across as fact as if the PIRA actually got what they wanted and that the "Brits" are evil. Its utter tosh and no one is fooling for it. Give up the ghost.

Nodin

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What is there to address? The post implies that there's no grey area between "doing nothing" and "deliberately murdering civilians", which is so much rubbish that it wasn't worth responding to.

Would you care to spell out precisely what you deem acceptable, and how it was applied in an actual conflict?

R P McMurphy

michael999999 wrote: »

I think he had them stuffed!

I thought he actually had them taken (stolen) from him and was then continuously taunted about it. As a dog owner, I can thave empathy with the braindead goon on this point

K-9

KeithAFC wrote: »

There was two objectives.

1) - Get a United Ireland by force
2) - Defend the Union

Number 2 won and number 1 failed.

Northern Ireland is now subject to self determination Keith, that's a big advance.

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What is there to address? The post implies that there's no grey area between "doing nothing" and "deliberately murdering civilians", which is so much rubbish that it wasn't worth responding to.

Nonsense. I implied no such thing. It says that you would do nothing unless you wanted to fight a perfect war. Is there a grey area now then Liam?

michael999999

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I thought he actually had them taken (stolen) from him and was then continuously taunted about it. As a dog owner, I can thave empathy with the braindead goon on this point

Didnt hes comrades cut there throats when he went on the run and left them behind!

KeithAFC

K-9 wrote: »

Northern Ireland is now subject to self determination Keith, that's a big advance.

Indeed it does and that is a huge plus for Unionism as we now have a chance to put our point of view across and take Republicanism on.

Chuck Stone

Thread is a bit of a joke now imo.

I'm out.

Thanks for the debate folks.

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What is there to address? The post implies that there's no grey area between "doing nothing" and "deliberately murdering civilians", which is so much rubbish that it wasn't worth responding to.

Nonsense. I implied no such thing. It says that you would do nothing unless you wanted to fight a perfect war. Is there a grey area now then Liam?

Discussion, negotiation, protests or - if it came to it and you view it as acceptable - actual "fighting back"

Lots of options in between "doing nothing" and murdering innocents.

trendyvicar

realies wrote: »

Sitting in government and making decisions on the future of NI. Dont you read any of the posts here :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Pearse must be spinning in his grave...

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Discussion, negotiation, protests or - if it came to it and you view it as acceptable - actual "fighting back"

Lots of options in between "doing nothing" and murdering innocents.

Liam, you well know that wasn't what i was really on about.

My point still stands. I'd believe you'd do nothing if you couldn't fight that perfect war after said discussions, negotiations and protests were no longer an option.