Dessie Ellis - The Sinn Fein TD who is linked to 50 murders

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

I have met a few, even read some posts on
This very site that said as much and even dev himself said it, don't have the quote to hand but will post it when I return home from visiting inlaws

De Velara battled hard against Ultra-Montanes who wanted to make (Roman) Catholicism the state religion of the south and did his best to protect religious minorities. I very much doubt he said anything like you saying that he said. He was a very ambigious and interesting figure who did do a lot of good for the south. I understand why hardcore Republicans bash him, I dont understand why other do.

junder

GRMA wrote: »

Its certainly not part of republican policy or ideology... you always get gob****es unfortunately.

Really? Odd you would say that considering back in the 80,s Sinn Fein had as part of thier manifesto 'resettlement grants' that would be given out to
Those prods who didn't want to live in a united ireland, a policy that was quickly and quietly dropped when they realised such policy's could be interpreted as facilitating ethnic cleansing, and as I said I have a quote from dev that was very specific in where those people loyal to britian should go

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Yes, I am sure they do have reasons.... you seem quite accepting of them which is not all together surprising. You give out about doublethink and double standards, but you are quite adapt at those things yourself.

I don't know what the reasons are. You don't know what the reasons are. You appear to be rejecting their reasons out of hand without knowing what they are, and you are criticising me for refusing to reject reasons that I don't know anything about, despite the fact that I have also said I have no particular objection to the release of the papers.

And you accuse me of doublethink.

ardmacha wrote: »

It didn't exist because the imperial power did not allow it to exist.

That would be the same imperial power that responded to the Republic of Ireland Act by sending the jackbooted stormtroopers in to reclaim the rightful property of the King enacting the Ireland Act?

Really. I thought you did throw out the British, you just took a I'm alright Jack approach to the rest of the house. A bit like saying that crime is OK in Darndale, as long as it doesn't come on the south side.

I didn't throw anyone out of anything. I was born in a sovereign republic that had existed for more than two decades before my birth, and which had existed as an independent free state for a quarter of a century prior to that.

Again: you can cling to whatever fictions you require to justify your belief system, but you can't force me to be a party to them.

junder

Offy wrote: »

Interesting post and it raises a question I hope you can answer. If Scotland do leave GB would you still use the Ulster Scot phrase? Technically it would be accurate but I wonder how Ulster Scots feel about Scotland leaving GB? From my little experience of living in NI I get the impression for the people that I work with, and I might be getting the wrong impression, that being British is a huge thing to them. These chaps also like to talk about their Scottish ancestry, if the Scottish no longer want to be British where does that leave their loyalty?

I am born of Northern Ireland and I have a traceable family history going back to the Scottish border lands since before the time of James the 1st ( he was the one the exiled my clan to this island for being reivers) so regardless of what happens to Scotland I will still very much see myself as a ulster -scot

SoulandForm

GRMA wrote: »

Its certainly not part of republican policy or ideology... you always get gob****es unfortunately.

No its not. I consider myself an Irish Republican in that I want a truelly independent 32 county Republic.

But there are two things going on in Northern Ireland.

A fight between two tribes and a fight between the Irish people's right to self-determination and the British government and sometimes they can get very, very confused.

oscarBravo

ardmacha wrote: »

...the question can reasonably be asked as to why exactly they want to stay here causing trouble rather than than just go to Britain.

That question is only reasonable from the perspective of someone who refuses to accept the idea that Northern Ireland can ever be anything other than Irish. You don't have to share that view, but a refusal to countenance the possibility of any view existing other than your own is myopic, to put it kindly.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Why should he?

Because that was the state of affairs prior to partition. I would have thought that was obvious.

A curious line of argument against it's creation. THE USA didn't exist prior to 1776. Single German and Italian states didn't exist until the second half of the 19th century. East Timor didn't officially appear until 2002 (self-declared independence in 1975). What's seemingly wrong with wanting or desiring something that hasn't existed before?

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with wanting it. I have no objection to anyone wanting or aspiring to an independent united Ireland - what I have an objection to is the constant offensive characterisation of viewpoints like mine as unpatriotic, or somehow completely unfathomable.

Nope. It's based on a difference of opinion. You don't think it's natural. Others do.

Believing something to be the natural state of affairs doesn't make it the natural state of affairs. If I believed vehemently that the natural state of affairs was for the island nation of Inishmore to be a sovereign independent republic, that doesn't make it natural.

Irish republicans are so used to accepting as a dogmatic tenet of their faith that a united, independent Ireland is the only natural state of affairs that they reflexively respond to any expression of a view to the contrary with hostility and derision.

I'm prepared to accept that republicans want a united Ireland; why is it so very difficult for them to accept that I don't?

With violent "foundations" if you'll excuse the obvious pun.

I didn't build the house. If I had a choice, I'd build the house on very different foundations, but I can't, so the least I can do is criticise the construction of this house and propose that any extension to it be built on more peaceful foundations, if at all.

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know what the reasons are. You don't know what the reasons are. You appear to be rejecting their reasons out of hand without knowing what they are, and you are criticising me for refusing to reject reasons that I don't know anything about, despite the fact that I have also said I have no particular objection to the release of the papers.

And you accuse me of doublethink.

But you simply accept that they have reasons, with no questioning of them at all, or even asking what the reasons are. "I'm sure they have their reasons", and leave it at that.

What a strange attitude.

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

But you simply accept that they have reasons, with no questioning of them at all, or even asking what the reasons are. "I'm sure they have their reasons", and leave it at that.

Do you question every refusal by every department to release documents requested under FoI requests, or only those which you, personally, strongly believe should be released?

I don't have a strongly-held view that these papers should be released, and as such don't question the reasons the department has for not releasing them. You clearly have a strongly-held view that the papers should be released, and as such you question the reasons the department has for not releasing them.

What a strange attitude.

Only if you're not interested in applying some fairly basic reasoning to it.

SoulandForm

GRMA wrote: »

But you simply accept that they have reasons, with no questioning of them at all, or even asking what the reasons are. "I'm sure they have their reasons", and leave it at that.

What a strange attitude.

Does Oscar have anything serious to about Northern Ireland?

I strongly disagree with Junder, but I at least think I understand where he is coming from and the fact that he lives in Northern Ireland gives him more than enough right to present his views.

As I said before no one woke up in the morning and said hey Im going to join the UVF or the PIRA. Condemnation is cheap.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Irish republicans are so used to accepting as a dogmatic tenet of their faith that a united, independent Ireland is the only natural state of affairs that they reflexively respond to any expression of a view to the contrary with hostility and derision.

This is an inaccurate statement. A republican is an advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and is generally associated with the rule of law. The last part being the most important. To brand republicans as hostile is one pretty big generalization.
Im not saying some republicians arent hostile but its inaccurate to brand all republicans as hostile. After living in NI I can understand why NI republicians are hostile, can you understand why they are hostile?

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

This is an inaccurate statement. A republican is an advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and is generally associated with the rule of law. The last part being the most important. To brand republicans as hostile is one pretty big generalization.

Good thing I didn't brand republicans as hostile, then.

After living in NI I can understand why NI republicians are hostile, can you understand why they are hostile?

Sorry, I'm not going to make excuses for people who refuse to accept that any point of view other than theirs is valid - and note that I'm not the one branding an entire group of people as "hostile" here.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

...the fact that he lives in Northern Ireland gives him more than enough right to present his views.

I think the fact that I live in a country that some people want to attach part of another country to by force gives me a right to present my views too - although the idea of not having a right to present one's views is a rather bizarre one, and - I would have thought - entirely contrary to the very principles of republicanism.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think the fact that I live in a country that some people want to attach part of another country to by force gives me a right to present my views too - although the idea of not having a right to present one's views is a rather bizarre one, and - I would have thought - entirely contrary to the very principles of republicanism.

So you dont like Nordies full stop? Tough luck.

The GAA and all the mainline Churches are 32 county bodies i.e. the main cultural bodies in this country.

Are Derk Mahon, Francis Stuart and Louis Mc Neice not Irish now?

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

and not that I'm not the one branding an entire group of people as "hostile" here.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Irish republicans are so used to accepting as a dogmatic tenet of their faith that a united, independent Ireland is the only natural state of affairs that they reflexively respond to any expression of a view to the contrary with hostility and derision.

Really?

oscarBravo wrote: »

that they reflexively respond to any expression of a view to the contrary with hostility

It looks like you are. Regardless of that I still say Dessie Ellis is a living hero. He risked his life for what he believes in, for a 32 county Ireland. I dont know what lead him to join the IRA but I do live in NI and I dont believe it was because he thought it would be cool or that the chicks would love it. I suspect he recieved some pretty serious pain in one form or another and grew to hate the British because of it. If it wasnt for people like Dessie Ellis we would still be slaves. I thank them all from hundreads of years ago to the present day for the sacrafice they made for all of us. Some people (myself included) sit behind a keyboard and talk rubbish and others actually do something useful for society. Dessie Ellis is a do'er!!!

SoulandForm

Offy wrote: »

Really?



It looks like you are. Regardless of that I still say Dessie Ellis is a living hero. He risked his life for what he believes in, for a 32 county Ireland. I dont know what lead him to join the IRA but I do live in NI and I dont believe it was because he thought it would be cool or that the chicks would love it. I suspect he recieved some pretty serious pain in one form or another and grew to hate the British because of it. If it wasnt for people like Dessie Ellis we would still be slaves. I thank them all from hundreads of years ago to the present day for the sacrafice they made for all of us. Some people (myself included) sit behind a keyboard and talk rubbish and others actually do something useful for society. Dessie Ellis is a do'er!!!

Disregarding discussions of the Provos for a second the south doesnt celebrate its struggle for national freedom enough.

GRMA

Dessie himself would be fiercely embarrassed if he heard you say that, he's a very modest and humble guy.

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you question every refusal by every department to release documents requested under FoI requests, or only those which you, personally, strongly believe should be released?

I don't have a strongly-held view that these papers should be released, and as such don't question the reasons the department has for not releasing them. You clearly have a strongly-held view that the papers should be released, and as such you question the reasons the department has for not releasing them. Only if you're not interested in applying some fairly basic reasoning to it.

So you don't care if the family of those children are denied access to details about their killing and that the southern govt may very well be covering up and protecting their killers?

GRMA

SoulandForm wrote: »

Disregarding discussions of the Provos for a second the south doesnt celebrate its struggle for national freedom enough.

That's down to the cowardly hand wringers among us

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Irish republicans... reflexively respond to any expression of a view to the contrary with hostility and derision.

Offy wrote: »

...NI republicians are hostile...

Which of us described an entire group of people as hostile?

SoulandForm wrote: »

So you dont like Nordies full stop?

Oh look, someone else who has decided that they know what I'm thinking.

It's extremely telling that several people in this thread alone have had to ignore what I'm actually saying and start arguing with what they have decided I mean instead.

The GAA and all the mainline Churches are 32 county bodies i.e. the main cultural bodies in this country.

I'm not a member of the GAA, or of a church. I do enjoy rugby though. Once again, you seem to be falling into the trap of ignoring the things I'm saying (you know, the whole "I don't have a problem with anyone wanting a united Ireland" bit) in order to pick a fight with things I haven't said, but that you've unilaterally decided I think without troubling to ask me.

Are Derk Mahon, Francis Stuart and Louis Mc Neice not Irish now?

I don't know who those people are, and I have absolutely no view - or indeed, any influence - on the question of whether or not they are Irish.

Offy wrote: »

...I still say Dessie Ellis is a living hero. He risked his life for what he believes in, for a 32 county Ireland.

I tend to be more impressed with people who risk their own lives without risking other people's, but that aside: do you consider him a hero because he was prepared to kill and die for something you happen to agree with? In other words, is heroism an entirely subjective thing?

I suspect he recieved some pretty serious pain in one form or another and grew to hate the British because of it.

Ah, hatred of an entire nation. The stuff that all true heroes are made from.

If it wasnt for people like Dessie Ellis we would still be slaves.

I call outright bollox on that for two reasons: one, nobody in Northern Ireland was a slave. Victims of egregious civil and human rights violations, yes; slaves, never.

Two, you're persisting in the dogma that civil and human right violations could have continued unchecked in a part of the United Kingdom - itself in turn a part of the European Union - for forty years, and that nothing could conceivably have altered that situation other than a campaign of terrorism.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, I can't get my head around the level of self-delusion that's required to accept such an idea as an article of faith.

...others actually do something useful for society. Dessie Ellis is a do'er!!!

If I start making bombs, will that make me a doer? Or do you only consider bomb-makers who share your political views positive contributers to society?

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know who those people are, and I have absolutely no view - or indeed, any influence - on the question of whether or not they are Irish.

If I start making bombs, will that make me a doer? Or do you only consider bomb-makers who share your political views positive contributers to society?

So you are extremely ignorant when it comes to Irish literature in the 20 th century. A common trait among certain southerners.

People didnt start making bombs for the craic. There is a certain very nasty situation in the north of Ireland-how do we get out of it?

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

Disregarding discussions of the Provos for a second the south doesnt celebrate its struggle for national freedom enough.

On the contrary: the day the Irish Free State came into existence (December 6th) isn't celebrated at all; neither is the date of the entering into force of the first constitution of Ireland (December 29th) or the inauguration of the Republic of Ireland (April 18th).

The only date we commemorate is the date of the failed rebellion by a minority of a minority who unilaterally decided that violence was a better approach than democracy, and started a war.

So do me a favour, and don't lecture me about our failure to celebrate our "struggle"; about the only thing we ever commemorate down here is violence.

GRMA wrote: »

So you don't care if the family of those children are denied access to details about their killing and that the southern govt may very well be covering up and protecting their killers?

I'm not as exercised about it as you are, no. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, so I'm prepared to accept (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that the government has good reason to withhold the documents in question.

If you have evidence that the government doesn't have good reasons for withholding them, and is, I dunno, in cahoots with loyalist paramilitaries or something, I'm sure you can adduce that evidence.

GRMA wrote: »

That's down to the cowardly hand wringers among us

No hostility or derision, no siree. What a welcoming and understanding bunch Irish republicans are.

Offy

SoulandForm wrote: »

Disregarding discussions of the Provos for a second the south doesnt celebrate its struggle for national freedom enough.

True, I suspect that because De Velara turned on so many that achieved that freedom and painted them as the bad guys. In saying that we dont celebrate much in comparison to people from NI.
Religion really has nothing to do with republicans. Thats an image painted by the press and supported by both the Irish government and the British government. As you quite pointed out there are two completely separate problems in NI but the media never seems to portray this. Both governments and the media seem to encourage religious bigotry.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

So you are extremely ignorant when it comes to Irish literature in the 20 th century. A common trait among certain southerners.

Ah, personal abuse. The warm and fuzzy image of the anything-but-hostile-or-derisive Irish republican continues to be reinforced.

People didnt start making bombs for the craic.

How insightful. If I had said that people started making bombs for the craic, you might actually be contributing something to the discussion.

There is a certain very nasty situation in the north of Ireland-how do we get out of it?

People could stop being such assholes towards each other, for a start. Of course, if everyone's too busy waiting for everyone else to stop being an asshole first, we could be waiting a while.

More seriously: you get out of it by talking to each other, even when you don't feel like it; even when you don't think the other person is listening.

If that sounds too much like hand-wringing cowardice, you could try killing each other and see if that works instead.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Two, you're persisting in the dogma that civil and human right violations could have continued unchecked in a part of the United Kingdom - itself in turn a part of the European Union - for forty years, and that nothing could conceivably have altered that situation other than a campaign of terrorism.

Do you really believe that? History proves you wrong. Pat Finucane proves you wrong. Do you not consider his murder a violation of human rights?

SoulandForm

Oscar people in my family were killed by the PIRA.

One had his brains blown out waving goodbye to his family.

I didnt arrive at my ambiguity towards them lightly.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, personal abuse. The warm and fuzzy image of the anything-but-hostile-or-derisive Irish republican continues to be reinforced.

Its not personal abuse-its fact. All three are important figures in 20 th century literature. All three came from Ulster Protestant backgrounds. Actual culture to me is important- what do you value Oscar?

Offy

SoulandForm wrote: »

Its not personal abuse-its fact. All three are important figures in 20 th century literature. All three came from Ulster Protestant backgrounds. Actual culture to me is important- what do you value Oscar?

I strongly agree with this post.

SoulandForm

Offy wrote: »

Do you really believe that? History proves you wrong. Pat Finucane proves you wrong. Do you not consider his murder a violation of human rights?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/nov/23/cruel-britannia-ian-cobain-review

Oscar is sounding off like home counties Tory- or so it seems to me.

Oscar are you really that naive about the British state?

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

Do you really believe that? History proves you wrong. Pat Finucane proves you wrong. Do you not consider his murder a violation of human rights?

Jesus, you can't see it, can you? You can't see how desperately broken your logic is?

In response to civil and human rights violations, the IRA launched a campaign of terrorism. That campaign of terrorism provided an excuse for further civil and human rights violations, including internment and collusion.

Now, you can't point to civil and human rights violations that could only have occurred in the context of a terrorist campaign, and conclude that those civil and human rights violations would have happened without the terrorist campaign, and that any civil and human rights obtained could only have been obtained as a result of the same terrorist campaign that was used as an excuse for denying them.

I can't believe I have to spell that out.

I mean, think about it. Suppose the IRA campaign had never happened, and the British Army had continued to open fire on peaceful civil rights marches every time they happened. Are you so utterly blinded by your narrative that you are prepared to believe that forty years of such massacres could have taken place without any change of heart on the part of the British government?

Because, yet again, I'm at a loss as to what it takes to force yourself to believe that.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Oscar people in my family were killed by the PIRA.

One had his brains blown out waving goodbye to his family.

I didnt arrive at my ambiguity towards them lightly.

You're entitled to your view, and how you arrived at it is your opinion. If you want a 32-county independent Irish republic, more luck to you, as long as you're prepared to work towards it by exclusively peaceful means.

But I'm not asking any of the Irish republicans here to accept that there was any justification for loyalist terrorism or security force collusion therein; I don't think it's a great deal to ask that they respect my view that there was no justification for republican terrorism.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

Its not personal abuse-its fact. All three are important figures in 20 th century literature. All three came from Ulster Protestant backgrounds. Actual culture to me is important- what do you value Oscar?

Peace and human dignity are pretty important values to me. I also have cultural interests that you probably don't share, but I'm not going to pour scorn on you for not sharing them.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Oscar is sounding off like home counties Tory- or so it seems to me.

Oscar are you really that naive about the British state?

Ignorant, naive, a home county Tory. All because I don't perfectly share your views and values.

I guess my point earlier about talking and listening fell on deaf ears. Which would be kinda funny, if it didn't go tragically and directly to the heart of the problem.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

But I'm not asking any of the Irish republicans here to accept that there was any justification for loyalist terrorism or security force collusion therein; I don't think it's a great deal to ask that they respect my view that there was no justification for republican terrorism.

What I object to is you judging people without even trying to understand the situation that they were in. Can you take the time to put yourself in other people's shoes? And that includes Loyalists and the RUC as well as Republicans and Nationalists. If you were living in the Ardoyne or Tyrone in the 80s or the 70s you would have thought differently.

What positive do you have to offer to Northern Ireland today?

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus, you can't see it, can you? You can't see how desperately broken your logic is?

Is that not a personal insult? You didnt attack what I said, you attacked me.

oscarBravo wrote: »

In response to civil and human rights violations, the IRA launched a campaign of terrorism. That campaign of terrorism provided an excuse for further civil and human rights violations, including internment and collusion.

So your saying that under certain curcumstances its ok to violate human rights? I see it differently to you.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, you can't point to civil and human rights violations that could only have occurred in the context of a terrorist campaign, and conclude that those civil and human rights violations would have happened without the terrorist campaign, and that any civil and human rights obtained could only have been obtained as a result of the same terrorist campaign that was used as an excuse for denying them.

I can and do as it happens.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't believe I have to spell that out.

I mean, think about it. Suppose the IRA campaign had never happened, and the British Army had continued to open fire on peaceful civil rights marches every time they happened. Are you so utterly blinded by your narrative that you are prepared to believe that forty years of such massacres could have taken place without any change of heart on the part of the British government?

Because, yet again, I'm at a loss as to what it takes to force yourself to believe that.

Yes I am prepared to believe that. I also believe that the British government would fabricate stories to indicate that acted in self defence. I'll go one further, I believe the British government would organise the murder of both catholics and protestants to continue with their divide and concur policy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

But I'm not asking any of the Irish republicans here to accept that there was any justification for loyalist terrorism or security force collusion therein; I don't think it's a great deal to ask that they respect my view that there was no justification for republican terrorism.

I do respect your view but I do not share it.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Peace and human dignity are pretty important values to me. I also have cultural interests that you probably don't share, but I'm not going to pour scorn on you for not sharing them.

Ignorant, naive, a home county Tory. All because I don't perfectly share your views and values.

I guess my point earlier about talking and listening fell on deaf ears. Which would be kinda funny, if it didn't go tragically and directly to the heart of the problem.

Its not my views- the British state has as a matter of course used torture often very brutal on many occasions since WWII. To pretend that it is some loving, polite force is extremely naive.

Peace and human dignity are also extremely important to me. How can we have them for everyone in Northern Ireland?

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess my point earlier about talking and listening fell on deaf ears. Which would be kinda funny, if it didn't go tragically and directly to the heart of the problem.

What is the heart of problem in your view?

A believe in a 32 county Republic?

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

What I object to is you judging people without even trying to understand the situation that they were in. Can you take the time to put yourself in other people's shoes? And that includes Loyalists and the RUC as well as Republicans and Nationalists. If you were living in the Ardoyne or Tyrone in the 80s or the 70s you would have thought differently.

How do you know I would have thought differently? Is there nobody - not a single soul - who lived in the Ardoyne or Tyrone in the 80s or the 70s who believes that the Republican campaign of terrorism was utterly morally wrong and repugnant?

Do people who have never lived in the middle east have a right to a view on the Israel/Palestine conflict? Do people who didn't live in concentration camps have a right to a view on Nazism? Do people who aren't prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have a right to a view on the detention of those who are?

What positive do you have to offer to Northern Ireland today?

I don't know what the question means.

Offy wrote: »

Is that not a personal insult? You didnt attack what I said, you attacked me.

No; I attacked the logic (or rather the lack thereof) in what you said.

So your saying that under certain curcumstances its ok to violate human rights?

No, I'm not saying that. Do you want to know how you can easily tell that I'm not saying that? Because I didn't bloody well say it.

I said that the IRA campaign of terrorism was used as an excuse for human and civil right violations. When I was a kid, I made excuses for a lot of the bad things I did; that didn't make them OK. I really, really shouldn't have to explain basic English to you.

I can and do as it happens.

Fair enough, but it greatly undermines the validity of your views if the only logic you can find to support them is self-evidently broken.

Yes I am prepared to believe that. I also believe that the British government would fabricate stories to indicate that acted in self defence. I'll go one further, I believe the British government would organise the murder of both catholics and protestants to continue with their divide and concur policy.

For forty years. You believe that they would have done this without repercussion - from their own citizens, from the European Court of Justice, from the European Court of Human Rights - for forty years.

Wow. Just... wow.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Its not my views- the British state has as a matter of course used torture often very brutal on many occasions since WWII. To pretend that it is some loving, polite force is extremely naive.

I'll tell you what - on the day I first express the view that the British state is some loving polite force, I'll join with you in calling myself naive. In the meantime, it's getting awfully tiresome watching you and others do battle with straw men. Please stop inventing interpretations of my words to argue with. If you want to argue with me, argue with what I'm saying, not with what it suits you to believe I mean.

Peace and human dignity are also extremely important to me. How can we have them for everyone in Northern Ireland?

I don't know. I don't have any simple answers. Do you? Does Dessie Ellis?

Chuck Stone

Two, you're persisting in the dogma that civil and human right violations could have continued unchecked in a part of the United Kingdom - itself in turn a part of the European Union - for forty years, and that nothing could conceivably have altered that situation other than a campaign of terrorism.

They continued unchecked for the 40 years before when Catholics were massacred for trying to change their situation. You seem to have an odd penchant for alternate realities where state violence was met with more throwing of flowers and give 'peace a chance' guitar sessions. Let's keep it in the real world and work with the reality we have rather than your sunshine and lollipops, candy floss cloud paradise.

That you expected all of those who were being beaten and killed for seeking equal political and civil rights to respond with a hive-mind pacifism in the face of the antithesis of non-violence, in the form of overwhelming state backed brutality, is evidence only of your own ridiculous naivety of how the world works.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know. I don't have any simple answers. Do you? Does Dessie Ellis?

Full British State withdrawal.

A genuine peace process between communities themselves and not between politicians.

Full employment.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; I attacked the logic (or rather the lack thereof) in what you said.

You said:

oscarBravo wrote: »

Two, you're persisting in the dogma that civil and human right violations could have continued unchecked in a part of the United Kingdom - itself in turn a part of the European Union - for forty years, and that nothing could conceivably have altered that situation other than a campaign of terrorism.

I said:

Offy wrote: »

Do you really believe that? History proves you wrong. Pat Finucane proves you wrong. Do you not consider his murder a violation of human rights?

You said:

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus, you can't see it, can you? You can't see how desperately broken your logic is?

How is my logic broken? The UK have violated human rights on numerous occasions for generations and not just in Ireland. They started a bloody war based on WMD that didnt exist. Human rights, civil rights, war crimes and still you think the sun shines out of their ass. They murder Irish people with impunity and still you defend them. Not only do you defend them but you condem your own people when they do the same and then you claim my logic is desperately broken??? Do you really believe what your saying?

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They continued unchecked for the 40 years before when Catholics were massacred for trying to change their situation.

How many people were massacred in the 40 years before the start of the troubles? Was it more or less than the 3,500 people who were massacred during the troubles?

You seem to have an odd penchant for alternate realities where state violence was met with more throwing of flowers and give 'peace a chance' guitar sessions. Let's keep it in the real world and work with the reality we have rather than your sunshine and lollipops, candy floss cloud paradise.

It's a fairly bizarre worldview that sees the alternative to three decades of terrorist violence as a "sunshine and lollipops, candy floss cloud paradise".

That you expected all of those who were being beaten and killed for seeking equal political and civil rights to respond with a hive-mind pacifism in the face of the antithesis of non-violence, in the form of overwhelming state backed brutality, is evidence only of your own ridiculous naivety of how the world works.

Are you objecting to the idea of responding to violence with non-violence because you believe that Northern Ireland would have been (and would be today) a much worse place in the absence of the IRA's campaign of terrorism, and all that happened as a direct result of it?

Again, I really find it hard to get my head around the belief that the British government could have continued to fire on unarmed civil rights marches without repercussion for forty years.

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

...you think the sun shines out of their ass.

Do me a favour: argue with what I've said, instead of making stuff up to argue with, and we can continue the discussion.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again, I really find it hard to get my head around the belief that the British government could have continued to fire on unarmed civil rights marches without repercussion for forty years.

If that really is true you are in for one hell of a head spinner when the truth does come out.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do me a favour: argue with what I've said, instead of making stuff up to argue with, and we can continue the discussion.

That reply is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

Full British State withdrawal.

A genuine peace process between communities themselves and not between politicians.

Full employment.

I said "simple", not "simplistic". Why not throw in a pony for everyone?

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

If that really is true you are in for one hell of a head spinner when the truth does come out.

What truth?

Offy wrote: »

That reply is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

I apologise for diverting the discussion away from the stuff you made up on my behalf.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

I said "simple", not "simplistic". Why not throw in a pony for everyone?

SoulandForm gave a genuine answer, why cant you do the same to the question you are being asked?

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

SoulandForm gave a genuine answer, why cant you do the same to the question you are being asked?

Because I don't believe there are any simple answers. The search for simple answers - including the most simplistic of them all: violence - is one of the problems facing Northern Ireland.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

What truth?

The truth that the British government continually trash human and civil rights.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I apologise for diverting the discussion away from the stuff you made up on my behalf.

You keep getting backed up into a corner and then refuse to answer the questions you are unable to answer. Why not just admit that you dont have answers?

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many people were massacred in the 40 years before the start of the troubles?.

Twice as many people were killed in Northern Ireland than in the south when you lot where having your civil war. Than there were the sectarian riots of the 30s. The only way for Paisley to get one over the Unionist establishment was to out "Loyal" them.

The Orange Order marches each year with banners commemorating Dolly's Brae and the Battle of Diamond- most Unionist politicans belonged to the Orange Order; have any idea of the message that sent?

Again I think the PIRA's was foolish, some of the time actually immoral, and counter-productive, but I can see where it came from.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because I don't believe there are any simple answers. The search for simple answers - including the most simplistic of them all: violence - is one of the problems facing Northern Ireland.

You ask for what you dont believe exists, when your offered an answer you insult the person giving the answer with:

oscarBravo wrote: »

I said "simple", not "simplistic". Why not throw in a pony for everyone?

if you cant offer anything positive perhaps it would be better not to offer anything at all?

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I said "simple", not "simplistic". Why not throw in a pony for everyone?

I dont understand your point. Full employment would be a very important part in bringing a real peace to Northern Ireland. You dont know much about the place if you cant see that.