How long before Irish reunification?

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Have to agree with you there. They got in to trouble, and will have lost some votes, for making excuses for the dissidents when they set up the bomb trap in Co. Fermanagh recently.

When did they make excuses for dissidents? Missed that

blinding

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Have to agree with you there. They got in to trouble, and will have lost some votes, for making excuses for the dissidents when they set up the bomb trap in Co. Fermanagh recently.

FG have been big-ing up the dissidents big time .

Never under estimate the level Blue-Shirts will sink to .

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

Yeah you’re both actually lying at this stage unless you can provide evidence

We’re not allowed make false or inaccurate or misleading statements according to the charter

janfebmar

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Yeah you’re both actually lying at this stage unless you can provide evidence

We’re not allowed make false or inaccurate or misleading statements according to the charter

If you were asleep not that long ago, following comments about the bomb attack in Fermanagh swaying the British prime minister, then that is not our fault. The leader of FF called the comments , from a source very close to Mr. Coveney, dangerous and reckless.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

If you were asleep not that long ago, following comments about the bomb attack in Fermanagh swaying the British prime minister, then that is not our fault. The leader of FF called the comments , from a source very close to Mr. Coveney, dangerous and reckless.

Christ do you like warping statements.

Can you show me exactly where Simon coveney (your words) made excuses for that???

janfebmar

By claiming Boris Johnson "toned down" his comments / language / attitude after the fermanagh bombing, he is saying the dissidents / people who carried out the Fermanagh bombing had an effect on British govt. attitudes or policy in N. Ireland.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

By claiming Boris Johnson "toned down" his comments / language / attitude after the fermanagh bombing, he is saying the dissidents / people who carried out the Fermanagh bombing had an effect on British attitudes or policy in N. Ireland.

That’s what you took from that? You think that’s ‘making excuses’ for them?
You’ll find it was British intelligence briefing that toned down Boris stance and language. Not the itself
You need to work on your comprehension skills.
But it’s just another example of you having a go at anything Irish in attempt to make your schtick stick.

It’s so tiresome. Where do you get the energy

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

By claiming Boris Johnson "toned down" his comments / language / attitude after the fermanagh bombing, he is saying the dissidents / people who carried out the Fermanagh bombing had an effect on British govt. attitudes or policy in N. Ireland.

It is purely scurrilous lying to suggest that the government 'made excuses' for the bombing. Which is what you said.

There is no level of lying to which you will not stoop. In answer to people trying to make political or anti-Irish gain, Coveney's spokesman said the following:

There is absolutely no place for men or women of violence in our societies.

"The Irish and British governments are united to the core on that and it is foolish of anyone to play politics with that for headlines."

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

I have really bad indigestion today. I have no proof but I’m pretty sure it’s simon coveneys fault cos he knows Leo Varadkar and Leo is Indian and Indian food gives me indigestion.


Jan ‘logic’

janfebmar

blinding wrote: »

FG have been big-ing up the dissidents big time

+1. Who was it who sad "the Brits got a bit friendlier to us after the attempt to murder psni officers in Co. Fermanagh".

As the FF leader said, this was a very dangerous thing for someone in FG to say.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

+1. Who was it who sad "the Brits got a bit friendlier to us after the attempt to murder psni officers in Co. Fermanagh".

As the FF leader said, this was a very dangerous thing for someone in FG to say.

Even if somebody (un-named) said that, how could it ever be proposed as 'making excuses for the bombers'?

You are misrepresenting/lying to promote your anti Irish agenda ...again.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

Can someone please direct me to the ignore function on this site?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Even if somebody (un-named) said that, how could it ever be proposed as 'making excuses for the bombers'?

You are misrepresenting/lying to promote your anti Irish agenda ...again.

It is not anti Irish, unless you are claiming that M Martin, leader of FF was misrepresenting or is anti Irish too, when he labelled the comments from the FG camp (about the bombing and how they swayed Johnson ) dangerous.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

It is not anti Irish, unless you are claiming that M Martin, leader of FF was misrepresenting or is anti Irish too, when he labelled the comments from the FG camp (about the bombing and how they swayed Johnson ) dangerous.

You stated coveney made excuses to that happening.

He did not say that

He did it imply that.

You’re completely warping the comment into something totally different.

Why are you doing that

janfebmar

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

You stated coveney made excuses ..

Martin, leader of FF, called the comments " dangerous and reckless", to quote his exact words.

Why did he and many others think the FG comments were "dangerous and reckless"?

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

You stated coveney made excuses ..

He did not make excuses

You’re lying. Again. As ever.

Are you capable of making a point honestly? Ever?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is purely scurrilous lying to suggest that the government 'made excuses' for the bombing. Which is what you said.

There is no level of lying to which you will not stoop. In answer to people trying to make political or anti-Irish gain, Coveney's spokesman said the following:

I think that we can all agree that there has absolutely never been any place for men or women of violence in our societies since the foundation of the State.

Can't we?

blanch152

janfebmar wrote: »

Martin, leader of FF, called the comments " dangerous and reckless", to quote his exact words.

Why did he and many others think the FG comments were "dangerous and reckless"?

Because politicians make political statements, not statements of reality. If you collect enough statements from politicians, you can usually find more than one example of them speaking from both sides of their mouth.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

It is not anti Irish, unless you are claiming that M Martin, leader of FF was misrepresenting or is anti Irish too, when he labelled the comments from the FG camp (about the bombing and how they swayed Johnson ) dangerous.

Michael Martin was taking political advantage of a typical Indo article. With the usual un-named sources.

What Michael Martin was NOT doing, which is what you WERE doing is suggesting that Coveney was 'making excuses for the dissidents'.

If Johnson was making inflammatory comments around the backstop in the opinion of the Irish Government then they should have the confidence in our sovereignty and say it, and have no need (except in the eyes of the hat doffers) to make apologies for saying it either.

You can make comments like that without in any way being seen as 'making excuses' for the dissidents.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I think that we can all agree that there has absolutely never been any place for men or women of violence in our societies since the foundation of the State.

Can't we?

Absolutely, which is why I am most critical of the British government actually. They should never have been here in the first place. Our violent society stems from that.

Would you agree?

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

I think that we can all agree that there has absolutely never been any place for men or women of violence in our societies since the foundation of the State.

Can't we?

You should look over at America. One of the biggest parties is funded by violence/gun lobby

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely, which is why I am most critical of the British government actually. They should never have been here in the first place. Our violent society stems from that.

Would you agree?

Our "violent society" has had a century of independence. We have been though it all before, you condemn all violence because " it is the Brits fault, you condemn the unionists and want to ban parts of their culture / deport them, and you will not condemn the Republican paramilitaries because they did not use violence, they carried out military action. Only the Brits and Unionists used violence. "

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Our "violent society" has had a century of independence. We have been though it all before, you condemn all violence because " it is the Brits fault, you condemn the unionists and want to ban parts of their culture / deport them, and you will not condemn the Republican paramilitaries because they did not use violence, they carried out military action. Only the Brits and Unionists used violence. "

The violence of our independence would be because we were not 'independent' and we all know who was responsible for that.
The conflict/war since 1969 was because of partition and we know who instituted that and supported the decades of sectarian bigoted rule.

And rather than lie straight in the bed, you lie about 'deportation' and the fact that I have condemned all the violence from the start.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Our "violent society" has had a century of independence. We have been though it all before, you condemn all violence because " it is the Brits fault, you condemn the unionists and want to ban parts of their culture / deport them, and you will not condemn the Republican paramilitaries because they did not use violence, they carried out military action. Only the Brits and Unionists used violence. "

The right to maintain British identity will be naturally enshrined in the new constitution after unification.
Those identifying as British who begin to use violence will just be ruining their own reputation.

They really need to work on the anger issues they have.

It’ll only get worse when their beloved Britain abandons them once and for all.


Going to be glued to the news the night the SoS makes that call for the poll.

The unionists will go full pyro I’d say.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And rather than lie straight in the bed, you lie about 'deportation' and the fact that I have condemned all the violence from the start.

Resettlement Grant's for unionists and "partitionists" were your proposal in the event of a U.I.

You have condemned violence because only "the Brits "used violence, the Republican paramilitaries did not use violence, according to you, hence you condemned the Brits a thousand times.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Resettlement Grant's for unionists and "partitionists" were your proposal in the event of a U.I.

You have condemned violence because only "the Brits "used violence, the Republican paramilitaries did not use violence, according to you, hence you condemned the Brits a thousand times.

You’re suggesting we build massive walls around Their areas and imprison them? The Israel model with Palestine? I wouldn’t be forcing anyone to stay. Or to leave. That’s not how a free country works.

You have some warped mind there Jan

James Brown

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Resettlement Grant's for unionists and "partitionists" were your proposal in the event of a U.I.

You have condemned violence because only "the Brits "used violence, the Republican paramilitaries did not use violence, according to you, hence you condemned the Brits a thousand times.

Who is the party responsible for withholding a section of our country and using armed force to maintain the status quo for unionists over and above the rest of society in that portion of Ulster?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Resettlement Grant's for unionists and "partitionists" were your proposal in the event of a U.I.

I will say this one more time. I said that I would be willing to help those 18% who say 'they could not live in a UI', by making available grants if they wanted to leave or resettle. Which is not 'deportation'.
If you infer that I was advocating force or anything other than a voluntary scheme, you are lying.

You have condemned violence because only "the Brits "used violence, the Republican paramilitaries did not use violence, according to you, hence you condemned the Brits a thousand times.

I condemn violence and always have. I have also said it 'was ALL wrong', repeatedly in answer to you specifically.

FrancieBrady

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

You’re suggesting we build massive walls around Their areas and imprison them? The Israel model with Palestine? I wouldn’t be forcing anyone to stay. Or to leave. That’s not how a free country works.

You have some warped mind there Jan

Janfebmar has no solutions for this 18%. Therefore she is the one 'forcing' them to stay, if they aren't lucky enough to have the means to exercise their free will, like their political representatives, who will also abandon them. Lovely people.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

She definitely seems determined to force them to stay from her own posts on the matter