How long before Irish reunification?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Thank you for just proving the point made in my last post.

Amazing how all the white knights turn up when a British person gets asked a question the white knights might not like the answer to.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you happy for your government forces to be involved in summary justice in a conflict they steadfastly refused to call a war?

It was not a war in that the conflict was not fought between countries or governments. It was terrorism. The paramilitaries were not elected by anyone / had no mandate to engage in armed conflict or terrorism.

As regards am I happy for government forces to be involved in summary justice, are you referring to the cases where Irish security forces shot people (because that did happen too)?
All police forces the world over have a right to defend themselves if confronted with an armed gunman, especially where that gunman is a member of an organisation which has a track record of murdering hundreds of police and security force personnel, often by sniping or shooting in the back or killing while off duty or retired.

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Thank you for just proving the point made in my last post.

Amazing how all the white knights turn up when a British person gets asked a question the white knights might not like the answer to.

Arguing over a petty point like this is bizarre to say the least.Are you seriously suggesting that whilst the ira(who you have insisted were soldiers)are ok to kill,maim,bomb and rule the general public by intimidation whilst state representatives which may be British or Irish cannot defend themselves and the public?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Arguing over a petty point like this is bizarre to say the least.Are you seriously suggesting that whilst the ira(who you have insisted were soldiers)are ok to kill,maim,bomb and rule the general public by intimidation whilst state representatives which may be British or Irish cannot defend themselves and the public?

No Rob...stop trying the pitiful attempts to deflect. For the record, are you:

happy for your government forces to be involved in summary justice in a conflict they steadfastly refused to call a war?

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

So the realization has finally dawned on the dup what’s coming. And after refusing to engage with Dublin repeatedly now they come begging.
UI is coming lads. Might as well start getting used to the idea. And the replies to this tweet show how furious ordinary NI folk are with the dup for their stupidity up to this point

https://twitter.com/duponline/status/1168977812361007105

Fionn1952

15-20 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Thank you for just proving the point made in my last post.

Amazing how all the white knights turn up when a British person gets asked a question the white knights might not like the answer to.

Arguing over a petty point like this is bizarre to say the least.Are you seriously suggesting that whilst the ira(who you have insisted were soldiers)are ok to kill,maim,bomb and rule the general public by intimidation whilst state representatives which may be British or Irish cannot defend themselves and the public?

I haven't seen anyone say the IRA were ok to kill, maim, bomb or to rule the general public by intimidation.

Once more, we're back to my core issue. It's all well and good decrying the IRA as terrorists, surely you expect to hold your armed forces to a higher standard than terrorists? If you do, how is it in any way relevant what standards those terrorists held to?

I would expect that there are certain instances where the army have no choice but to shoot, and when that happens there is a risk of death. There were also many instances where the army could've intervened without opening fire.....and many instances where the person they shot wasn't armed in the first place. I expect Jan/Downcow to be along and claim otherwise in the face of all logic and fact, but I'd hold you to a higher standard than that.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone say the IRA were ok to kill, maim, bomb or to rule the general public by intimidation.

Once more, we're back to my core issue. It's all well and good decrying the IRA as terrorists, surely you expect to hold your armed forces to a higher standard than terrorists? If you do, how is it in any way relevant what standards those terrorists held to?

I would expect that there are certain instances where the army have no choice but to shoot, and when that happens there is a risk of death. There were also many instances where the army could've intervened without opening fire.....and many instances where the person they shot wasn't armed in the first place. I expect Jan/Downcow to be along and claim otherwise in the face of all logic and fact, but I'd hold you to a higher standard than that.

Well, there are many who explain and excuse the IRA and what they did.

However, that isn't the main point of your post.

You are right that the security forces should be held to higher standards of accountability than terrorists. The reason for this is that while all terrorist killings are wrong, there are times when the security forces in the field are justified in killing someone. I have given the case of Abbeylara and the Barr Tribunal as an example in order to keep it away from the divisive examples in the North.

We also have people come on here and say all killings are wrong. This is not something that they genuinely believe, but they are saying this to give equivalence to the IRA. They also try to isolate principles from one another to manipulate the debate, so to answer your question, it needs to be put in context of more general democratic principles.

Security forces, unlike others, may legally kill people. This means that such killings should be subject to a high degree of scrutiny and accountability and that the security forces themselves must be subject to democratic scrutiny. Ideally, each and every case should be investigated thoroughly. In the case of others i.e. non-security forces, accountability should take the form of investigation, trial and ultimately conviction of anyone who kills. Organisations that support, organise or promote killings by non-state actors should be proscribed, censored and members should be subject to prosecution.

janfebmar

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone say the IRA were ok to kill, maim, bomb or to rule the general public by intimidation.

Then why did they carry out Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Le Mons, Birmingham etc Someone must have said the IRA were ok then?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Security forces, unlike others, may legally kill people. This means that such killings should be subject to a high degree of scrutiny and accountability and that the security forces themselves must be subject to democratic scrutiny. Ideally, each and every case should be investigated thoroughly. In the case of others i.e. non-security forces, accountability should take the form of investigation, trial and ultimately conviction of anyone who kills. Organisations that support, organise or promote killings by non-state actors should be proscribed, censored and members should be subject to prosecution.

Funny, I thought it was fairly self evident that paramilitary's were prosecuted when caught or there was sufficient evidence against them? So zealous were the morally superior authorities that they frequently invented evidence to get these 'suspected' people behind bars.

If the separation is so clear in the case of NI why is a British poster having difficulty answering this question and why are there certain posters (whose defence of all things British state we are used to, despite their claims to 'impartiality') riding in to white knight for him, so he can avoid answering the simple question?

Are you happy for your government forces to be involved in summary justice in a conflict they steadfastly refused to call a war?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Funny, I thought it was fairly self evident that paramilitary's were prosecuted when caught or there was sufficient evidence against them? So zealous were the morally superior authorities that they frequently invented evidence to get these 'suspected' people behind bars.

If the separation is so clear in the case of NI why is a British poster having difficulty answering this question and why are there certain posters (whose defence of all things British state we are used to, despite their claims to 'impartiality') riding in to white knight for him, so he can avoid answering the simple question?

I see you sliced off the contextual part of my post to isolate a single part of my response.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I see you sliced off the contextual part of my post to isolate a single part of my response.

I will decide what part of your post is relevant to what I want to say. You don't get to dictate which part of your musings are worth paying attention to.

Yeah_Right

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just to have it on record Rob:

Are you happy for your government forces to be involved in summary justice in a conflict they steadfastly refused to call a war?

I can't speak for any other posters here but my answer to this question is yes. If some idiot is walking around wearing a balaclava and carrying a firearm (even if he is no imminent threat) I have no problem with them shooting him/her. The same with people throwing rocks and bottles at armed police/soldiers. If they get shot, it is their fault.

Its like pulling a dog's tail and then being shocked that the dog bit you.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I will decide what part of your post is relevant to what I want to say. You don't get to dictate which part of your musings are worth paying attention to.

blanch152 wrote: »

To me, too many posters on here make questions out of grand motherhood and apple pie sentiments and then try to apply them to every single situation, and rather than general debate, they engage in long, lengthy nitpicking of responses.

Once again you prove my point. You ignore the totality of my response to nitpick a particular aspect.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again you prove my point.

You didn't have a point that answered my question to Rob.

You just had one of your little sideways go. Yawn, to be honest.

blinding

10-15 years

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

United Ireland now being discussed in the House of Commons

Right now.

But of course the conversation isn’t happening.

I suppose Leo and FG / FF will some day discuss hit in the Dail:eek:

I suppose they will have real proposals and plans:eek:

Leo and that lot would swim the Atlantic ocean to get away from a United Ireland .:eek:

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You didn't have a point that answered my question to Rob.

You just had one of your little sideways go. Yawn, to be honest.

When you lose an argument, and you know you were wrong, why do you always go and attack a poster? Yawn, to be honest.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

When you lose an argument, and you know you were wrong, why do you always go and attack a poster? Yawn, to be honest.

Pointing out what he did in his post is hardly an 'attack' janfebmar.

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

janfebmar wrote: »

When you lose an argument, and you know you were wrong, why do you always go and attack a poster? Yawn, to be honest.

Pointing out what he did in his post is hardly an 'attack' janfebmar.

Back on topic francie ,do you think now that Britain is apparently waking up to Johnson and his kamikaze tactics,do you see a reversal of brexit or a deal putting the chances of a UI further away?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Back on topic francie ,do you think now that Britain is apparently waking up to Johnson and his kamikaze tactics,do you see a reversal of brexit or a deal putting the chances of a UI further away?

My prediction a few years ago that - we are watching the process of the UK breaking up,- still holds Rob.
In fact, I think it is accelerating at a rate of knots not even I could predict.
The DUP also in the process of imploding. All looking good from this perspective. A Brexit of any sort hastens the day.
If Brexit doesn't happen you guys will turn on each other, and you are showing signs of doing it anyway.

p.s. shame you hadn't the courage to answer the question asked.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Pointing out what he did in his post is hardly an 'attack' janfebmar.

You are deflecting from the subject discussed, because you know you were wrong yet again.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You are deflecting from the subject discussed, because you know you were wrong yet again.

Wrong about asking a simple question? How is that then?

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

Back on topic francie ,do you think now that Britain is apparently waking up to Johnson and his kamikaze tactics,do you see a reversal of brexit or a deal putting the chances of a UI further away?

My prediction a few years ago that - we are watching the process of the UK breaking up,- still holds Rob.
In fact, I think it is accelerating at a rate of knots not even I could predict.
The DUP also in the process of imploding. All looking good from this perspective. A Brexit of any sort hastens the day.
If Brexit doesn't happen you guys will turn on each other, and you are showing signs of doing it anyway.

p.s. shame you hadn't the courage to answer the question asked.

I expect state representatives to adhere to strict guidelines regarding engaging with hostiles,which is fine in theory but how that can be applied in practical terms is something else altogether.
Can you answer whether you consider ira operatives soldiers or civilians?

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

Yeah_Right wrote: »

The same with people throwing rocks and bottles at armed police/soldiers.

So the PSNI should have opened fire on the flag protestors?

The IRA were fair game imo - people who joined the Provos knew exactly what they were getting into but rioters?

joseywhales

10-15 years

It's funny after all the bluster from extremists on both sides dominating the debate and drowning out the moderate majority, the real reason unification will occur will be the economic wellbeing of the majority of people on the island, as it should be. There is no reason for a small island with an almost homogenous population racially and culturally not to be one nation, whatever political fallout that might bring, the real victory will be workers with a little extra income and security. The benefits of self governance are pretty much proven, not least by the ROI, years of having NI interests being decided in Westminster and it's fiscal dependance on the UK has been obviously damaging.

The transaction cost is massive but long term, unification is obviously beneficial.

James Brown

10-15 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

I expect state representatives to adhere to strict guidelines regarding engaging with hostiles,which is fine in theory but how that can be applied in practical terms is something else altogether.
Can you answer whether you consider ira operatives soldiers or civilians?

And are these lads affecting a UI how?

James Brown

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

When you lose an argument, and you know you were wrong, why do you always go and attack a poster? Yawn, to be honest.

Pot, kettle?

RobMc59

10-15 years

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And are these lads affecting a UI how?

Read the original post Matt and you will see I had attempted to get the discussion back on topic but a certain person with his Captain Ahab like obsessive stance still wanted to bicker about ira operatives.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I expect state representatives to adhere to strict guidelines regarding engaging with hostiles,which is fine in theory but how that can be applied in practical terms is something else altogether.

That's another wishy washy answer in fairness Rob

Can you answer whether you consider ira operatives soldiers or civilians?

There is the problem. The IRA seen themselves at war and themselves as soldiers but the British steadfastly denied this to be the case, as do some on here.

The British hid behind the wishy washiness of your answer for over 40 years though. Blurring the lines when they overstepped those 'strict guidelines' and whitewashing and lying until caught out.

Consequently when I see 'disputed circumstances' I think it should be fully investigated.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Read the original post Matt and you will see I had attempted to get the discussion back on topic but a certain person with his Captain Ahab like obsessive stance still wanted to bicker about ira operatives.

But no criticism for the poster who wants to get into the competitive headcount eh Rob?

The British Army look like they maybe returning to our streets here. I just wanted to clarify where you stood.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British Army look like they maybe returning to our streets here. I just wanted to clarify where you stood.

Wrong again Francie. The army of the UK, called the British army for short, are called in exceptional circumstances on to streets and fields in the UK to defuse bombs etc, as happened recently. There is little or no chance of them "returning to our streets" Francie ie streets in this jurisdiction.