How long before Irish reunification?

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

They went out to kill him(well i believe it was his collegue who.was targeted)....with an upcoming ceasefire was a settling ...

You said you had no sympathy for the Gardai that were killed, it was their own fault for being armed Gardai. You think Gardai should never be armed, and the Republicans who you admitted support for earlier should be the only armed people in the state?

_blaaz

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

and the Republicans who you admitted support for earlier should be the only armed people in the state?

And where did i say anything approaching this??you can be a republican/nationlist without.support SF like?


Your just making up stuff now.....i never said gaurds shouldnt be armed?(just highlight hyprocrisy of saying its ok for them to be armed,but critise republican/unionist paramilitaries for being armed)

Feisar

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

cjmc wrote: »

Smart ass. Just because you lived for a while the north you think it ok to call those in the republic Mexicans, ****ing sap !!

Here, bit of a strong response, it was meant to be tongue in cheek.

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

(just highlight hyprocrisy of saying its ok for them to be armed,but critise republican/unionist paramilitaries for being armed)

Of course it's ok for the security services of a state/ democratically elected government, for example detective Gardai, or Gardai armed response unit, to be armed.

You said earlier ( post no 1920 as far as I remember) you saw no moral difference between armed Gardai doing their job and the paramilitaries who killed the Gardai, or words to that effect. You remind me of Francie and his excusing of violence from certain quarters.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

That's not the reason and you well know it but don't want to admit it here.
It's clear you are, or at least were, an IRA sympathiser at the very least.

What?

Admit what?

I'm an 'IRA sympathiser' because I understood the GFA and voted for it?

FrancieBrady

Interesting criticism from a man I know personally. Again I think it is a significant sign of a shift in thinking along the border. He is a 'border Bishop' representing parishes that straddle the border.

Rt Rev John McDowell, the Bishop of Clogher, wrote:

“As Bishop of Clogher, I have a vocation to care for people on both sides of the Border and a responsibility to pray for both British and Irish Heads of State and their peoples, day by day. Although that is principally a spiritual job of work, it would be hypocritical of me to pray for something without actively working to achieve it. Besides, spiritual wellbeing needs a material basis on which to live.

So, although our priorities and the methods we use to achieve them may be different, I think it is fair to say that our goals overlap; nowhere more so than in the current difficulties surrounding Brexit and the Border, which (very worryingly) give every impression of escalating towards a crisis. For those of us old enough to have lived through longest civil conflict in post-War Europe, the very word “escalation” is resonant with overtones of lived horror and real tragedy. As such, it is reassuring that those in power on both sides have repeated their desire to find answers to the Brexit/Border conundrum problems that protect what has been achieved here since 1998.

What your Government chooses to do to that end will be inevitably one of historical magnitude….

No Government should commit a country to a course of action in which the consequences were so opaque as to be incalculable. It would, therefore, be both logically and morally correct for a Prime Minister to give deep pause before allowing a no-deal Brexit.

But I principally wanted to write to you about the Border.

The Border and the problems which it poses for any form of Brexit are not only technical or technological issues. Nor are they simply issues to do with trade or security matters. Expressed in the starkest terms, the Border is the background against which all political and much cultural life in Northern Ireland (and in a more limited way in the Republic of Ireland) is worked out. Some people like the Border and others do not, but positively or negatively, consciously or unconsciously, it is pivotal to how politicians and people here assess almost all policy alternatives.

The ground on which people build and grow in the Border region feels particularly fragile today. It is almost possible to feel the heat of the past burning the soles of our feet. So, please, in your consideration of the future of this place: tread carefully. And with deep and genuine concern I would ask you to be very conscious of the legacy your Government will leave”.

cj maxx

Feisar wrote: »

Here, bit of a strong response, it was meant to be tongue in cheek.

Maybe, but a very touchy subject with me at the moment.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The time to object was at the vote for the GFA.

If you didn't read it/understand it, perhaps you should have.

Victims families on both sides had to swallow very very hard so that we all could live in some kind of peace.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ira-leader-on-the-run-over-child-abuse-charges-was-key-suspect-in-murder-of-detective-garda-jerry-mccabe-38349812.html

Should the young woman in this case also have to "swallow very very hard so that we all could live in some kind of peace"?

In your opinion, should this man be left alone to live in peace in accordance with the GFA as there was a "war" on at the time?

Feisar

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

cjmc wrote: »

Maybe, but a very touchy subject with me at the moment.

I've been called a lot worse so I'll get over it!:D

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ira-leader-on-the-run-over-child-abuse-charges-was-key-suspect-in-murder-of-detective-garda-jerry-mccabe-38349812.html

Should the young woman in this case also have to "swallow very very hard so that we all could live in some kind of peace"?

In your opinion, should this man be left alone to live in peace in accordance with the GFA as there was a "war" on at the time?

No. Absolutely not.

Anyone who abuses children should face the full weight of the law. We have had these issues in enough organisations, groups etc to have learned this by now.

_blaaz

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Of course it's ok for the security services of a state/ democratically elected government, for example detective Gardai, or Gardai armed response unit, to be armed.

How.is it??? And noone else allowed....deosnt seem fair

You said earlier ( post no 1920 as far as I remember) you saw no moral difference between armed Gardai doing their job and the paramilitaries who killed the Gardai, or words to that effect

I said no moral difference between armed gardai killing peiple and paramilitaries killing people....perhaps you can outline what is morally differnent? Both are immoral.imo

blanch152

_blaaz wrote: »

How.is it??? And noone else allowed....deosnt seem fair



I said no moral difference between armed gardai killing peiple and paramilitaries killing people....perhaps you can outline what is morally differnent? Both are immoral.imo

Democratic legitimacy makes the difference.

The police/army/security forces in a democracy are legitimately authorised to use force within the laws of that democracy and subject to democratic checks and balances. In Ireland, we have the courts, GSOC, etc. to provide those democratic checks.

The IRA had none of that, never had any legitimacy, and were basically a gang of thugs held together by a loose political agenda that many used as a cover for criminal activity.

20-30 years

Brendan O'Leary, probably the most prominent political scientist on the conflict, has just written an enormous 3-volume/1200-plus pages analysis which the reviewer in Saturday's Irish Times says is the most significant study ever of it and a NI equivalent of JJ Lee's hugely acclaimed study of the Republic, Politics & Society 1912-1985. High praise there:

A Treatise on Northern Ireland: Tearing up myths about the Troubles

Well worth reading the above review for a summary.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

_blaaz wrote: »

How.is it??? And noone else allowed....deosnt seem fair



I said no moral difference between armed gardai killing peiple and paramilitaries killing people....perhaps you can outline what is morally differnent? Both are immoral.imo

Democratic legitimacy makes the difference.

The police/army/security forces in a democracy are legitimately authorised to use force within the laws of that democracy and subject to democratic checks and balances. In Ireland, we have the courts, GSOC, etc. to provide those democratic checks.

The IRA had none of that, never had any legitimacy, and were basically a gang of thugs held together by a loose political agenda that many used as a cover for criminal activity.

What about when those democratic checks break down, Blanch? Does your described legitimacy apply to state forces when some/many of these checks and balances you mention aren't applied, or are selectively applied?

FrancieBrady

Some very big hitters lining up to protect the GFA now.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us-uk-trade-deal-impossible-if-peace-accord-undermined-warns-letter-1.3970109

The bipartisan group, which includes five former US ambassadors to Ireland, two former state governors and foreign policy experts including Nancy Soderberg, said it was “deeply concerned” at UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s rejection of the backstop last week.

“We remain deeply concerned given the new prime minister’s recent statement in the Commons that there can be no Irish backstop in the withdrawal agreement, even one with a time limit,” states the letter to Julian Smith that has been seen by The Irish Times. “We view the belief that alternative arrangements can easily solve the problem of the Irish Border with a healthy scepticism as do many experts.”

Noting house speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comments to The Irish Times last week that Congress will not sign off on a trade deal if the peace agreement is undermined, the letter states that a trade deal will be “all but impossible”.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

What about when those democratic checks break down, Blanch? Does your described legitimacy apply to state forces when some/many of these checks and balances you mention aren't applied, or are selectively applied?

Essentially, such issues should end up before the Courts, as we have seen with Soldier F but also with Tribunals where relevant as we have seen in this State.

There will always be times when state forces exceed their mandate, sometimes through genuine error, sometimes maliciously, and what is important is that the checks and balances identify and sanction these where appropriate.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

What about when those democratic checks break down, Blanch? Does your described legitimacy apply to state forces when some/many of these checks and balances you mention aren't applied, or are selectively applied?

Essentially, such issues should end up before the Courts, as we have seen with Soldier F but also with Tribunals where relevant as we have seen in this State.

There will always be times when state forces exceed their mandate, sometimes through genuine error, sometimes maliciously, and what is important is that the checks and balances identify and sanction these where appropriate.

So the guts of 50 years is a reasonable timeframe for these checks and balances to actually take effect (if they do at all)? Or a tribunal held, an admission that something was done which shouldn't have been, and no consequences in real terms?

You'd still consider that legitimate?

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

So the guts of 50 years is a reasonable timeframe for these checks and balances to actually take effect (if they do at all)? Or a tribunal held, an admission that something was done which shouldn't have been, and no consequences in real terms?

You'd still consider that legitimate?

You are only looking at historical occurences.

We have GSOC now, the North has similar institutions.

Lessons are learned from Tribunals, the Barr Tribunal being one.

However, the particular context of the current discussion was the disgusting comment that McCabe was a fair target because he had a gun, so we are talking about armed gardai, not about historical events such as Bloody Sunday.

Ireland has one of the least armed police forces in the world, and one where force is rarely used. We also have some of the strongest checks and balances now. All in all, I think that we have the conditions where the use of force by the security forces has democratic legitimacy while the use of force by criminals masquerading as freedom fighters does not.

The shooting of Gardas McCabe and O'Sullivan is indefensible, and those who cast aspersions and make snide remarks are beneath contempt.

_blaaz

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Democratic legitimacy makes the difference.

To.me.theres no moral difference in killing someone anyway....but if your ok to hide behind democratic legtimacy to cheer on killing,work away....but yous are a hypocrite to condemn republican/unionist paramilitaries for killing imo

The police/army/security forces in a democracy are legitimately authorised to use force within the laws of that democracy and subject to democratic checks and balances. In Ireland, we have the courts, GSOC, etc. to provide those democratic checks.

Gaurds are basically openly corrupt and npt held to.account here (who was held to account over lies about breth testing or any of the other 2 dozen or so scandels to hit them this decade)....i remain skeptical about procedures to hold them.to.account and as far as i can see they have free reign with little to no accountability

facehugger99

blanch152 wrote: »

Democratic legitimacy makes the difference.

Trying to apply a moral equivalence between those entrusted to bear arms on behalf of a democratic State and the terrorists thugs, is straight out of the SF playbook - of course the posters in question are never members of SF :rolleyes:.

It's an argument that requires bankrupt morals to make and a deficit of intelligence to believe.

Thankfully it's a view only subscribed to by the most fanatical of IRA-apologists.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

So the guts of 50 years is a reasonable timeframe for these checks and balances to actually take effect (if they do at all)? Or a tribunal held, an admission that something was done which shouldn't have been, and no consequences in real terms?

You'd still consider that legitimate?

You are only looking at historical occurences.

We have GSOC now, the North has similar institutions.

Lessons are learned from Tribunals, the Barr Tribunal being one.

However, the particular context of the current discussion was the disgusting comment that McCabe was a fair target because he had a gun, so we are talking about armed gardai, not about historical events such as Bloody Sunday.

Ireland has one of the least armed police forces in the world, and one where force is rarely used. We also have some of the strongest checks and balances now. All in all, I think that we have the conditions where the use of force by the security forces has democratic legitimacy while the use of force by criminals masquerading as freedom fighters does not.

The shooting of Gardas McCabe and O'Sullivan is indefensible, and those who cast aspersions and make snide remarks are beneath contempt.

I didn't bring up Bloody Sunday, Blanch, you did.

I'm not defending the shooting of anyone (I'd much prefer if it no one was shot at all, and absolutely was not casting any aspersions on Garda McCabe or O'Sullivan)

I'm trying to see if you could, using your own standards, see how the British forces in Ireland may not have been perceived as legitimate, and as such, no better than the paramilitaries.

I'm not suggesting you should agree with it, but asking if you could see how that perception could arise among a portion of the populace?

I don't have any issue surrounding the democratic legitimacy of forces in Ireland.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I didn't bring up Bloody Sunday, Blanch, you did.

I'm not defending the shooting of anyone (I'd much prefer if it no one was shot at all, and absolutely was not casting any aspersions on Garda McCabe or O'Sullivan)

I'm trying to see if you could, using your own standards, see how the British forces in Ireland may not have been perceived as legitimate, and as such, no better than the paramilitaries.

I'm not suggesting you should agree with it, but asking if you could see how that perception could arise among a portion of the populace?

I don't have any issue surrounding the democratic legitimacy of forces in Ireland.

There are many criminals and thugs out there who don't perceive that the Gardai are legitimate, yet you don't have a problem with their democratic legitimacy.

Like it or not, the British Army and the RUC had democratic legitimacy. Whether or not they exercised that democratic legitimacy in the correct way all of the time is a different question, whether or not they sullied that democratic legitimacy on occasion is another question, but they had democratic legitimacy and therefore the right to use force appropriately in a security situation.

The abuse of that right is a separate and distinct matter and it has taken far too long to deal with the too many incidences of such abuse that occurred in the North, but to be clear, the abuse of the democratic right to use force was not a common everyday occurrence either.

As for the IRA, by contrast they had no democratic legitimacy at all.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I didn't bring up Bloody Sunday, Blanch, you did.

I'm not defending the shooting of anyone (I'd much prefer if it no one was shot at all, and absolutely was not casting any aspersions on Garda McCabe or O'Sullivan)

I'm trying to see if you could, using your own standards, see how the British forces in Ireland may not have been perceived as legitimate, and as such, no better than the paramilitaries.

I'm not suggesting you should agree with it, but asking if you could see how that perception could arise among a portion of the populace?

I don't have any issue surrounding the democratic legitimacy of forces in Ireland.

Blanch and the usual posse will now try and divert the conversation to one about specific victims that they will get righteously outraged about.

The simple fact is that it was all wrong from the beginning - partition.

100 years later we are facing another crisis, this time the state of Ireland v London over the self same anomaly - the divisive and wrong partition of this island.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I didn't bring up Bloody Sunday, Blanch, you did.

I'm not defending the shooting of anyone (I'd much prefer if it no one was shot at all, and absolutely was not casting any aspersions on Garda McCabe or O'Sullivan)

I'm trying to see if you could, using your own standards, see how the British forces in Ireland may not have been perceived as legitimate, and as such, no better than the paramilitaries.

I'm not suggesting you should agree with it, but asking if you could see how that perception could arise among a portion of the populace?

I don't have any issue surrounding the democratic legitimacy of forces in Ireland.

There are many criminals and thugs out there who don't perceive that the Gardai are legitimate, yet you don't have a problem with their democratic legitimacy.

Like it or not, the British Army and the RUC had democratic legitimacy. Whether or not they exercised that democratic legitimacy in the correct way all of the time is a different question, whether or not they sullied that democratic legitimacy on occasion is another question, but they had democratic legitimacy and therefore the right to use force appropriately in a security situation.

The abuse of that right is a separate and distinct matter and it has taken far too long to deal with the too many incidences of such abuse that occurred in the North, but to be clear, the abuse of the democratic right to use force was not a common everyday occurrence either.

As for the IRA, by contrast they had no democratic legitimacy at all.

I haven't made any comment on the democratic legitimacy of the IRA, Blanch.

I've merely applied the standards you set to the actions of the British state forces in the North. How can you set your standards out, acknowledge that those standards were not met by the British state forces....and still argue that you couldn't possibly perceive how they were seen as democratically legitimate?

We're not discussing what some scumbags think of the Gardai, purely applying your standards by which you condemn one group (and condemn it fairly in my opinion), but refuse to even admit you could see how it would be possible for someone to consider those same standards unmet by another group.

You described the standards required by you for a group to have a democratically legitimate right to use force in your opinion, you agree that the standards you set were not met by British state forces in the North of Ireland, therefore......

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

blanch152 wrote:

As for the IRA, by contrast they had no democratic legitimacy at all.

Don't forget the UVF, INLA and the UDA.

_blaaz

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Trying to apply a moral equivalence between those entrusted to bear arms on behalf of a democratic State and the terrorists thugs,

Perhaps you can outline whats morally differnce between security forces killing someone and republican/unionist paramilitaries doing so??

It's an argument that requires bankrupt morals to make and a deficit of intelligence to believe.

Abuse seems to be your level tbf....suprised youve not screamed shinner at me :pac:

blanch152

eagle eye wrote: »

Don't forget the UVF, INLA and the UDA.

Agreed, they had no democratic legitimacy either.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Agreed, they had no democratic legitimacy either.

The logic here is that no uprising anywhere, ever was correct in your opinion. Would that be a fair summation?

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I haven't made any comment on the democratic legitimacy of the IRA, Blanch.

I've merely applied the standards you set to the actions of the British state forces in the North. How can you set your standards out, acknowledge that those standards were not met by the British state forces....and still argue that you couldn't possibly perceive how they were seen as democratically legitimate?

We're not discussing what some scumbags think of the Gardai, purely applying your standards by which you condemn one group (and condemn it fairly in my opinion), but refuse to even admit you could see how it would be possible for someone to consider those same standards unmet by another group.

You described the standards required by you for a group to have a democratically legitimate right to use force in your opinion, you agree that the standards you set were not met by British state forces in the North of Ireland, therefore......

You applied the standards I set to certain actions of the British state forces in the North but not to the general provision of whether they have democratic legitimacy. Let us do so in an analytical rather than emotional reactionary way.

Is the UK a democratic State acknowledged by the United Nations? Yes
Is the police force democratically accountable to the people through the legislature and the judiciary? Yes
Are there democratic checks and balances on the conduct and operations of the security forces? Yes
Are they entitled to use force? Yes, within the terms of their democratic mandate, afforded them by the legislature
Is there evidence that these checks and balances work? They certainly do today, but they did not always work in the past and certain actions of the security forces did not receive the appropriate scrutiny.

If the UK was not a democracy, if there were insufficient balances between the executive, legislature and judiciary, or if there were no democratic checks and balances on the security forces, then their actions would lack democratic legitimacy.

Pointing to individual exceptions does not change the overall legitimacy.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The logic here is that no uprising anywhere, ever was correct in your opinion. Would that be a fair summation?

No, that is not the case. To give one example, the overthrow of communism was legitimate. There are many other cases.