Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How long before Irish reunification?
Options
Comments
-
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »What about a sectarian bigoted state?
I've answered that question already.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.0 -
15-20 years
Pointing to individual exceptions does not change the overall legitimacy.
The argument is, of course that these instances weren't quite the exception that you'd like to pretend. In fact they were systemic, often planned and covered up.
To take your analytical list:
Is the UK a democratic State acknowledged by the United Nations? Absolutely no argument that this is true
Is the police force democratically accountable to the people through the legislature and the judiciary? This is very debatable, considering it has taken almost 50 years to have one soldier taken to account for a globally condemned atrocity, and the police force at the time were disbanded because of issues surrounding this? I'd say no
Are there democratic checks and balances on the conduct and operations of the security forces? There may be now, if there were any in place then, they were largely on paper only. Cover ups and denial were the standard, democratic checks and balances the exception.
Are they entitled to use force? This is pretty low grade circular logic - you cant present the question we've set out to answer as evidence to support an answer to the question.
Is there evidence that these checks and balances work? Maybe they do now, though mountains of things remain buried we'll never know about. In a functioning, normal society, I agree these checks and balances should work. Whether they did in the North, also debatable.
So to my reading, by your standards the actions of state forces in the North lacked democratic legitimacy. Fair enough, could've just agreed with me from the start then so.0 -
10-15 yearsI find it difficult to comprehend there are people suggesting legitimate state representatives shouldn't be armed if it's deemed necessary.-Balaclavas slipping is an understatement!..0
-
15-20 yearsI find it difficult to comprehend there are people suggesting legitimate state representatives shouldn't be armed if it's deemed necessary.-Balaclavas slipping is an understatement!..
In my particular case, I'm just trying to get some consistency on what Blanch reckons constitutes a legitimate states representative. As your security forces applied different standards in the North compared with your country, Rob, I wouldn't say your experience is terribly relevant.
Your mask of, 'curious English bystander just looking for some information' is in tatters at this point though.0 -
Advertisement
-
The argument is, of course that these instances weren't quite the exception that you'd like to pretend. In fact they were systemic, often planned and covered up.
To take your analytical list:
Is the UK a democratic State acknowledged by the United Nations? Absolutely no argument that this is true
Is the police force democratically accountable to the people through the legislature and the judiciary? This is very debatable, considering it has taken almost 50 years to have one soldier taken to account for a globally condemned atrocity, and the police force at the time were disbanded because of issues surrounding this? I'd say no
Are there democratic checks and balances on the conduct and operations of the security forces? There may be now, if there were any in place then, they were largely on paper only. Cover ups and denial were the standard, democratic checks and balances the exception.
Are they entitled to use force? This is pretty low grade circular logic - you cant present the question we've set out to answer as evidence to support an answer to the question.
Is there evidence that these checks and balances work? Maybe they do now, though mountains of things remain buried we'll never know about. In a functioning, normal society, I agree these checks and balances should work. Whether they did in the North, also debatable.
So to my reading, by your standards the actions of state forces in the North lacked democratic legitimacy. Fair enough, could've just agreed with me from the start then so.
There were thousands of security forces personnel operating day-in-day-out for decades, yet you can probably point to a handful of cases where there is evidence of wrongdoing. While those cases were wrong, criminally wrong in many of them, they do not remove the democratic legitimacy of the day-to-day operations of the security forces.
The wrongs that were visited on people through the IRA operating as a quasi security force were much much greater, from sexual abuse, to kneecapping, to disappearances, to punishment beatings, to cold-blooded executions etc.0 -
I've answered that question already.
No you didn't, you just hid behind self righteous partitionist position that consigned Irish people to live in a sectarian bigoted state which had a British supported Unionist veto on any substantial change.
I think it was you who once posited the theory that nationalists/republicans/Catholics should have waited until the British came to their sense of duty or what a democracy really was.
Tragically that never happens in the real world.0 -
In my particular case, I'm just trying to get some consistency on what Blanch reckons constitutes a legitimate states representative. As your security forces applied different standards in the North compared with your country, Rob, I wouldn't say your experience is terribly relevant.
Your mask of, 'curious English bystander just looking for some information' is in tatters at this point though.
Why do you continually state your unsubstantiated opinion as fact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beanfield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave
Here are just two examples of where the security forces in England did not act appropriately or legitimately, yet their overall democratic legitimacy remained in place.0 -
15-20 yearsThe argument is, of course that these instances weren't quite the exception that you'd like to pretend. In fact they were systemic, often planned and covered up.
To take your analytical list:
Is the UK a democratic State acknowledged by the United Nations? Absolutely no argument that this is true
Is the police force democratically accountable to the people through the legislature and the judiciary? This is very debatable, considering it has taken almost 50 years to have one soldier taken to account for a globally condemned atrocity, and the police force at the time were disbanded because of issues surrounding this? I'd say no
Are there democratic checks and balances on the conduct and operations of the security forces? There may be now, if there were any in place then, they were largely on paper only. Cover ups and denial were the standard, democratic checks and balances the exception.
Are they entitled to use force? This is pretty low grade circular logic - you cant present the question we've set out to answer as evidence to support an answer to the question.
Is there evidence that these checks and balances work? Maybe they do now, though mountains of things remain buried we'll never know about. In a functioning, normal society, I agree these checks and balances should work. Whether they did in the North, also debatable.
So to my reading, by your standards the actions of state forces in the North lacked democratic legitimacy. Fair enough, could've just agreed with me from the start then so.
There were thousands of security forces personnel operating day-in-day-out for decades, yet you can probably point to a handful of cases where there is evidence of wrongdoing. While those cases were wrong, criminally wrong in many of them, they do not remove the democratic legitimacy of the day-to-day operations of the security forces.
The wrongs that were visited on people through the IRA operating as a quasi security force were much much greater, from sexual abuse, to kneecapping, to disappearances, to punishment beatings, to cold-blooded executions etc.
Why do you keep referring to the IRA, Blanch? We're fully in agreement that they were not a democratically legitimate force, and they should not have been able to use force, lethal or otherwise on people. For a man who is quick to accuse others of whataboutery, your, 'but what about the IRA' is on a hair trigger.
There were thousands of security force personnel in the North, yes. Some committed horrible atrocities, yes. That isnt the basis of my question though, my question is around the policies, written and unwritten, in place for the policing of the North, from Shoot to Kill, to systemic collusion (as later acknowledged), through to cover up after cover up. These are not the tools of a legitimate democratic force. These are not the tools of people we should trust with weaponry to police our citizens.0 -
10-15 yearsI find it difficult to comprehend there are people suggesting legitimate state representatives shouldn't be armed if it's deemed necessary.-Balaclavas slipping is an understatement!..
Just aswell noone said this then isnt it
Deliberately misrepresenting posts helps noone....i just said its hypocritical to support armed police etc and condemn paramilitaries imo
Still waiting for outline how its morally ok or different when state kills people vs paramilitaries do so0 -
Advertisement
-
15-20 yearsIn my particular case, I'm just trying to get some consistency on what Blanch reckons constitutes a legitimate states representative. As your security forces applied different standards in the North compared with your country, Rob, I wouldn't say your experience is terribly relevant.
Your mask of, 'curious English bystander just looking for some information' is in tatters at this point though.
Why do you continually state your unsubstantiated opinion as fact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beanfield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave
Here are just two examples of where the security forces in England did not act appropriately or legitimately, yet their overall democratic legitimacy remained in place.
It is not an unsubstantiated opinion. It is a fact that the British government had differing policies for the policing of the North compared with the rest of Britain. I'm shocked you even want to debate this.
You'll note that both the examples you presented involved just the police forces. Army personnel were not used. Theres one difference for a start.
You may also take a look into the use of rubber bullets/baton rounds and water cannons in the North versus the rest of the UK.
As I said, different standards were applied in the North. This is factual.0 -
Just aswell noone said this then isnt it
Deliberately misrepresenting posts helps noone....i just said its hypocritical to support armed police etc and condemn paramilitaries imo
Still waiting for outline how its morally ok or different when state kills people vs paramilitaries do so
It isn't hypocritical to say that in a democracy armed police can be legitimised to use force but that paramilitaries cannot.0 -
It is not an unsubstantiated opinion. It is a fact that the British government had differing policies for the policing of the North compared with the rest of Britain. I'm shocked you even want to debate this.
You'll note that both the examples you presented involved just the police forces. Army personnel were not used. Theres one difference for a start.
You may also take a look into the use of rubber bullets/baton rounds and water cannons in the North versus the rest of the UK.
As I said, different standards were applied in the North. This is factual.
Different policing challenges require different policing responses, that doesn't detract from overall political legitimacy. Where there was a failure was in the checks and balances to ensure that the incidences of wrongdoing were not addressed at the time.0 -
15-20 yearsIt is not an unsubstantiated opinion. It is a fact that the British government had differing policies for the policing of the North compared with the rest of Britain. I'm shocked you even want to debate this.
You'll note that both the examples you presented involved just the police forces. Army personnel were not used. Theres one difference for a start.
You may also take a look into the use of rubber bullets/baton rounds and water cannons in the North versus the rest of the UK.
As I said, different standards were applied in the North. This is factual.
Different policing challenges require different policing responses, that doesn't detract from overall political legitimacy. Where there was a failure was in the checks and balances to ensure that the incidences of wrongdoing were not addressed at the time.
Which is precisely what I said in my first post to you, Blanch - your standards regarding checks and balances were not met by British forces in the North, so it makes sense that some would disagree regarding their democratic legitimacy.
Regarding my post to Rob, I didnt say the different responses weren't warranted (I didnt comment on whether they were or were not, because my opinion isnt relevant), I merely stated that the British security forces applied different standards in the North compared with the rest of the UK (which I see you agree with me on). Rob stated this was an unsubstantiated opinion, I provided some substance.
I did notice that despite agreeing with me that a different standard was applied in the North, you jumped to create a point of disagreement with me, rather than to correct Rob's assertion that this was unsubstantiated.0 -
10-15 years
Correct me if I'm wrong,I thought you were from Derry which makes you British by birth?You give an air of impartiality which doesn't stand up under examination-can you give an opinion as to whether state representatives in NI should be armed if the state deems it necessary?I find it difficult to comprehend there are people suggesting legitimate state representatives shouldn't be armed if it's deemed necessary.-Balaclavas slipping is an understatement!..
In my particular case, I'm just trying to get some consistency on what Blanch reckons constitutes a legitimate states representative. As your security forces applied different standards in the North compared with your country, Rob, I wouldn't say your experience is terribly relevant.
Your mask of, 'curious English bystander just looking for some information' is in tatters at this point though.0 -
15-20 years
Being born in Derry makes him entitled to both a UK and Irish passport, or either one as he may choose.Correct me if I'm wrong,I thought you were from Derry which makes you British by birth?You give an air of impartiality which doesn't stand up under examination-can you give an opinion as to whether state representatives in NI should be armed if the state deems it necessary?
He cannot be British, as Britain does not include Northern Ireland, whereas UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) does.0 -
15-20 years
Correct me if I'm wrong,I thought you were from Derry which makes you British by birth?You give an air of impartiality which doesn't stand up under examination-can you give an opinion as to whether state representatives in NI should be armed if the state deems it necessary?I find it difficult to comprehend there are people suggesting legitimate state representatives shouldn't be armed if it's deemed necessary.-Balaclavas slipping is an understatement!..
In my particular case, I'm just trying to get some consistency on what Blanch reckons constitutes a legitimate states representative. As your security forces applied different standards in the North compared with your country, Rob, I wouldn't say your experience is terribly relevant.
Your mask of, 'curious English bystander just looking for some information' is in tatters at this point though.
Consider yourself corrected. I am not from Derry. Even if I was, I would be an Irish citizen. I have never claimed to be impartial, quite the opposite- I've been quite open about the fact that I have Nationalist aspirations towards unification.
I'll happily answer any questions you have once you withdraw your previous statement accusing me of presenting, 'unsubstantiated opinion', and acknowledge that my initial statement regarding the different standards applied in the North was a fact. With that show of good faith in admitting you were mistaken, we can perhaps engage more positively, and I may be more predisposed towards answering your leading questions.0 -
10-15 yearsIt isn't hypocritical to say that in a democracy armed police can be legitimised to use force but that paramilitaries cannot.
It is??
Either yous are againest violence or not(seems your not and this is ok opioion to have btw,just very hypocritical to condemn violence of others imo....you are alot closer to your oulook to the average shinner than you seem prepared to admit)0 -
Which is precisely what I said in my first post to you, Blanch - your standards regarding checks and balances were not met by British forces in the North, so it makes sense that some would disagree regarding their democratic legitimacy.
Regarding my post to Rob, I didnt say the different responses weren't warranted (I didnt comment on whether they were or were not, because my opinion isnt relevant), I merely stated that the British security forces applied different standards in the North compared with the rest of the UK (which I see you agree with me on). Rob stated this was an unsubstantiated opinion, I provided some substance.
I did notice that despite agreeing with me that a different standard was applied in the North, you jumped to create a point of disagreement with me, rather than to correct Rob's assertion that this was unsubstantiated.
If the differential responses were warranted, then the democratic legitimacy point is unchallenged. It is only if the differential responses to the different security challenges were wrong that the question of the lack of democratic legitimacy arises.
My opinion is clear. There were a significant number of instances where the security forces in the North acted wrongly, but that does not affect the overall democratic legitimacy of the security forces. The alternative, that the IRA was a legitimate security presence in nationalist areas, was far more wrong.0 -
It is??
Either yous are againest violence or not(seems your not and this is ok opioion to have btw,just very hypocritical to condemn violence of others imo....you are alot closer to your oulook to the average shinner than you seem prepared to admit)
Let us keep this simple.
Terrorist with machine gun opens fire on a crowd of people. Police sniper shoots him dead.
You believe that both these actions have equal legitimacy. I do not.0 -
Advertisement
-
15-20 yearsWhich is precisely what I said in my first post to you, Blanch - your standards regarding checks and balances were not met by British forces in the North, so it makes sense that some would disagree regarding their democratic legitimacy.
Regarding my post to Rob, I didnt say the different responses weren't warranted (I didnt comment on whether they were or were not, because my opinion isnt relevant), I merely stated that the British security forces applied different standards in the North compared with the rest of the UK (which I see you agree with me on). Rob stated this was an unsubstantiated opinion, I provided some substance.
I did notice that despite agreeing with me that a different standard was applied in the North, you jumped to create a point of disagreement with me, rather than to correct Rob's assertion that this was unsubstantiated.
If the differential responses were warranted, then the democratic legitimacy point is unchallenged. It is only if the differential responses to the different security challenges were wrong that the question of the lack of democratic legitimacy arises.
My opinion is clear. There were a significant number of instances where the security forces in the North acted wrongly, but that does not affect the overall democratic legitimacy of the security forces. The alternative, that the IRA was a legitimate security presence in nationalist areas, was far more wrong.
The British forces in the North were not democratically legitimate and The IRA were not democratically legitimate are not mutually exclusive positions, so once more, I fail to see the relevance of the IRA to this.
Secondly, the differential response of the security forces itself did not undermine the democratic legitimacy of British forces in the North.
The total failure of checks and balances which should've been in place to protect the citizens of the North DID undermine the democratic legitimacy of those forces.
You have acknowledged that a systemic failure of checks and balances would be a fair position from which to criticise democratic legitimacy.
You have acknowledged that there was a systemic failure of checks and balances regarding the British forces in the North of Ireland.
Where is the difficulty arising in creating the logical connection between your two statements. "As there were systemic failures in checks and balances, it is fair to criticise the democratic legitimacy of British state forces in the North."0 -
The British forces in the North were not democratically legitimate and The IRA were not democratically legitimate are not mutually exclusive positions, so once more, I fail to see the relevance of the IRA to this.
Secondly, the differential response of the security forces itself did not undermine the democratic legitimacy of British forces in the North.
The total failure of checks and balances which should've been in place to protect the citizens of the North DID undermine the democratic legitimacy of those forces.
You have acknowledged that a systemic failure of checks and balances would be a fair position from which to criticise democratic legitimacy.
You have acknowledged that there was a systemic failure of checks and balances regarding the British forces in the North of Ireland.
Where is the difficulty arising in creating the logical connection between your two statements. "As there were systemic failures in checks and balances, it is fair to criticise the democratic legitimacy of British state forces in the North."
Firstly, I have not said that that there was a systemic failure of checks and balances regarding the British forces in the North of Ireland. That is a paraphrased exaggeration of what I posted.
Secondly, criticising the democratic legitimacy of British state forces in the North is not the same as saying that they had no democratic legitimacy.
Thirdly, it is a necessary condition that a systematic failure of checks and balances would be a fair position to criticise the democratic legitimacy of the security forces, but it would not be a sufficient condition. The context of the security threat, the nature of the responses, the number of criticised incidents as a percentage of security force action, the pressure that the checks and balances were under would also need to be taken into account in determining whether it was a sufficient condition.
In my opinion, while there are questions to be asked about some actions of the security forces in Northern Ireland, as well as why those actions were not sufficiently questioned at the time, those questions are not sufficient to remove the democratic legitimacy of the security forces.0 -
15-20 yearsThe British forces in the North were not democratically legitimate and The IRA were not democratically legitimate are not mutually exclusive positions, so once more, I fail to see the relevance of the IRA to this.
Secondly, the differential response of the security forces itself did not undermine the democratic legitimacy of British forces in the North.
The total failure of checks and balances which should've been in place to protect the citizens of the North DID undermine the democratic legitimacy of those forces.
You have acknowledged that a systemic failure of checks and balances would be a fair position from which to criticise democratic legitimacy.
You have acknowledged that there was a systemic failure of checks and balances regarding the British forces in the North of Ireland.
Where is the difficulty arising in creating the logical connection between your two statements. "As there were systemic failures in checks and balances, it is fair to criticise the democratic legitimacy of British state forces in the North."
Firstly, I have not said that that there was a systemic failure of checks and balances regarding the British forces in the North of Ireland. That is a paraphrased exaggeration of what I posted.
Secondly, criticising the democratic legitimacy of British state forces in the North is not the same as saying that they had no democratic legitimacy.
Thirdly, it is a necessary condition that a systematic failure of checks and balances would be a fair position to criticise the democratic legitimacy of the security forces, but it would not be a sufficient condition. The context of the security threat, the nature of the responses, the number of criticised incidents as a percentage of security force action, the pressure that the checks and balances were under would also need to be taken into account in determining whether it was a sufficient condition.
In my opinion, while there are questions to be asked about some actions of the security forces in Northern Ireland, as well as why those actions were not sufficiently questioned at the time, those questions are not sufficient to remove the democratic legitimacy of the security forces.
And I genuinely think that's a totally reasonable position to hold, Blanch. If you look back over what I've been asking, at no point have I tried to 'sucker' you into 'admitting' that the security forces in the North had no democratic legitimacy.
I've asked if you could understand how, given the parts we agree on at least, that SOME would question their democratic legitimacy, and while disagreeing with them, you could reach a point where you understood this position.
No traps, I'm not going to try and extrapolate that into support for the IRA or any nonsense like that. We're not going to address responses to that perceived lack of democratic legitimacy here,
I just want to know whether you can see the grey (which you've described quite well) enough to understand[\I] the holding of an opinion which doesnt match your, 'despite this, they are still democratically legitimate' stance?0 -
Where is the difficulty arising in creating the logical connection between your two statements. "As there were systemic failures in checks and balances, it is fair to criticise the democratic legitimacy of British state forces in the North."
No democracy is perfect, yet I consider myself extremely fortunate to live in one.
'Systemic failures' are a regular occurrence in every democratic State (and every non-democratic one), since the beginning of recorded history.
To suggest that such failures negates the democratic legitimacy of every country in which they occur, is a reductio ad absurdum.
Terrorists who take up arms and bomb and kill innocents in pursuit of their fanatical ideologies are not part of the democratic system -there are no checks and balances to counter their murderous rampages - they need to be faced down and defeated by brave men and women, many of whom paid the ultimate price.
You and your fellow-cohorts attempts to draw a equivalence between the two would be funny if it weren't so morally repugnant.0 -
10-15 years
I mistakenly thought you were from Derry, I wrongly thought you had mentioned on an old thread living there and attending Altnagelvin Hospital and that your family name was on the Ulster Covenant.I apologise for that.
Correct me if I'm wrong,I thought you were from Derry which makes you British by birth?You give an air of impartiality which doesn't stand up under examination-can you give an opinion as to whether state representatives in NI should be armed if the state deems it necessary?I find it difficult to comprehend there are people suggesting legitimate state representatives shouldn't be armed if it's deemed necessary.-Balaclavas slipping is an understatement!..
In my particular case, I'm just trying to get some consistency on what Blanch reckons constitutes a legitimate states representative. As your security forces applied different standards in the North compared with your country, Rob, I wouldn't say your experience is terribly relevant.
Your mask of, 'curious English bystander just looking for some information' is in tatters at this point though.
Consider yourself corrected. I am not from Derry. Even if I was, I would be an Irish citizen. I have never claimed to be impartial, quite the opposite- I've been quite open about the fact that I have Nationalist aspirations towards unification.
I'll happily answer any questions you have once you withdraw your previous statement accusing me of presenting, 'unsubstantiated opinion', and acknowledge that my initial statement regarding the different standards applied in the North was a fact. With that show of good faith in admitting you were mistaken, we can perhaps engage more positively, and I may be more predisposed towards answering your leading questions.
Beyond that whilst you believe your opinion correct, I disagree with you.0 -
Firstly, I have not said that that there was a systemic failure of checks and balances regarding the British forces in the North of Ireland. That is a paraphrased exaggeration of what I posted.
Secondly, criticising the democratic legitimacy of British state forces in the North is not the same as saying that they had no democratic legitimacy.
Thirdly, it is a necessary condition that a systematic failure of checks and balances would be a fair position to criticise the democratic legitimacy of the security forces, but it would not be a sufficient condition. The context of the security threat, the nature of the responses, the number of criticised incidents as a percentage of security force action, the pressure that the checks and balances were under would also need to be taken into account in determining whether it was a sufficient condition.
In my opinion, while there are questions to be asked about some actions of the security forces in Northern Ireland, as well as why those actions were not sufficiently questioned at the time, those questions are not sufficient to remove the democratic legitimacy of the security forces.
Bar the over throw of Communism, you haven't given an example of the 'many other' uprisings that you approve of?
Any chance you could. It would be good to know what meets your approval.0 -
15-20 years
I mistakenly thought you were from Derry, I wrongly thought you had mentioned on an old thread living there and attending Altnagelvin Hospital and that your family name was on the Ulster Covenant.I apologise for that.
Correct me if I'm wrong,I thought you were from Derry which makes you British by birth?You give an air of impartiality which doesn't stand up under examination-can you give an opinion as to whether state representatives in NI should be armed if the state deems it necessary?I find it difficult to comprehend there are people suggesting legitimate state representatives shouldn't be armed if it's deemed necessary.-Balaclavas slipping is an understatement!..
In my particular case, I'm just trying to get some consistency on what Blanch reckons constitutes a legitimate states representative. As your security forces applied different standards in the North compared with your country, Rob, I wouldn't say your experience is terribly relevant.
Your mask of, 'curious English bystander just looking for some information' is in tatters at this point though.
Consider yourself corrected. I am not from Derry. Even if I was, I would be an Irish citizen. I have never claimed to be impartial, quite the opposite- I've been quite open about the fact that I have Nationalist aspirations towards unification.
I'll happily answer any questions you have once you withdraw your previous statement accusing me of presenting, 'unsubstantiated opinion', and acknowledge that my initial statement regarding the different standards applied in the North was a fact. With that show of good faith in admitting you were mistaken, we can perhaps engage more positively, and I may be more predisposed towards answering your leading questions.
Beyond that whilst you believe your opinion correct, I disagree with you.
I spent quite some time I'm the Altnagelvin as a child due to having a particularly severe leg break, which could only be treated there or the Royal in Belfast. The Altnagelvin was closer, after a few weeks as an inpatient I spent quite some time having regular (weekly at first, down to monthly after around 18 months) trips back to the Altnagelvin. Ancestors of mine did sign the Ulster covenant (one of my grandparents was from a Unionist background), don't see what that has to do with Derry.
Regarding what you term my 'opinion' - is it a matter of fact or opinion that army forces were deployed in the North as part of the policing strategy, whereas in the rest of the UK they were not? Is it an opinion or a matter of fact that baton rounds/rubber bullets and water cannons formed a part of the policing arsenal in the North, and did not in the rest of the UK?0 -
15-20 yearsfacehugger99 wrote: »Where is the difficulty arising in creating the logical connection between your two statements. "As there were systemic failures in checks and balances, it is fair to criticise the democratic legitimacy of British state forces in the North."
No democracy is perfect, yet I consider myself extremely fortunate to live in one.
'Systemic failures' are a regular occurrence in every democratic State (and every non-democratic one), since the beginning of recorded history.
To suggest that such failures negates the democratic legitimacy of every country in which they occur, is a reductio ad absurdum.
Terrorists who take up arms and bomb and kill innocents in pursuit of their fanatical ideologies are not part of the democratic system -there are no checks and balances to counter their murderous rampages - they need to be faced down and defeated by brave men and women, many of whom paid the ultimate price.
You and your fellow-cohorts attempts to draw a equivalence between the two would be funny if it weren't so morally repugnant.
Quite the opposite, my aul china. I've went out of my way to discuss this as a totally standalone issue, completely unrelated to the IRA or any other paramilitary. I'm specifically avoiding conflating the two, because IRA wrongdoing in no way justifies the wrongdoings of state forces, nor vice versa, so bringing them up is pointless. Did your mother never teach you two wrongs don't make a right?
Perhaps a bit of work on your reading comprehension would be worthwhile before you grace me with a reply again.0 -
10-15 years
Hmm exact i didnt say they have equal legtimacy??Let us keep this simple.
Terrorist with machine gun opens fire on a crowd of people. Police sniper shoots him dead.
You believe that both these actions have equal legitimacy. I do not.
Where did i??
I said morally they are the same?,in that people are killed....soldier open fire on crowd (like say,em.bloody sunday,springfield massacre)and terrorsist shoot him/her dead....surely they are morally the same too?.
The fact yous have see moral difference with killing people,depending who doing it.. is something you will have to come to terms with and we will just have to agree to disagree imo0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement