How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

The GFA allows for the North to remain British indefinitely yet the IRA are gone. Sounds like surrender to me or failure if you prefer.

You sound like Jamie Bryson. Nobody won and nobody surrendered. The Troubles was a failure of humanity.

Grow up.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But the people of NI decide not "we". No matter how many people in the Republic want a UI it only happens if NI says so.

The GFA allows for the North to remain British indefinitely yet the IRA are gone. Sounds like surrender to me or failure if you prefer.

No. We all get a say when the constitutional position of NI is put to the test.

I see we have made it to another 'the IRA are gone' hour because it suits.

The IRA said they would disarm and disband if the British agreed to terms they approved.
The British did...much to the dismay and objection of unionists.
Surrender me derry air, as they say.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No. We all get a say when the constitutional position of NI is put to the test.

I see we have made it to another 'the IRA are gone' hour because it suits.

The IRA said they would disarm and disband if the British agreed to terms they approved.
The British did...much to the dismay and objection of unionists.
Surrender me derry air, as they say.

That's a very novel view of things francie,some may say you've lost the plot.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IRA said they would disarm and disband if the British agreed to terms they approved.

Decommissioning was a farce. Unionists wanted to put a hurdle in the way of SF in an attempt to collapse the GFA and the IRA called their bluff and put the ball back in their court.

The biggest, most destructive, weapon the Provos had was made from off-the-shelf products and it was used to persuade the British to persuade unionists into power-sharing.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Decommissioning was a farce. Unionists wanted to put a hurdle in the way of SF in an attempt to collapse the GFA and the IRA called their bluff and put the ball back in their court.

The biggest, most destructive, weapon the Provos had was made from off-the-shelf products and it was used to persuade the British to persuade unionists into power-sharing.

It is no glorification of the IRA to say that the bombing campaign in Britain itself was a targeted persuader of opinion...and persuade it did.

John Major didn't dare insist on decommissioning because he feared provoking another 'persuader'.

Those were the stakes and the British threw their hand in at that point.

You only need to listen to Unionist rhetoric at the time to hear it...they knew in the clearest and bluntest terms, what had happened. The British had given in to the 'terrorists' they said they would 'never' negotiate with.

dere34

26 PSNI officers injured in Belfast.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No. We all get a say when the constitutional position of NI is put to the test.

I see we have made it to another 'the IRA are gone' hour because it suits.

The IRA said they would disarm and disband if the British agreed to terms they approved.
The British did...much to the dismay and objection of unionists.
Surrender me derry air, as they say.

Yes, the British were happy with the terms of the IRA's surrender. What's your point?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Yes, the British were happy with the terms of the IRA's surrender. What's your point?

My point is and has been that an armed group negotiating an agreement is not a surrender in any ones eyes unless they are delusional or have nothing else to say or offer but bitter taunts.

Pathetic debating JH. You are not interested in truthful or factual discussion, just petty taunting and demeaning. A bit like Gregory Campbell when he is in a corner.

Even worse delusion if you watched the British get owned by an Agreement they spun as a victory (and you swallowed) over Brexit. I am having a good laugh at you and Rob trying to stay on message on that.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My point is and has been that an armed group negotiating an agreement is not a surrender in any ones eyes unless they are delusional or have nothing else to say or offer but bitter taunts.

Pathetic debating JH. You are not interested in truthful or factual discussion, just petty taunting and demeaning. A bit like Gregory Campbell when he is in a corner.

Even worse delusion if you watched the British get owned by an Agreement they spun as a victory (and you swallowed) over Brexit. I am having a good laugh at you and Rob trying to stay on message on that.

What victory did i swallow over Brexit? I couldn't care less if there is a hard border, soft border or one in the Irish Sea. As long as the IRA don't come back it's all the same to me.

I've no idea want Brexit has to do with my opinion that the IRA surrendered?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

What victory did i swallow over Brexit? I couldn't care less if there is a hard border, soft border or one in the Irish Sea. As long as the IRA don't come back it's all the same to me.

I've no idea want Brexit has to do with my opinion that the IRA surrendered?

You swallowed the British/Unionist spin that the GFA was a victory for them...that 'the Shinners were conned and the RA surrendered'.


It's pathetic if you look at what has happened since the GFA was signed. THe Unionists have been run ragged trying desperately to hold onto elements of the bigoted sectarian state they had (they failed by the way, in case you missed that too) and the British had to capitulate because they could not do what they wanted in their imperialist way over Brexit.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My point is and has been that an armed group negotiating an agreement is not a surrender in any ones eyes unless they are delusional or have nothing else to say or offer but bitter taunts.

Pathetic debating JH. You are not interested in truthful or factual discussion, just petty taunting and demeaning. A bit like Gregory Campbell when he is in a corner.

Even worse delusion if you watched the British get owned by an Agreement they spun as a victory (and you swallowed) over Brexit. I am having a good laugh at you and Rob trying to stay on message on that.

If anything is Brexit not a painful reminder for Republicans that NI is still part of the UK?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

If anything is Brexit not a painful reminder for Republicans that NI is still part of the UK?

Republicans KNOW it is still a part of the UK JH, they signed the agreement saying it would until the majority decided otherwise...did you fecking miss that too?

Brexit showed that NI is not a 'full' part of the UK, that it HAS to be treated differently because of the GFA. The GFA that has pushed the two partitioned parts closer and closer together as Republicans and belligerent Unionists knew it would.

Take the red white and blue tinted glasses off and smell the coffee.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Republicans KNOW it is still a part of the UK JH, they signed the agreement saying it would until the majority decided otherwise...did you fecking miss that too?

Brexit showed that NI is not a 'full' part of the UK, that it HAS to be treated differently because of the GFA. The GFA that has pushed the two partitioned parts closer and closer together as Republicans and belligerent Unionists knew it would.

Take the red white and blue tinted glasses off and smell the coffee.

Obviously they know but all the silly word play to deflect from reality is really highlighted in a situation like this.

It did bring both sides closer together but what's your point, the IRA's day didn't come if you're of the opinion they no longer exist.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Obviously they know but all the silly word play to deflect from reality is really highlighted in a situation like this.

It did bring both sides closer together but what's your point, the IRA's day didn't come if you're of the opinion they no longer exist.

The IRA left the scene on their own terms.
They did exactly as they said they would if the British met their terms. The British tried to set terms but quietly dropped those terms in their desire to get an agreement.

But yeh...the IRA surrendered, SF got conned something something something

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IRA left the scene on their own terms.
They did exactly as they said they would if the British met their terms. The British tried to set terms but quietly dropped those terms in their desire to get an agreement.

But yeh...the IRA surrendered, SF got conned something something something

If the IRA leaving the theatre with their tails between their legs and their legs shaking is leaving on their own terms,then,yes I suppose they did.:rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

If the IRA leaving the theatre with their tails between their legs and their legs shaking is leaving on their own terms,then,yes I suppose they did.:rolleyes:

You guys have form for the auld spinning ROb. A scrambled retreat blessed by good luck from Europe with Hitler breathing down your necks has been spun into some heroic last stand...when the reality was it took the big boys to come and rescue youse.
You can't con everyone with the spin, it only works on those too lazy to look at the facts and divested of pride in their own people and place - the stock in trade, calling card of the colonist/imperialist. The British were good at that, I'll give you that one.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You guys have form for the auld spinning ROb. A scrambled retreat blessed by good luck from Europe with Hitler breathing down your necks has been spun into some heroic last stand...when the reality was it took the big boys to come and rescue youse.
You can't con everyone with the spin, it only works on those too lazy to look at the facts and divested of pride in their own people and place - the stock in trade, calling card of the colonist/imperialist. The British were good at that, I'll give you that one.

Gonna assume you are referring to me. Are you saying that not being proud of the IRA means not being proud of being Irish or respecting my own people?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Gonna assume you are referring to me. Are you saying that not being proud of the IRA means not being proud of being Irish or respecting my own people?

No...lazily swallowing British/Unionist spin is the problem.
Partitionists did it all through the conflict/war and indeed in the decades since partition.

flutered

RobMc59 wrote: »

If the IRA leaving the theatre with their tails between their legs and their legs shaking is leaving on their own terms,then,yes I suppose they did.:rolleyes:

and canary warf

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No...lazily swallowing British/Unionist spin is the problem.
Partitionists did it all through the conflict/war and indeed in the decades since partition.

But British interests are different to Unionist interests. The GFA served British interests because the IRA surrendered.

What is this strategic interest in NI you claim the British have and they supposedly gave up?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oops you nearly slipped up there jh...imagine losing the abiliry to selectively pronounce the IRA still exists. Now they are 'not gone' thet are 'inactive'.

I think you have exposed the ridiculousness of the selective debating of belligerent unionists/loyalists and partitionists.

I have no problem accepting that the IRA gave up on removing the British by force and decided on a democratic path.
Why getting a living from that is a bad thing only you can answer if you stop licking your bitter chops for a minute or two

Do you have any idea how offensive it is to say they just give up on their aspiration and earned money from it instead. They murdered thousands. Some of my neighbours have never met their grandfather because of the iras little sectarian experiment which they have moved on from. Disgusting

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But British interests are different to Unionist interests. The GFA served British interests because the IRA surrendered.

What is this strategic interest in NI you claim the British have and they supposedly gave up?

Who said they had the 'same interests'?

The British interest has always been a selfish one. They'd have given the IRA knighthoods if it served their 'interests'.
They did their best behind Unionist backs to do a deal with them at the height of the bombing and killing ffs and telling idiots, gullible enough to swallow thier spin that 'they would NEVER negotiate with terrorists'.

They didn't want the campaign in their own backyard...their change of direction when the IRA specifically targeted that backyard is there for anyone not too lazy to look.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IRA left the scene on their own terms.
They did exactly as they said they would if the British met their terms. The British tried to set terms but quietly dropped those terms in their desire to get an agreement.

But yeh...the IRA surrendered, SF got conned something something something

Hahaha. Francie what are you on. The Ira left the stage on their terms. Hahaha. I thought their objective (terms) were the unification of the island and the brits our. ......but they got bigger sausage rolls and got wearing their own clothes. Oh yes, and the brits said they had no strategic interest.
Fail fail fail. The brits didn’t rub your noses in it and gave you the gfa to cling unto Keep your head down and pretend you won. Gerry’s doing ok

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Hahaha. Francie what are you on. The Ira left the stage on their terms. Hahaha. I thought their objective (terms) were the unification of the island and the brits our. ......but they got bigger sausage rolls and got wearing their own clothes. Oh yes, and the brits said they had no strategic interest.
Fail fail fail. The brits didn’t rub your noses in it and gave you the gfa to cling unto Keep your head down and pretend you won. Gerry’s doing ok

The shinners and RA aren't holding pathetic little meetings above pubs to try and muster some faint opposition to the GFA taking effect downcow. They have decided on the long game..20 odd years later we have people looking closer and closer at the reality and possibility of a UI. The DUP leader had to once again try and put down an Irish Taoiseach for daring to talk about a UI just this week.

I'm sure you miss the heady days of Never Never Never.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who said they had the 'same interests'?

The British interest has always been a selfish one. They'd have given the IRA knighthoods if it served their 'interests'.
They did their best behind Unionist backs to do a deal with them at the height of the bombing and killing ffs and telling idiots, gullible enough to swallow thier spin that 'they would NEVER negotiate with terrorists'.

They didn't want the campaign in their own backyard...their change of direction when the IRA specifically targeted that backyard is there for anyone not too lazy to look.

Ignoring Unionists, what exactly did the British lose when the IRA surrendered?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are so intent on demeaning you refuse to see or accept that disarming only happened when an agreement that massively advanced the interests of Irish people was achieved.

No group ever went into battle saying.. 'Well, we might achieve this...or with a bit of luck we might...etc etc.

The GFA is Britain's tacit withdrawal, thet have no longer got a selfish or strategic interest here and the GFA also protected the rest of us on this island over Brexit.
It is a massive achievement by all who negotiated it and held strong in the face of unionist opposition to it.

Francie. When do you think the uk last had a strategic interest in ni?

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When did the ira sign a formal surrender?


Is it not generally regarded as a military stalemate,in that neither side could win

But the IRA surrendered their weapons and depending on who you believe no longer exist yet the British still have sovereignty over NI.

downcow

I think we are getting to the core of the ira surrender/defeat now (with the Brit gov and the more progressive unionists giving them the fig leaf of the gfa)
Claims of ira success seems to have narrowed down here now to the uk giving up their strategic interest in ni - when every single person on here knows right well that uk has not had a strategic interest in ni for 50+ years.

It is clear the ira got nothing out of gfa, bar getting those imprisioned released, after a humiliating couple more years. At least the hunger strikers got their own clothes back and bigger sausage rolls

timthumbni

downcow wrote: »

. At least the hunger strikers got their own clothes back and bigger sausage rolls

That’s a bit harsh. Without Sands and the others (No one knows the others names) SF could never have held 500 dollar a head slap up banquets in the US with gullible fat Irish Americans tucking into beef wellingtons. We will never forget you Jimmy Sands etc etc. Pass me the mustard please.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So...thats a no formal declarion of surrender then??

Glad we cleared this up then

The fact the brits come and basically admit it to been a military stalemate,ultimatley undermines yous trying to browbeat everyone into beliveing your opioion(not fact)



Quite how someone can think flying rubbish in/out of watchtowers,unable to patrol large tracts of north,urban and rural,having to stagger foot patrols and bombs seemingly going off at will in the major Uk cities,......


quite how the british can view this as a victory is beyond me.....i just simply dont belive the brits after all there billions spent there,lives lost,would pass up a military victory.......one of IRA largest military engagements was in 1997 in belfast,forcing troops to withdraw and preventing another graysteel

Blaaz, what was the British strategic interest in NI that Francie claimed they lost?

If it was a stalemate why did the IRA surrender only for their political wing to facilitate partition?

Essentially, SF became caretakers of NI on behalf on the UK until the people of NI say otherwise .