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

Randy Archer

Randy Archer wrote: »

Francie , I am talking about precisely the same time period , you spoofer 😂😂😂!! I am even pointing out to you the papers of De Valera from 1933-1937 . You compete and utter waffler . Nothing but a liar !

You are talking rubbish !! Utter rubbish and you are refusing to read the court report from a case that was held in 1987-1990

Why do you, a grossly under educated person getting so much air time ? You have zero qualifications to challenge me on anything. You always fall flat

Next time , read what I said , would save you a lot of time realising that you are wrong

Your claim was that before GFA , Ireland had a constitutional claim to the North. It didn’t and never had

Any update on that mod,who told yous wrongly i reported your post??

Randy Archer

Deleted User wrote: »

Any update on that mod,who told yous wrongly i reported your post??

3 mods , two in person ! You are bloody lucky that you are still positing in here ! I’d watch what you say from now on

FrancieBrady

Randy Archer wrote: »

Francie , I am talking about precisely the same time period , you spoofer 😂😂😂!! I am even pointing out to you the papers of De Valera from 1933-1937 . You compete and utter waffler . Nothing but a liar !

You are talking rubbish !! Utter rubbish and you are refusing to read the court report from a case that was held in 1987-1990

Why do you, a grossly under educated person getting so much air time ? You have zero qualifications to challenge me on anything. You always fall flat

Next time , read what I said , would save you a lot of time realising that you are wrong

Your claim was that before GFA , Ireland had a constitutional claim to the North. It didn’t and never had

I claimed NO such thing. Here is what I said.

Please don't tell me the British had legitimacy when another country had a constitutional claim on the part that was partitioned from the whole.

1987 was 17 years into the conflict/war.

timthumbni

Deleted User wrote: »

How.many gaa matches were cancelled over 1 team being held long until it come trough on radio it was called off??



Wouldnt be any fan of catholic church tbh,so dont really care....but speaking of churches in NI....didnt rev mccrea share a stage and speak in glowing terms about billy wright??



Knock yourself mate,always struck.me,most were normal people in.an abnormal envirnoment

No idea, nor do I care how many gaa matches were cancelled. More concerned about how many peoples lives were cancelled. The IRA being far and beyond any other group when it came to murdering.

Never agreed with Mccrea sharing a stage with that terrorist, but as a republican I thought you would be supportive of others talking to terrorists.

It is certainly not normal for a group of men to go out and blow up 9 humans, 3 of them children as the IRA terrorists did at Claudy. If you think that’s normal I genuinely feel sorry for you.

downcow

Deleted User wrote: »

Any update on that mod,who told yous wrongly i reported your post??

Blaaz, just when you are at it, did you find the magic beans that were going to enlighten me on the Linfield shirt?

downcow

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell me their names,as i would like to get to bottom.of this

They are telling lies and im.being accused of something ive not done

Thats rich from you Blaaz. Check your magic beans for the answer

feargale

downcow wrote: »

Thats rich

Very rich indeed. downcow I have asked you a question again and again about John Hume and you have persisted in declining to answer it. By so declining you are destroying any integrity your position might claim to possess. You have left your credibility in tatters. In decency you should fold your tent and ride into the sunset

Edgware

Blaaz

Quit when you are nowhere near being ahead

Tokyo

Mod: @Randy Archer - threadbanned.

@downcow, @Blaaz_ - you're next if you make one more comment here a personal dig.

downcow

feargale wrote: »

Very rich indeed. downcow I have asked you a question again and again about John Hume and you have persisted in declining to answer it. By so declining you are destroying any integrity your position might claim to possess. You have left your credibility in tatters. In decency you should fold your tent and ride into the sunset

Read the recent posts feargale. You will find I answered twice as you were not content with the first answer. So kindly withdraw your accusation.

jm08

timthumbni wrote: »

Well I certainly can and would call him a terrorist as do many others. He was a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation ie the Ira. You are dancing around a bit anyway talking about motives and principles. You say he was put inside after being caught with a gun. I assume that he wasn’t planning on using it to help end world poverty so his principles could certainly be questioned.

Anyway, if you support the actions of the IRA then just say it. You would have plenty of friends judging by some of the posts here. Someone even said they would struggle to condemn the actions of the Dissident Irish republicans. It’s certainly a rich tapestry.

You can call him what you like, but the only difference between him and the British Security Forces in NI and the PIRA is that the British forces got a licence to kill from the British Parliament / British Government / British people to kill people on the island of Ireland. 16 year olds are given this licence once they join the British Army. Sands carrying a gun would be perfectly legal in the US for example.


My point about Sands and Storey is that they and their families were so badly treated by the British State that they resorted to defending themselves. The British State and British people need to acknowledge their part in creating the PIRA.



Just for the record, I am not a never have been a supporter of the PIRA or any dissident republican paramilitaries. I think it was wrong their English bombing campaign. I do understand how they came about and I think that blame is entirely on the shoulders of the British State who allowed it to happen.

jm08

timthumbni wrote: »

And speaking of mass wasn’t one of the suspects in one of the most disgusting IRA actions in the Claudy bombings a priest. Just the 9 civilians murdered by the IRA that day, including 3 children, the youngest being an 8yr old girl.

The involvement of the priest in the Claudy was a fiction made up by the British Security Forces. Absolutely no evidence that he was. Perfidious Albion at work here.



Read this:
https://villagemagazine.ie/fr-chesney-defamed/


Perfidious Albion can get away with all sorts of mucky deeds in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, but its a bit more difficult to get away with it with their next door neighbours who have the ear of the US. British activities in Northern Ireland ended the 'special relationship'between the US and UK.

But let’s not call these IRA “men” terrorists so quickly. We should probably sit down first and examine their home life and religious morals.

Well, British Army, UDR, RUC, SAS were just licenced terrorists.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

You can call him what you like, but the only difference between him and the British Security Forces in NI and the PIRA is that the British forces got a licence to kill from the British Parliament / British Government / British people to kill people on the island of Ireland. 16 year olds are given this licence once they join the British Army. Sands carrying a gun would be perfectly legal in the US for example.


My point about Sands and Storey is that they and their families were so badly treated by the British State that they resorted to defending themselves. The British State and British people need to acknowledge their part in creating the PIRA.



Just for the record, I am not a never have been a supporter of the PIRA or any dissident republican paramilitaries. I think it was wrong their English bombing campaign. I do understand how they came about and I think that blame is entirely on the shoulders of the British State who allowed it to happen.

So there we have it, JM08 confirming that he believes those who went out to kill my community simply because they were Protestant bear no responsibility - it was all the British state's fault

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

So there we have it, Francie confirming that he believes those who went out to kill my community simply because they were Protestant bear no responsibility - it was all the British state's fault

....but that isn't what his post says at all, Downcow?

In his post he states that he believes the British State are entirely responsible for the PIRA's existence (to quote the post, 'THAT blame lies entirely on the shoulders of the British state'.

He doesn't state they are responsible for their actions after that. He may or may not think that is the case, but nowhere in the post you quoted does it say what you've just claimed.

While I shouldn't have to state it, I know you have a tendency to run away with these things, so let me be clear that I am not stating this as my opinion, but rather explaining what is quite clearly stated in the post you responded to.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

....but that isn't what his post says at all, Downcow?

In his post he states that he believes the British State are entirely responsible for the PIRA's existence (to quote the post, 'THAT blame lies entirely on the shoulders of the British state'.

He doesn't state they are responsible for their actions after that. He may or may not think that is the case, but nowhere in the post you quoted does it say what you've just claimed.

While I shouldn't have to state it, I know you have a tendency to run away with these things, so let me be clear that I am not stating this as my opinion, but rather explaining what is quite clearly stated in the post you responded to.

Fionn a valiant attempt at spinning but which bit of this do not understand " I think it was wrong their English bombing campaign. I do understand how they came about and I think that blame is entirely on the shoulders of the British State"
let me be clear, I am pleased to see that he thinks the bombing was wrong, but he is entirely clear on where he places 100% of the responsibility. Which bit of that you do not understand, puzzles me
PS apologies Francie, I realise now that it was not you who stated that and I edited my post accordingly, Fionn must have clicked quote before I got it edited. I trust you would not put all the responsibility for the slaughter of those two kids on the British state

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Fionn a valiant attempt at spinning but which bit of this do not understand " I think it was wrong their English bombing campaign. I do understand how they came about and I think that blame is entirely on the shoulders of the British State"
let me be clear, I am pleased to see that he thinks the bombing was wrong, but he is entirely clear on where he places 100% of the responsibility. Which bit of that you do not understand, puzzles me
PS apologies Francie, I realise now that it was not you who stated that and I edited my post accordingly, Fionn must have clicked quote before I got it edited. I trust you would not put all the responsibility for the slaughter of those two kids on the British state

The bit you don't understand is that stating that the British are to blame for the formation of the PIRA is not the same as stating the British are responsible for all of the actions of the PIRA, Downcow. The poster MAY fully believe that the British are fully responsible for all actions carried out by the PIRA, but that isn't what the post actually says. It says they are responsible for the formation of the PIRA (which I would call a gross oversimplification myself), but beyond that, you're speculating.

I can edit my post to remove your misattribution of the statement to Francie (and this post after that also), as I don't doubt that was just an innocent mistake.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The bit you don't understand is that stating that the British are to blame for the formation of the PIRA is not the same as stating the British are responsible for all of the actions of the PIRA, Downcow. The poster MAY fully believe that the British are fully responsible for all actions carried out by the PIRA, but that isn't what the post actually says. It says they are responsible for the formation of the PIRA (which I would call a gross oversimplification myself), but beyond that, you're speculating.

I can edit my post to remove your misattribution of the statement to Francie (and this post after that also), as I don't doubt that was just an innocent mistake.

pathetic Fionn. Francie would you care to say whether you think it would be my style to wilfully mis-attribute something to you.
I am going to learn something about Francie in his next post mmmm!

downcow

downcow wrote: »

pathetic Fionn. Francie would you care to say whether you think it would be my style to wilfully mis-attribute something to you.
I am going to learn something about Francie in his next post mmmm!

OK. Hands up. I misread what you said. Humble apologies Fionn. I thought you were doubting me
I missed the 'don't'

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The bit you don't understand is that stating that the British are to blame for the formation of the PIRA is not the same as stating the British are responsible for all of the actions of the PIRA, Downcow. The poster MAY fully believe that the British are fully responsible for all actions carried out by the PIRA, but that isn't what the post actually says. It says they are responsible for the formation of the PIRA (which I would call a gross oversimplification myself), but beyond that, you're speculating.

I can edit my post to remove your misattribution of the statement to Francie (and this post after that also), as I don't doubt that was just an innocent mistake.

We can always blame someone else for our mistakes. The scumbags who murdered innocent people in the Rising Sun bar could blame the IRA for planting the bomb in the Shankill fish shop which they reacted to. I do not accept that. They were sectarian killers. Exactly the same as the IRA were sectarian killers. Of course they can find excuses. Locally, they just wanted to drive every Protestant out of my area and the Brits were just a good excuse

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

OK. Hands up. I misread what you said. Humble apologies Fionn. I thought you were doubting me
I missed the 'don't'

No harm, no foul, Downcow.....I must admit I was mentally preparing for a fairly scathing reply to your last post before reading this one! A lesson for us all on jumping to conclusions and misinterpreting posts.

downcow wrote: »

We can always blame someone else for our mistakes. The scumbags who murdered innocent people in the Rising Sun bar could blame the IRA for planting the bomb in the Shankill fish shop which they reacted to. I do not accept that. They were sectarian killers. Exactly the same as the IRA were sectarian killers. Of course they can find excuses. Locally, they just wanted to drive every Protestant out of my area and the Brits were just a good excuse

This is a bit of a non-sequitur, Downcow. Perhaps it is a conversation more appropriate to take up with the original poster you were replying to. This does nothing to acknowledge the fact that that post at no point stated that the British State were responsible for all of the PIRA's wrongs, but rather just stated that the British State were wholly responsible for the formation of the PIRA (a point I've stated I consider a gross simplification).

As I personally don't agree with the statement that the British State are 100% responsible for the formation of the PIRA, there is little to be gained from trying to convince me with tit-for-tat examples. My point was not in any way to defend the statement that the British State were wholly responsible for the formation of the PIRA, but rather to stop your extrapolation of that statement and misrepresenting it as blaming the British State for ALL PIRA activities.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Fionn a valiant attempt at spinning but which bit of this do not understand " I think it was wrong their English bombing campaign. I do understand how they came about and I think that blame is entirely on the shoulders of the British State"
let me be clear, I am pleased to see that he thinks the bombing was wrong, but he is entirely clear on where he places 100% of the responsibility. Which bit of that you do not understand, puzzles me
PS apologies Francie, I realise now that it was not you who stated that and I edited my post accordingly, Fionn must have clicked quote before I got it edited. I trust you would not put all the responsibility for the slaughter of those two kids on the British state

To clarify for you.

I think the British STATE could have prevented the formation of the PIRA by
a) realising that NI was a Sectarian State (British people like to portray themselves as being honest. fair and good people who follow the rule of law).
b) they should have ensured that the British troops sent to NI did what they were meant to do in the first place - protect catholics.
c) Dismantled the sectarian government of NI and the gerrymandering.

They had two chances to rectify these mistake - Sunningdale in 1973 and Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. They didn't.

So yes, I do put the deaths of those 2 warrington children at the hands of the British State. What did the British State expect when they used their own troops to shoot dead civil rights protesters and then lied about it. It took them 40 years to admit what they did (putting the blame on the PIRA). If the State plays dirty all the time, expect their opponents to copy them.

Edit: There was a bomb warning about the one in Warrington to the Samaritans (presumably because the PIRA knew the British Security Forces were not shy to tell big porkies about warnings or worse still, to ignore them as they didn't care about the consquences).

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

To clarify for you.



I think the British STATE could have prevented the formation of the PIRA by
a) realising that NI was a Sectarian State (British people like to portray themselves and being honest and good people who follow the rule of law).
b) they should have ensured that the British troops sent to NI did what they were meant to do in the first place - protect catholics.
c) Dismantled the sectarian government of NI and the gerrymandering.



They had two chances to rectify these mistake - Sunningdale in 1973 and Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. They didn't.


So yes, I do put the deaths of those 2 warrington children at the hands of the British State. What did the British State expect when they used their own troops to shoot dead civil rights protesters and then lied about it. It took them 40 years to admit what they did (putting the blame on the PIRA). If the State plays dirty all the time, expect their opponents to copy them.

One of the tragedies for the ordinary British person and society is that the actions of their governments abroad have come back to bite them on their streets.
There was chat on boards about the 'advantage' of having a British passport...the fact is that passport could have gotten you savagely killed in certain parts of the world because of what the British Gov had done.

Maybe one day enough ordinary Britons will rise up themselves and stop what is being done in their name in the world.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

To clarify for you.

I think the British STATE could have prevented the formation of the PIRA by
a) realising that NI was a Sectarian State (British people like to portray themselves as being honest. fair and good people who follow the rule of law).
b) they should have ensured that the British troops sent to NI did what they were meant to do in the first place - protect catholics.
c) Dismantled the sectarian government of NI and the gerrymandering.

They had two chances to rectify these mistake - Sunningdale in 1973 and Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. They didn't.

So yes, I do put the deaths of those 2 warrington children at the hands of the British State. What did the British State expect when they used their own troops to shoot dead civil rights protesters and then lied about it. It took them 40 years to admit what they did (putting the blame on the PIRA). If the State plays dirty all the time, expect their opponents to copy them.

Edit: There was a bomb warning about the one in Warrington to the Samaritans (presumably because the PIRA knew the British Security Forces were not shy to tell big porkies about warnings or worse still, to ignore them as they didn't care about the consquences).

Maybe you could give me an example of a government that never made a mistake?
And of course the more powerful the nation the more the microscope is applied. Roi get away with little attention because they are insignificant. The terrible indiscretions which took place under Roi government, eg Church sexual abuse, discrimination against anyone different eg Presbyterians, travellers, gays, women, etc flies under the radar.
If you were part of a major world nation like me you’d be under more scrutiny

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Maybe you could give me an example of a government that never made a mistake?
And of course the more powerful the nation the more the microscope is applied. Roi get away with little attention because they are insignificant. The terrible indiscretions which took place under Roi government, eg Church sexual abuse, discrimination against anyone different eg Presbyterians, travellers, gays, women, etc flies under the radar.
If you were part of a major world nation like me you’d be under more scrutiny

There's a subtle but significant difference in atrocities and injustices which occur in a state and atrocities and injustices carried out by a state, Downcow. The reduction of some of the things done by the British to just, 'government mistakes' is also absurd. Shooting innocent children or carpet bombing cities, for example, isn't quite the same as setting the tax rate half a percent too high or underfunding a government project.

Your pseudo-superiority complex about your Britishness won't change this.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

There's a subtle but significant difference in atrocities and injustices which occur in a state and atrocities and injustices carried out by a state, Downcow. The reduction of some of the things done by the British to just, 'government mistakes' is also absurd. Shooting innocent children or carpet bombing cities, for example, isn't quite the same as setting the tax rate half a percent too high or underfunding a government project.

Your pseudo-superiority complex about your Britishness won't change this.

Interesting that you compared it to setting the tax rate and not to abusing and disappearing thousands of innocent kids 😳

timthumbni

jm08 wrote: »

So yes, I do put the deaths of those 2 warrington children at the hands of the British State.
).

Oh dear. That’s a pretty grim line there. Nothing to do with the IRa who planted that bomb near a McDonald’s then at all then.

Now I know why you referred to some loyalist as a terrorist but skipped around when asked about Robert sands.

Pretty much an example right there of why there will never be a so called “United” Ireland. It seems that sands died for nothing after all. (Well aside from maybe selling a few dinner plates to gullible Americans)

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Interesting that you compared it to setting the tax rate and not to abusing and disappearing thousands of innocent kids 😳

I used those examples to avoid interstate comparisons rather than to avoid discussing specific Irish issues, but you're the one who thinks they're both the same here.....just little, 'government mistakes' in your eyes, sure it happens to everyone....

I could've picked that as an example, or a thousand others. To diminish the latter by painting it as just a, 'government mistake' is horrendous.

I don't tend to see very many Irish people discussing the likes of the Magdalene laundries and trying to paint it as just a little government mistake. I don't see people trying to defend it, make excuses for it, sticking flags up saying, 'we stand with the Magdalene Laundries' and trying to agitate to prevent prosecutions. The RTE doesn't put out shows calling those responsible the, 'greatest Irish people' like the BBC with Cromwell/Churchill.

I think there are issues a fair bit deeper than just a magnifying glass being held over the British because you're all so great.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Maybe you could give me an example of a government that never made a mistake?
And of course the more powerful the nation the more the microscope is applied. Roi get away with little attention because they are insignificant. The terrible indiscretions which took place under Roi government, eg Church sexual abuse, discrimination against anyone different eg Presbyterians, travellers, gays, women, etc flies under the radar.
If you were part of a major world nation like me you’d be under more scrutiny

The profound difference is that when the people found out what the state had been responsible for they pressurised until something was done about it, by imprisoning those responsible, paying restitution and reparations and changing legislation to end discrimination.
How are you guys getting on on that front?

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

They were sectarian killers. Exactly the same as the IRA were sectarian killers.

A simple fact is that Protestant non-combatants were the least likely demographic to be killed during the conflict while Unionist paramilitaries murdered hundreds and hundreds of innocent Catholics. The figures don't lie. Unionist sectarian hatred long predated the Provos, long predated partition, and long predated the old IRA. Bitter hateful sectarianism has been an element within Unionism for centuries.

Consider the killings of innocent Catholics I allude to above, you have to be a right sub-human to murder an innocent Mother and Father in front of their small children, burst into a bookies and gun down a load of ordinary men putting a bet on a horses, or machine-gun oul fellas to death sitting watching a match, or beating innocent Catholics to death in a pub to satisfy pure sectarian blood-lust. That sort of sadistic murder is motivated by pure hatred and little nothing else.

timthumbni

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaaz_ View Post
dissidents republicans and id struggle to condemn their actions



You would struggle to condemn dissident republicans. Oh dear. Would you say that to the faces of family of that wee girl that the same republicans murdered last year. (The journalist from Londonderry)

Fair plays to admitting that though. It’s clear a lot of the republican types on here get their rocks off on the IRAs murderous actions but they wouldn’t be as brazen as yourself and write it clearly down. You have no issue with republicans bombing and shooting people. Watch out they don’t bomb some one close to you though. They have history in killing their supposed “own kind”

Just to remind you about your failure to condemn dissident republicans again. I thought this was very harsh even for here.