The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not if it is clearly signalled as temporary and peacekeeping.

And the British would have agreed to it, just like that?

"Sure take over some of the United Kingdom cities and territory, OK, thanks, bye."

No Prime Minister, even if it were Jeremy Corbyn would have agreed to such a nonsense proposal and survived as PM the very next day. None!

Are you honestly that naive?

Do you think seriously that the British would open fire on such a mission? They were under severe pressure as it was.

Would the Irish Army? The Irish army would be going in with what? Rubber ducks and some hand soap?

They would be up against the UDR at first and then numerous loyalist forces who would see their ranks bolstered ten-fold overnight, and instead of the IRA taking potshots at the BA, it would have been Loyalists taking potshots at the Irish Army for god knows how long.

As to your idea that it would be 'temporary'. The British Army deployment was also supposed to be temporary. It was, in fact, the longest deployment and operation in the British Armies history.
You clearly and utterly have not thought this through at all.

Even with hindsight, you still make the most ridiculous naive arguments.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said anything about 'taking over' either Mark.


You really need to take the dodgy glasses off.

I said that when the Bogside was under siege that very clear signals should have been sent that a peacekeeping force would be sent into Derry to act as a buffer between the people and the maurading forces of the NI state.

That would have I believe (having read Wilson's thoughts and Jim Callaghan's) precipitated diplomatic moves that could have resulted in protections being put in place and a negotiated settlement of the issues.

Had the British shown then what they eventually showed with the Anglo Irish Agreement which ended the Unionist veto, very few would have died in my opinion.

You live in some fantasy-land.

Crossing a border of another country with an army is an invasion, no ifs, buts or maybes.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You, like me, have no way of proving what you said. Both are 'opinions' therefore.

Sorry but advocating an invasion of a foreign country as some sound basis of a debate is unhinged.
Welcome to the Anti-Vax camp of the internet.

To stand over the creation of an artificial majority and to then ignore the fact that they were changing the voting system and gerrymandering their majority in order to subjugate the minority is 'unhinged' I am afraid and as it turned out, advocated a 'blood sacrifice' that many knew would happen.

One doesn't have to like or stand over anything. Just because NI was a bit of ****ed up place does not give you a pass to state that the Irish army should have invaded it.
It also doesn't justify the murders of people toddlers and women.

markodaly

blanch152 wrote: »

You live in some fantasy-land.

Crossing a border of another country with an army is an invasion, no ifs, buts or maybes.

Never mind against International laws.

Poor Francie never thought this one out really.
The subject will be changed henceforth as a tactic!!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You live in some fantasy-land.

Crossing a border of another country with an army is an invasion, no ifs, buts or maybes.

I'll say it again.

Wilson would have done almost anything to avoid sparking off a spat with the Irish Army. Lynch sending troops to the border filled them with panic and they sent diplomats to dublin to discuss it.

A clearly signalled peacekeeping force, going in temporarily to act as a buffer would have been much much better than abandoning people to their fate and creating the vacuum into which the IRA or someone else was always going to step.

DOING NOTHING wasn't an option but that is what happened.

Wilson and Callaghan resisted strenuously sending in the Brtiish Army too, but 'events' and the pressure of those eents changed their minds.

The British were under as much pressure as were the Irish. The idea that they would attack a clear peacekeeping force in front of world eyes is ludicrious in my opinion. It would have been solved diplomatically or even by sanctions but that would have been an opportunity to have negotiated for what those people needed. What they didn't get until sadly over 3000 people had to die.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

And the British would have agreed to it, just like that?

"Sure take over some of the United Kingdom cities and territory, OK, thanks, bye."

No Prime Minister, even if it were Jeremy Corbyn would have agreed to such a nonsense proposal and survived as PM the very next day. None!

Are you honestly that naive?



Would the Irish Army? The Irish army would be going in with what? Rubber ducks and some hand soap?

They would be up against the UDR at first and then numerous loyalist forces who would see their ranks bolstered ten-fold overnight, and instead of the IRA taking potshots at the BA, it would have been Loyalists taking potshots at the Irish Army for god knows how long.

As to your idea that it would be 'temporary'. The British Army deployment was also supposed to be temporary. It was, in fact, the longest deployment and operation in the British Armies history.
You clearly and utterly have not thought this through at all.

Even with hindsight, you still make the most ridiculous naive arguments.

You are showing clear signs of under research.

The British would have considered almost anything to solve the issues. READ the material Mark.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are showing clear signs of under research.

The British would have considered almost anything to solve the issues. READ the material Mark.

Including an invasion of their territory by a foreign military force?

Tell us, since you didn't answer, how long with the Irish defence forces would have had to stay? 1 month, 2 years? 30 years??

Do you think the Unionists and loyalists would have just accepted it and went back to drinking pints down the local?

You raised this scenario, I want to hear you clarify it.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A clearly signalled peacekeeping force, going in temporarily to act as a buffer would have been much much better than abandoning people to their fate and creating the vacuum into which the IRA or someone else was always going to step.

That is what the British did, was it not? Sent in the British Army to act as a buffer.
They were welcomed with open arms by Nationalists and by the IRA even.
Yet, it worked out well didn't it......

Would this have been a UN peace keeping mission or a unilateral mission against international law?

The British were under as much pressure as were the Irish. The idea that they would attack a clear peacekeeping force in front of world eyes is ludicrious in my opinion. It would have been solved diplomatically or even by sanctions but that would have been an opportunity to have negotiated for what those people needed. What they didn't get until sadly over 3000 people had to die.

Ireland would be under sanctions as it broke international law here Francie. They would have been isolated from the world. Lets me clear on this, if the BA could not keep a peaceful NI, then what hope would the Irish Army have, against loyalists?

These what if's of yours are both hilarious and disturbing is equal measure.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll say it again.

Wilson would have done almost anything to avoid sparking off a spat with the Irish Army. Lynch sending troops to the border filled them with panic and they sent diplomats to dublin to discuss it.

A clearly signalled peacekeeping force, going in temporarily to act as a buffer would have been much much better than abandoning people to their fate and creating the vacuum into which the IRA or someone else was always going to step.

DOING NOTHING wasn't an option but that is what happened.

Wilson and Callaghan resisted strenuously sending in the Brtiish Army too, but 'events' and the pressure of those eents changed their minds.

The British were under as much pressure as were the Irish. The idea that they would attack a clear peacekeeping force in front of world eyes is ludicrious in my opinion. It would have been solved diplomatically or even by sanctions but that would have been an opportunity to have negotiated for what those people needed. What they didn't get until sadly over 3000 people had to die.

Drivel a usual. The British Army were originally sent in as a "peacekeeping force" to protect Catholic areas from criminal attack by loyalist thugs who were attacking them merely because they asked for civil rights. On what planet in what parallel universe do you think people so bigoted and filled with hate would stand around the Shankill as a Papist army arrived from the South. And that's even without considering the stupid notion that the British Army, who murdered 13 unarmed civilians would happily stand aside. M.E.N.T.A.L

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

That is what the British did, was it not? Sent in the British Army to act as a buffer.
They were welcomed with open arms by Nationalists and by the IRA even.
Yet, it worked out well didn't it......

Would this have been a UN peace keeping mission or a unilateral mission against international law?

We know how that worked out. Wrong move.

The British tried to settle it internally and that was a costly mistake. . The British tried to solve the issue without having to face down the Unionist sectarian bigoted state, they were only interested in maintaining the status quo.
Once the lid was allowed off the Irish people were not going to lie down again.
If you knew the material then you would know that that inevitability was voiced at the time at Wilson's cabinet table. Hence his reluctance to radicalise or enflame the south.

Ireland would be under sanctions as it broke international law here Francie. They would have been isolated from the world. Lets me clear on this, if the BA could not keep a peaceful NI, then what hope would the Irish Army have, against loyalists?

These what if's of yours are both hilarious and disturbing is equal measure.

Rubbish IMO. Even then Ireland and the plight of those in the north had considerable international sympathy. Wilson felt under pressure from world opinion.

Poor_old_gill

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not if it is clearly signalled as temporary and peacekeeping.

Do you think seriously that the British would open fire on such a mission? They were under severe pressure as it was.

Read the material Mark. It is clear to me that like Truth you haven't.

And I think you know that and that is why you are heavily invested in misrepresenting what I have said. Stock behaviour for you guys.

A peacekeeping mission?
Due to the sheer lunacy of some of your utterings - I'm starting to think that you might be some kind of false flag SF follower posting on here to discredit their party.

There's noway any semi-functioning adult believes that there should have been a peacekeeping mission to the north!

Off the scales idiocy

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We know how that worked out. Wrong move.

Oh, and sending in the Irish Army with or without the consent of the British would have been a better move?

You keep ignoring the questions so I will lay them out:

How long would this deployment last?
Would it be under the consent or guidance from the UN?
If not would it be unilateral?
What if the British said no? Go in anyway?
What causualites would be accepted as part of the deployment?
How would the Irish state manage the obvious and rampent Unionist response?

Please answer these questions.

Rubbish IMO. Even then Ireland and the plight of those in the north had considerable international sympathy. Wilson felt under pressure from world opinion.

I think you are vastly over thinking the situation here that the rest of the world were all that interested in NI.

What they would have noticed though is that a permanent member of the UN Security Council let a foreign military force take over parts of its territory without a shot being fired.
You think Argentia would not have noticed, or China in relation to Hong Kon or the USSR?
There is a world out there beyond the little border Francie.

Poor_old_gill

When the ECB was forcing us to put in place austerity measures - why the f*ck didnt we just invade Brussels?

markodaly

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

Off the scales idiocy

Francie goes off on one of these lunatic tangents from time to time if let off the lease.

Deporting Unionists was another idea of his, as was banning the poppy and forcing people not to wear it was another.

Behind the many many banal posts defending SF/IRA there are these nuggets of outstanding lunacy.

markodaly

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

When the ECB was forcing us to put in place austerity measures - why the f*ck didnt we just invade Brussels?

Sure what is the point of having an Army? :D:D:D

Poor_old_gill

Francie we know that the Army Council has you working flat out across several mediums & under several aliases to push the agenda that there is confusion out there but I think you need a few days off mate.

Get the party to give you one of their portfolio of rental properties so that you can have a bit of a staycation for yourself

markodaly

Still waiting.....

markodaly wrote: »

You keep ignoring the questions so I will lay them out:

How long would this deployment last?
Would it be under the consent or guidance from the UN?
If not would it be unilateral?
What if the British said no? Go in anyway?
What causualites would be accepted as part of the deployment?
How would the Irish state manage the obvious and rampent Unionist response?

Please answer these questions.

dundalkfc10

Wonder why their is so much ****e in here today, must be another **** up by The Govt, oh yeh Leo just attacked NHEPT, so the lads are on the SF thread again non stop. Another Govt TD wanted to know where Tony has been fort last while, what a scumbag thing to say.

Poor_old_gill

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Wonder why their is so much ****e in here today, must be another **** up by The Govt, oh yeh Leo just attacked NHEPT, so the lads are on the SF thread again non stop. Another Govt TD wanted to know where Tony has been fort last while, what a scumbag thing to say.

Ah, scrappy doo is back.
Time to change the subject from Francies meltdown?

blanch152

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Wonder why their is so much ****e in here today, must be another **** up by The Govt, oh yeh Leo just attacked NHEPT, so the lads are on the SF thread again non stop. Another Govt TD wanted to know where Tony has been fort last while, what a scumbag thing to say.

Complains about the introduction of Sinn Fein into the Fine Gael thread.

Introduces Fine Gael into the Sinn Fein thread.

You couldn't make it up. How obvious can you be?

blanch152

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

A peacekeeping mission?
Due to the sheer lunacy of some of your utterings - I'm starting to think that you might be some kind of false flag SF follower posting on here to discredit their party.

There's noway any semi-functioning adult believes that there should have been a peacekeeping mission to the north!

Off the scales idiocy

It gets particularly amusing when he doubles down in the face of all the evidence that he is wrong.

tikkahunter

blanch152 wrote: »

Complains about the introduction of Sinn Fein into the Fine Gael thread.

Introduces Fine Gael into the Sinn Fein thread.

You couldn't make it up. How obvious can you be?

Spin ?

maccored

Truthvader wrote: »

Papist army

there we are. thats all I need to know about truthvader

tikkahunter

Has Mary Lou came out against the anti mask protests organised by SF supporters - sorry yellow jacket mob ?

maccored

tikkahunter wrote: »

Has Mary Lou came out against the anti mask protests organised by SF supporters - sorry yellow jacket mob ?

SF and the yellow jackets - hahahahaha

maccored

some people read the indo too much

tikkahunter

maccored wrote: »

some people read the indo too much

No people can see for themselves.

dundalkfc10

blanch152 wrote: »

Complains about the introduction of Sinn Fein into the Fine Gael thread.

Introduces Fine Gael into the Sinn Fein thread.

You couldn't make it up. How obvious can you be?

Have you no vegetables to plant it trees to plant? For someone so green you spend alot of time on the auld mobile defending FF/FG. Mobiles are not great to the environment or have you like Éamonn just went against your party's pledges pre election and will just back up the 2 eejets at every go?

maccored

tikkahunter wrote: »

No people can see for themselves.

see what exactly? working class people giving out? I can see where the indo had an article trying to link the more moronic of yellow vesters with SF - people like you have lapped it up.

The general idea of the yellow vest movement in france is against an rising cost of living usually felt by the working/middle classes. In ireland it seems to stand for anything so Im sure, on the high cost of living issues etc, there'd be crossovers not just from SF, but every party.

Doesnt mean though that everything the yellow vests stand for relate to SF or vice versa. Very childish to think otherwise.

JohnnyFlash

tikkahunter wrote: »

No people can see for themselves.

There’s a strong overlap between the conspiracy theorist, racist, anti-State crowd and the SF university of life/school of hard knocks/Chucky Our Law types.

All whipped up into a frenzy on Twitter and Facebook.