Have you all lost your marbles??

A Dub in Glasgo

toiletduck wrote:

Yes.

You are 'against' violence yet he have no problem with the state killing unarmed men

Yes, if they were about to carry out an attack of even just "patrolling."

You are 'against' violence yet he have no problem with the state setting up traps and ambushes to kill people

Terrorists are civilians, but i assume you mean ordinary, decent people.No, of course not.

You are aware that the state have killed numerous ordinary decent people and have gotten away with it. Cake and eat it comes to mind.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

I wrote "As a southener, I have always found them friendly, courteous and efficient." Dub in Glasgo wrote " Othertimes I have found them to be anything but. No 100%'s for me unlike true".

sounds like 100% to me

I said the police uphold the law 99.9% of the time , not 100% of the time.

And I asked you to provide sources for the patronising figures you grab out of thin air

Given Dubs in Glasgos attitude, not to mention his possible activities or associates, I am not surprised he has found the police there sometimes anything but courtious and friendly.

Another example of true getting the sly personal dig in.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You think it is acceptable for the legitimate security forces of the state to carry out torture and murder as well!?!?

How about answering the question I asked instead of throwing an arm-waving fit? I didn't say, nor did I imply, that torture and murder are acceptable by anybody. You, on the other hand, said that higher standards should be applied to the state. I'd like you to explain why a killing by the legitimate armed forces of the state should be more readily adjudged to be murder than a killing by an illegal organisation.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Do as I say, not as I do.

I don't think you're stupid, so I have to assume you're being deliberately disingenuous. The state reserves certain rights for itself that it denies to its citizens, with good reason. For example, the state incarcerates criminals. Do you think that gives any of its citizens the right to lock someone else up?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You regard the men who fought in 1916 and the War of Independence criminals as well? what about Wolfe Tone and the Fenians?

In the context of their time, of course they were criminals. History is written by the winners. If you want an example of how history views rebels whose cause ultimately fails, try November 5th.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

In a conflict situation, the opposing sides are either fighting a war or they are not. If they are fighting a war, the opposing sides should be classed as combatants and treated accordingly. If it is not classed as a war, the opposing sides should be subjected to the rule of the law.

Oh, to live in a wonderfully simplistic binary world like yours. Face it: "war" is a flag of convenience for insurgents. It's an excuse for dressing up barbarous criminal acts as being somehow inevitable acts of war.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You want to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand, treat the IRA as criminals for their killings and on the other hand treat the British Army as upholders of the law for their killings...... That is, quite frankly, bizarre.

Get off your high horse for a second and answer this: if an armed criminal shoots an armed police officer in the course of a violent crime in (say) the United States, is that murder? If the armed police officer shoots the armed criminal, is that murder?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Pity the establishment does not think the same.

So write to your MP.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I note you say remit and not law!!

Same thing.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

They always were and so were the groups involved with the 1916 Rising, War of Independence, Fenians, Young Irelanders, Wolfe Tone.

See above. Do you deny that treason and sedition are crimes?

toiletduck

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You are 'against' violence yet he have no problem with the state killing unarmed men
QUOTE]

i assume your reffering to the assasination of the 3 IRA criminals in Giblatar? They (the SAS i think?) weren't sure if the men were armed or not, all they knew for sure was that the guys were members of a terrorist organisation which killed hundereds of people. Who ever said i was against violence? Im against the IRA and other terrorist organisations, who delibrately target and murder civilians to achieve their aims. Your probably gona start on about winning nationlists rights in the North, well this could have been better achieved with diplomacy as the SDLP have shown.

Sleepy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What do you mean by 'terrorists'?

Do you mean unarmed IRA/INLA men?
Do you mean waiting in ambush to kill an IRA unit?
Do you mean civilians including children?

Not every person who the British Army have killed is an IRA man just about to shoot or injure people. I suppose they moved in a threatening manner

Now make up your fúckin mind: are you at war or not? An IRA/INLA/UDF man is still a terrorist whether he's armed or not. If as you claim, the IRA have been taking part in a legitimate war, how can you be so indignant that your 'soldiers' were killed unarmed? Do you think that if a soldier in the Battle of the Somme dropped his rifle that the enemy wouldn't have killed him? Of course not. I can remember plenty of instances of off-duty British soldiers being lured to their deaths by republican terrorists, why should they offer your boys the opportunity to decide when they're off-duty if you don't respect theirs?

I'd also point out that you're in one hell of a glasshouse when you throw stones regarding the killing of "civilians including children". So, don't even bother trying to go there.

Now, finally, I'm going to give you a piece of advice. Go to your Ard Fheis this year. Decide which side of the fence Sinn Fein stand on all these issues: do they regard the IRA as a legitimate army? If so, they must accept the consequences that go with this and only attack valid military targets should the ceasefire be broken (economic targets are not valid militarily). Life doesn't allow us to choose which laws apply to us and which don't, not does it allow us to gain the benefits of a position without assuming it's responsibilites. I fail to grasp why Republicans don't think that this applies to them.

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

Now were going into the morality of war, and “it’s ok to kill someone because we’re the army of a state”.

I see it as you restricting the meaning, as if all wars by states are just. As if a murder by one group, was any different then a murder by another.

It's not at all clear to me what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that all wars by states are unjust, therefore unjust "war" by the IRA is OK? Or that some states fight unjust wars, therefore the IRA's "war" should be given the benefit of the doubt, just in case? Or what?

monument wrote:

I can’t see it being applied in any current war… oh, no, there are no wars, only liberations, and free elections. Sorry.

Someone else who can't answer a simple question. Is there a war being waged in Limerick? Should the Geneva Convention apply?

monument wrote:

But seriously, if you want to talk about agreements which were suppose to protect people’s rights lets go back to rights of the civil-rights activists, or even why they became activists.

We could do that, because it might distract attention from the fact that you've evaded the simple questions you've been asked. In fact, let's do so for a second: which of the civil rights that were (justly) being demanded in 1969 are still outstanding, to the extent that an illegal army feels the need to hold onto its arsenal to fight for them?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

How about answering the question I asked instead of throwing an arm-waving fit?

Are you a member of your local drama society? I am neither throwing my arms around and I don't do fits.

I didn't say, nor did I imply, that torture and murder are acceptable by anybody. You, on the other hand, said that higher standards should be applied to the state.

We all know that the standards by which the paramilitary groups fight is not particularly high. What I have just said does not equate to support for those low standards, it is an acceptance of reality. Now the British state has, on occassion, fought with those exact same low standards and hasgotten away with it. They should not be descending into that sort of thing as we 'expect' a lot more from the state. If they did decend into that sort of thing, I would fully expect the appropriate persons to be charged (just like the paramilitary groups) but they have not.

This, to me, points to an acceptable use of those low standards by the state and then they condemn people for using those low standards. It is the height of hyprocrisy. The state is either fighting a war therefore lets call a spade a spade and dispense with the holier than thou attitude or it is not fighting a war, therefore the people on both sides should be subject to the same legal process.

I see the state jailing and condemning people for killing when the state are doing the exact same thing and letting their people get away with it.

I'd like you to explain why a killing by the legitimate armed forces of the state should be more readily adjudged to be murder than a killing by an illegal organisation.

I have not said the state is more

I'd like you to explain why a killing by the legitimate armed forces of the state should be less readily adjudged to be murder than a killing by an illegal organisation.

I don't think you're stupid, so I have to assume you're being deliberately disingenuous.

You got the first bit right but the second bit is wrong

The state reserves certain rights for itself that it denies to its citizens, with good reason.

Correct but only within the law

For example, the state incarcerates criminals. Do you think that gives any of its citizens the right to lock someone else up?

No and I also don't believe the state should be committing murder and carrying out torture and getting away with it

In the context of their time, of course they were criminals. History is written by the winners. If you want an example of how history views rebels whose cause ultimately fails, try November 5th.

Do you still regard them as criminals?

Oh, to live in a wonderfully simplistic binary world like yours.

If you regard the world where people expect the state not to commit murders and allow their soldiers and policemen to get away with it then yes, I do live in a simple world. I would rather believe that than selective condemnation of atrocites.

Face it: "war" is a flag of convenience for insurgents. It's an excuse for dressing up barbarous criminal acts as being somehow inevitable acts of war.

War can be a lot of different things. Is it right that the state can then get away with murder?

Get off your high horse for a second and answer this: if an armed criminal shoots an armed police officer in the course of a violent crime in (say) the United States, is that murder?

Yes

If the armed police officer shoots the armed criminal, is that murder?

No

Now here are some questions for you

If an armed policeman or soldier shoots an unarmed man, is that murder?

If an armed policeman or soldier shoots into buildings killing unarmed people, is that murder?

If an armed policeman or soldier shoots a plastic bullet from 10 feet into the face of a child and the child dies, is that murder?

If an armed undercover groups prepares an ambush by allowing an armed group of men kit up and attack a building. They then kill everybody in the kill zone including an unarmed man, is that murder?

Same thing.

It is not the same thing

Do you deny that treason and sedition are crimes?

In the context of our time, I do not deny that.

I am treasonous to the British monarchy every day

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

Now make up your fúckin mind: are you at war or not? An IRA/INLA/UDF man is still a terrorist whether he's armed or not. If as you claim, the IRA have been taking part in a legitimate war, how can you be so indignant that your 'soldiers' were killed unarmed?

I am not indignant if both sides are subject to the same law

Do you think that if a soldier in the Battle of the Somme dropped his rifle that the enemy wouldn't have killed him?

No

I can remember plenty of instances of off-duty British soldiers being lured to their deaths by republican terrorists,

So can I but I do believe that the perpertrators will be subject to the law

why should they offer your boys the opportunity to decide when they're off-duty if you don't respect theirs?

Not my boys... I do believe that the perpertrators will not be subject to the law

I'd also point out that you're in one hell of a glasshouse when you throw stones regarding the killing of "civilians including children". So, don't even bother trying to go there.

The only glass houses I see are those who copndem the IRA for killing civilans then keep quiet or support the British state when they do the exact same thing. At least we know that the IRA will be subject to the law, the state will not.

Now, finally, I'm going to give you a piece of advice.

Are you in a position to give advice?

Go to your Ard Fheis this year.

Not my AF

do they regard the IRA as a legitimate army? If so, they must accept the consequences that go with this and only attack valid military targets should the ceasefire be broken (economic targets are not valid militarily).

Looks like all everyone should take your advice. I have seen the US tear the economic lifeblood and infrastreucture of Iraq asunder in a military campaign.

What about civilians targeted by the state? Do you offer your advice to the state on that front?

Life doesn't allow us to choose which laws apply to us and which don't, not does it allow us to gain the benefits of a position without assuming it's responsibilites. I fail to grasp why Republicans don't think that this applies to them.

Does the law apply to the representatives of the state?

A Dub in Glasgo

toiletduck wrote:

i assume your reffering to the assasination of the 3 IRA criminals in Giblatar? They (the SAS i think?) weren't sure if the men were armed or not,

That is one way to look at it. Another way is that the SAS knew they were not armed but they may get away. They then 'took' them out.

Who ever said i was against violence? Im against the IRA and other terrorist organisations, who delibrately target and murder civilians to achieve their aims.

I note you do not mention you are against the British state murdering civilians.

monument

oscarBravo wrote:

It's not at all clear to me what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that all wars by states are unjust, therefore unjust "war" by the IRA is OK? Or that some states fight unjust wars, therefore the IRA's "war" should be given the benefit of the doubt, just in case? Or what?

I’m saying war is war, by limiting the meaning of war to armies of states it sounds to me as if you think by calling the IRA’s campaign a war it would some how justify the way it was carried out – it wouldn’t.

oscarBravo wrote:

Someone else who can't answer a simple question. Is there a war being waged in Limerick? Should the Geneva Convention apply?

Yes, it looks as if there is a family/gang war in Limerick, and of my limited knowledge of the Geneva Convention it only applies to states who have actually signed up to it – and many of who have signed up to the Geneva Convention are ignoring it because they are not fighting a traditional war.

oscarBravo wrote:

We could do that, because it might distract attention from the fact that you've evaded the simple questions you've been asked. In fact, let's do so for a second: which of the civil rights that were (justly) being demanded in 1969 are still outstanding, to the extent that an illegal army feels the need to hold onto its arsenal to fight for them?

- Are civil rights still outstanding?

Not as much I would guess, but according to the SDLP to an extent apparently so… http://www.sdlp.ie/policy/summaries/juspol.shtm

But that should be obvious where there is an unaccountable, undemocratic government system in place.

- To the extent that an illegal army feels the need to hold onto its arsenal to fight for them?

I was under the impression that they were willing to decommission. But you'll have to ask them what they feel.

true wrote:

Thats what the army of a state is for : to uphold the peace and kill where necessary eg in self defence.The role of the security services in N. Ireland was / is to keep the peace.

They really showed the civil rights movement, didn’t they?

true wrote:

security services in N. Ireland was / is to keep the peace…. They are answerable to a democratically elected government.

The people in the civil rights movement must have asked them to bash their heads in? No? Of course not, you’re talking about a very, very, very limited type of democracy.

true wrote:

The IRA ( which is an illegial terrorist group ) tried , often sucessfully , to murder and bomb people, inc the security services.

And am I denying or condoning such? No, I’m not.

true wrote:

You cannot justify the actions of the IRA, by comparing them to the actions of the N. I. security services. You cannot seriously justify a group like the provos, who dressed in civilian clothes, and strapped fathers in to trucks full of explosives to get them to drive in to checkpoints. Who comitted atrocities like the LeMons bomb ,Enniskillen and many more.

Again, I’m not trying to justify the any action by the IRA, however an illegal or legal murder/beating/kidnapping by the IRA or by the security services is still a murder/beating/kidnapping.

pork99

monument wrote:

Again, I’m not trying to justify the any action by the IRA, however an illegal or legal murder/beating/kidnapping by the IRA or by the security services is still a murder/beating/kidnapping.

Except that the security forces are appointed by and are legally accountable to your democraticaly elected representatives whereas terrorist groups like the IRA (and others) are appointed by themselves and only legally accountable when arrested and put in the dock. You are not comparing like with like, the IRA are not an army. In order to have a stable democracy the state needs to have a monopoly on the use of armed force. Otherwise ultimately you end up living in Bosnia 92 or Rwanda 94.

I find the comments about Jean McConville's murder here even by the moderate Sinn Feiners here (who think it was wrong but not a crime :rolleyes: ) regretably only confirms my fears about them. I fear that they represent a new low of corruption and depravity in our political life. You may vote for Fianna Fail, they're crooks, but you know who you are voting for. Vote for Sinn Fein and as far as I can see you are also voting for an unaccountable secret army/criminal gang hiding in the shadows.

I've no problem with them if they're playing by the same rules as everyone else, without their private army. Still I would never vote for them though. If only for the sake of Jean McConville and Paul Maxwell (the 15 year old Irish child murdered by the bomb which killed Lord Mountbatten)

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

We all know that the standards by which the paramilitary groups fight is not particularly high.

If that's a euphemism for calling them murdering thugs, maybe we're getting places.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Now the British state has, on occassion, fought with those exact same low standards and hasgotten away with it.

The exact same low standards? How many pubs have the British Army blown up? How many civilians have they tied to the wheel of a truck and blown up while holding their families at gunpoint? How many mothers of ten have they shot in the head, concealed their body and lied about the circumstances of their disappearance?

They have done some unsavoury things, with Bloody Sunday being the most visible example. Atrocity for atrocity, they're not in the ha'penny place, and they do have the authority of a democratic mandate behind them.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

They should not be descending into that sort of thing as we 'expect' a lot more from the state. If they did decend into that sort of thing, I would fully expect the appropriate persons to be charged (just like the paramilitary groups) but they have not.

I would fully expect it too. I don't condone murder by legitimate security forces. I do, however, draw the line in a different place.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The state is either fighting a war therefore lets call a spade a spade and dispense with the holier than thou attitude or it is not fighting a war, therefore the people on both sides should be subject to the same legal process.

That doesn't make any sense. They are not fighting a war, but that doesn't make both sides equal. On one side, you have the defence forces of a sovereign state. On the other side, you have a bunch of seditious criminals. There is no equality there. Why should an armed criminal gang be afforded the same legitimacy as a state's democratically mandated armed forces?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I have not said the state is more

You said: "The standards should be far higher for the state."

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I'd like you to explain why a killing by the legitimate armed forces of the state should be less readily adjudged to be murder than a killing by an illegal organisation.

Because we, the people, give the legitimate armed forces their guns and a mandate to use them to defend our interests. We countenance the possibility that they may have to use those guns, and therefore injure or kill people, in the process of executing that mandate.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Correct but only within the law

Absolutely. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I advocate allowing the forces of the state to break the law. But equally, don't be so naive as to assume that the state has some sort of obligation to treat a terrorist army as having the same rights under law as the legitimate army.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

No and I also don't believe the state should be committing murder and carrying out torture and getting away with it

Neither do I.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Do you still regard them as criminals?

What part of "of course they were criminals" was unclear to you?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If you regard the world where people expect the state not to commit murders and allow their soldiers and policemen to get away with it then yes, I do live in a simple world. I would rather believe that than selective condemnation of atrocites.

Me too. I don't know where you got this idea that I think it's OK for soliders and policement to commit murder.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

War can be a lot of different things. Is it right that the state can then get away with murder?

That's a total non-sequiter.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If an armed policeman or soldier shoots an unarmed man, is that murder?

Maybe.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If an armed policeman or soldier shoots into buildings killing unarmed people, is that murder?

Maybe.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If an armed policeman or soldier shoots a plastic bullet from 10 feet into the face of a child and the child dies, is that murder?

Probably.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If an armed undercover groups prepares an ambush by allowing an armed group of men kit up and attack a building. They then kill everybody in the kill zone including an unarmed man, is that murder?

Maybe.

Your answers to my hypothetical questions raise an interesting point: in a previous post, you talked about holding the state to a higher standard, and "do as I say, not as I do". Yet, you recognise that the armed policeman had a right to kill that the armed criminal did not. Not everyone is held to the same standards in law, and for good reason.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is not the same thing

What remit do the armed forces of this state or the UK have to act outside the law?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I am treasonous to the British monarchy every day

Plotting the violent overthrow of the puppet Scottish assembly, are you?

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

I’m saying war is war, by limiting the meaning of war to armies of states it sounds to me as if you think by calling the IRA’s campaign a war it would some how justify the way it was carried out – it wouldn’t.

There are far too many who think it does. Even on this forum, people have dismissed IRA atrocities by effectively shrugging and saying "sh*t happens in war."

What is your motivation for describing the IRA's campaign as a war?

monument wrote:

Yes, it looks as if there is a family/gang war in Limerick, and of my limited knowledge of the Geneva Convention it only applies to states who have actually signed up to it – and many of who have signed up to the Geneva Convention are ignoring it because they are not fighting a traditional war.

I don't see the point in broadening the definition of war, only to have to say "that's a war but it's different because..."

monument wrote:

Not as much I would guess, but according to the SDLP to an extent apparently so… http://www.sdlp.ie/policy/summaries/juspol.shtm

By contrast with 1969, I'd say it's all but a different planet now.

monument wrote:

But that should be obvious where there is an unaccountable, undemocratic government system in place.

Why, who's not allowed to vote these days?

monument wrote:

I was under the impression that they were willing to decommission. But you'll have to ask them what they feel.

They keep talking about decommissioning, but there's not much of it happening. What do they want all those weapons for?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

If that's a euphemism for calling them murdering thugs, maybe we're getting places.

Some of the activities could be classed as murdering thugs but not all.

The exact same low standards? How many pubs have the British Army blown up? How many civilians have they tied to the wheel of a truck and blown up while holding their families at gunpoint? How many mothers of ten have they shot in the head, concealed their body and lied about the circumstances of their disappearance?

To quote an infamous woman, 'Murder is murder is murder'. Obviously not when the British state do it.

They have done some unsavoury things, with Bloody Sunday being the most visible example. Atrocity for atrocity, they're not in the ha'penny place, and they do have the authority of a democratic mandate behind them.

The inclusion of a mandate does not justify murder. Look at Hitler, he had a mandate.

I would fully expect it too. I don't condone murder by legitimate security forces. I do, however, draw the line in a different place.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with a state which sanctions murder

That doesn't make any sense. They are not fighting a war, but that doesn't make both sides equal. On one side, you have the defence forces of a sovereign state. On the other side, you have a bunch of seditious criminals. There is no equality there. Why should an armed criminal gang be afforded the same legitimacy as a state's democratically mandated armed forces?

Are they mandated to murder? No they are not therefore they should be held responsible for their actions which they are not.

Because we, the people,

Hold it, who are you talking about?

give the legitimate armed forces their guns and a mandate to use them to defend our interests. We countenance the possibility that they may have to use those guns, and therefore injure or kill people, in the process of executing that mandate.

Do 'we' also give the mandate for the forces to carry out murder and torture?

Absolutely. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I advocate allowing the forces of the state to break the law.

All your talk is of a democratically mandated army to do 'our' work yet you have not mentioned that the same army have been committing murder in Ireland during the 'Troubles'

But equally, don't be so naive as to assume that the state has some sort of obligation to treat a terrorist army as having the same rights under law as the legitimate army.

I naively assume that in the absence of war, the state has to comply with the law

What part of "of course they were criminals" was unclear to you?

The use of 'were' indicates past tense. I asked about the present tense. I assume that you regard them as criminals now as the British did in the past?

Me too. I don't know where you got this idea that I think it's OK for soliders and policement to commit murder.

You also live in the binary simple world then. Unfortunately the British state thinks it is OK to murder.

Maybe.

Maybe.

Probably.

Maybe.

At least I gave Yes/No answers

Your answers to my hypothetical questions raise an interesting point: in a previous post, you talked about holding the state to a higher standard, and "do as I say, not as I do". Yet, you recognise that the armed policeman had a right to kill that the armed criminal did not. Not everyone is held to the same standards in law, and for good reason.

Since we are in the maybe and probably frame of mind. What if the armed man knows that he will be executed if he gives up. Can he argue self-defence? Was it correct to shoot John Carthy? What if the policeman never gave the armed man the chance to surrender his weapon? Are the police always justified in shooting armed men even if they are in no danger?

What remit do the armed forces of this state or the UK have to act outside the law?

Set up an ambush to kill everyone in a kill zone no matter if they are armed or not or if they are involved in an attack?

Plotting the violent overthrow of the puppet Scottish assembly, are you?

Does not need to be violent

High Treason Act 1351 (Amended 1945)

High Treason (the highest form of treason - against the King/Queen) is the act committed when an allegiance, which is owed by a citizen, is broken. A citizen of a country owes a duty of allegiance in return for receiving the protection of that country's head of state. Consequently, treason is viewed as an extremely, if not the most, serious offence a citizen can commit.

I have no need to worry though as I do not owe a duty of allegiance to the crown.

Edit: I agree with your assertion that the Scottish Assembly is a puppet one

monument

oscarBravo wrote:

What is your motivation for describing the IRA's campaign as a war?

Because it is a war (armed fighting between two or more countries or groups).

oscarBravo wrote:

There are far too many who think it does. Even on this forum, people have dismissed IRA atrocities by effectively shrugging and saying "sh*t happens in war."

Such attitudes should be challenged.

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't see the point in broadening the definition of war, only to have to say "that's a war but it's different because..."

Again I think you’re that one (as a lot of people have) confined ‘war’ to two or more states fighting.

oscarBravo wrote:

Why, who's not allowed to vote these days?

I must have been dreaming, the government the people had voted for must now be running the north, oh, no, that not true - is it?

Bureaucrats - unaccountable, undemocratic - currently run the north.

oscarBravo wrote:

They keep talking about decommissioning, but there's not much of it happening. What do they want all those weapons for?

As far as I can see, decommissioning is being held back by other sides, including our government, unwilling to continue negotiating with SF even after the post people here have said they should.

pork99 wrote:

Except that the security forces are appointed by and are legally accountable to your democraticaly elected representatives whereas terrorist groups like the IRA (and others) are appointed by themselves and only legally accountable when arrested and put in the dock. You are not comparing like with like, the IRA are not an army. In order to have a stable democracy the state needs to have a monopoly on the use of armed force. Otherwise ultimately you end up living in Bosnia 92 or Rwanda 94.

When a person is dead, a person is dead - there is no difference.

On accountability, I really don’t think you could say that every murder my the security forces have lived up to any real level of accountability.

pork99 wrote:

I find the comments about Jean McConville's murder here even by the moderate Sinn Feiners here (who think it was wrong but not a crime :rolleyes: ) regretably only confirms my fears about them.

Just to clear things up I think is was wrong, and as I said pretty much any thing an IRA member has done as an IRA member is a crime.

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Some of the activities could be classed as murdering thugs but not all.

So now Dub in Glasgo acknowledges some of the IRAs activies could be classed as murdering thugs. Which ones, Dub ?


To quote an infamous woman, 'Murder is murder is murder'. Obviously not when the British state do it.

Shooting terrorists who armed with a bomb placed to kill civilians, which could have been remote controled, was not murder. Shooting a heavily terrorist group ( who had in previous months killed many lone off duty policemen and soldiers according to ballistic experts ) in Loughgall was not murder, irrespective of the fact whither a surrender warning was given to the terrorists or not. Killing unarmed innocent civilians is murder, and something every security force person had to be aware of if / when the IRA ambushed them with the element of surprise, which happened on a very regular basis.


The inclusion of a mandate does not justify murder. Look at Hitler, he had a mandate.

Bad and all as he was, at least he took prisoners, treated British prisoners reasonably fairly under the geneva convention, and did not strap fathers in to trucks , holding their family as hostages, while he drove in in to a checkpoint and then blew it up. This is not to condone Hitler : my point is without a mandate , any group that kills people are more likely to be just a bunch of thugs.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with a state which sanctions murder

Yeah, I shake in my boots every time I visit the UK in case I'm next.


Are they mandated to murder? No they are not therefore they should be held responsible for their actions which they are not.

Some have been. Most security force personnel who "murdered" form a tiny percentage of the personel involved, and many did so in self defence , accidentally or during a riot or whatever.


Do 'we' also give the mandate for the forces to carry out murder and torture?

No, we never did


All your talk is of a democratically mandated army to do 'our' work yet you have not mentioned that the same army have been committing murder in Ireland during the 'Troubles'

Considering the provocation and "war" against them I think the security forces have in the whole behaved very well, as well as any other force in the world could have been expected to.










Was it correct to shoot John Carthy? What if the policeman never gave the armed man the chance to surrender his weapon?

Aw dear, when did the IRA give an off duty RUC or UDR man the chance to surrender his weapon , before murdering him ?


Are the police always justified in shooting armed men even if they are in no danger?

No, but how do you know an armed man is no danger ?

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Shooting a heavily terrorist group ( who had in previous months killed many lone off duty policemen and soldiers according to ballistic experts ) in Loughgall was not murder, irrespective of the fact whither a surrender warning was given to the terrorists or not.

Not withstanding the fact that the British state knew the plans weeks in advance from an informer, they still allowed the IRA men arm themselves and pick up the JCB and drive to Loughall. The RUC building they were going to blow up should have been vacant but the trap was laid and it was occupied by special forces. The whole area was a kill zone and the British killed 1 innocent civialan and critically injured another who just happened to be returning from work. In the absence of war, that was murder, plain and simple. The covert British units did not shoot in self defense. It was a classic military ambush with civilans killed in the process. The same way the attack at Warrenpoint was a classic military ambush (with no civilans killed).

Killing unarmed innocent civilians is murder

Yet you dismiss the website which explained some of those murders as pro-IRA propaganda. The fact that the perpertrators will nearly always get away with it speaks volumes.

Bad and all as he was, at least he took prisoners, treated British prisoners reasonably fairly under the geneva convention, and did not strap fathers in to trucks , holding their family as hostages, while he drove in in to a checkpoint and then blew it up. This is not to condone Hitler : my point is without a mandate , any group that kills people are more likely to be just a bunch of thugs.

Having a mandate means you are less likely to act like a bunch of thugs. Seen the most recent activities of the 'glorious' British Army in Iraq?

Yeah, I shake in my boots every time I visit the UK in case I'm next.

Making fun of the fact that the British state has sanctioned murder in Ireland will not make it go away.

Some have been.

Yes a small percentage have been and look what happenend!

Most security force personnel who "murdered" form a tiny percentage of the personel involved, and many did so in self defence , accidentally or during a riot or whatever.

Oh yes, the fog of a riot. Classic Bloody Sunday testimony.

The killing of Aiden McAnespie 'My finger accidentally slipped and pulled the safety catch off and then squeezed the trigger and it hit the man we have been harassing and threatening for the last few months... honest guv'

Considering the provocation and "war" against them I think the security forces have in the whole behaved very well, as well as any other force in the world could have been expected to.

lol

Aw dear, when did the IRA give an off duty RUC or UDR man the chance to surrender his weapon , before murdering him ?

They gave no warning but that is of no relevance to my question

No, but how do you know an armed man is no danger ?

How about you are watching the arms dump and have replaced all the live rounds in the dump with blanks. A couple of men approach the dump and are taken out.

How about a man is injured in a gun battle, he is interrogated where he fell and is then shot in the head

How about you have a number of men under surveillence and you know they are going to get their weapons. You allow them to get their weapons and carry out an attack. You allow this to happen to take them out.

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not withstanding the fact that the British state knew the plans weeks in advance from an informer,

Who knew for certain he was not a double agent leading them in to a trap ?

they still allowed the IRA men arm themselves and pick up the JCB and drive to Loughall.

Did they know for certain the actual IRA men who were going to come, armed to the teeth? They did not know when the same men - or at least same guns- were going to come in previous months, as kill as they did .

The British killed 1 innocent civialan and critically injured another who just happened to be returning from work. In the absence of war, that was murder, plain and simple.

Agreed , the wrong place at the wrong time. Because of the IRA attack, it was assumed this person in the car was part of that. If there was no attack, he would not have been killed. It was still a serious mistake on the part of the army.



The covert British units did not shoot in self defense. It was a classic military ambush with civilans killed in the process.

One civilian killed. If the British unit put down their guns, or were asleep, the IRA unit would have killed them , the same as the same IRA unit killed other members of the security services.

The same way the attack at Warrenpoint was a classic military ambush (with no civilans killed).

I take it you are referring to the attack at Narrow Water in early August 1979. The IRA unit lay in undergrowth in Co. Louth and blew up a deserted trailer full of explosives at the side of the road. As the survivors took shelter , recovered at a wall, they blew up a bomb on the other side of the wall, again by remote from co. Louth. If the British saw them, they could not shoot back, or you would be whinging about the British army firing in to the free state.

Oh, how very brave of the IRA. Another great day for Ireland . Another collection of widows.


Yet you dismiss the website which explained some of those murders as pro-IRA propaganda.

A website which is literally green , white and gold, comes from the Falls Road Belfast , and compares the security services in N.I with those in certain south american countries is bound to be a bit suspect, do you not admit ?



Having a mandate means you are less likely to act like a bunch of thugs. Seen the most recent activities of the 'glorious' British Army in Iraq?

You are trying to say that because the IRA does not have a mandate, that does not matter, as sometimes armies from elected governments are not perfect.
Iraq is a whole different argument, but as you mention it, those few soldiers who did let the Army down are being investigated and will be displined. However , their abuses pale in to insignifigance compared to the quantity and quality of human rights violations of Saddam Hussein : you must keep things in perspective.

Making fun of the fact that the British state has sanctioned murder in Ireland will not make it go away.

The British state does not santion murder in Ireland. I made fun at your assertion by saying I shake in my boots each time I go to the UK now in case I will be next.


Oh yes, the fog of a riot. Classic Bloody Sunday testimony.

I remember one rioter caught on TV video. He came up behind a policeman with an iron bar raised over his head and was about to hit the policeman when the policeman sensed something turned around and instinctively fired his plastic round gun from almost point blank range at the rioter, which actually killed him. Fortunately all this was captured by video. I am sure this RUC man is one of the people who you refer to, and who you would like to see locked up for murder for life.

While the IRA and INLA men walk free.

You say that the fact that an IRA man never gave a chance to a RUC man to lay down his weapon or surrender, and instead murdered him, is of no relevance, but instead you want proof that the SAS at Loughgall asked the IRA men to surrender? Many IRA men were captured after they were asked to surrender, but you ignore this. Other IRA men have been know to run off or fire back after being told to surrender. IRA men demand the right to surrender, which they were nearly always ,if not always given. You complain about possible occassions when they may not have being asked to surrender. Yet they - despite the fact they usually wore civilian clothes -never afforded their enemy this luxury. Are you not just a bit hippocritical, Dub ?

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

You say that the fact that an IRA man never gave a chance to a RUC man to lay down his weapon or surrender, and instead murdered him, is of no relevance,

Correct, it is not relevant to the question about John Carthy

but instead you want proof that the SAS at Loughgall asked the IRA men to surrender?

There is no instead, it is a different question. I am looking for acknowledgement that Loughall was a precision military operation which resulted in an IRA unit getting wiped out and a couple of civilians were also affected. That ambush could have been avoided as the state knew the plans but decided to carry out the ambush. That, to me, does not sound like the actions of a 'peace keeping' force.

Many IRA men were captured after they were asked to surrender, but you ignore this.

show me where I have ignored this

Other IRA men have been know to run off or fire back after being told to surrender. IRA men demand the right to surrender, which they were nearly always ,if not always given.

I don't think they demand, I think they expect the worse

You complain about possible occassions when they may not have being asked to surrender.

I have asked questions about the way the British have carried out their 'non-war' as a lot of people seem to regard them as an innocent by-stander keeping the 2 'real' warring sides apart. That innocent bystander is false and the British fought the IRA with what they thought they could get away with. I have highlighted instances where the British have acted like it was a war. I complain not about the fact that the British fought as a war but the pontificating from some who claim that the British have not or ever have fought dirty. As I said previously, Open your eyes (although you have complained that I am showing you pro-IRA propaganda!)

Yet they - despite the fact they usually wore civilian clothes -never afforded their enemy this luxury. Are you not just a bit hippocritical, Dub ?

No I am not. I see inconsistancy regarding abhorrence of violence from you.

Villain

Just a quick point, Mary Harney said earlier this week that Martin Ferris was on the IRA Army Council. Yesterday in the Dail Enda Kenny asked Bertie if Ferris was on the army council and Bertie replied "I don't know the makeup of the current Army Council".

Well Bertie might want to tell Ms Harney and the rest of the PD's to keep their mouth shut instead of trying to score cheap political points using rumours. It scares me how much of say this tiny Party has.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

To quote an infamous woman, 'Murder is murder is murder'. Obviously not when the British state do it.

I've already clearly stated that I don't condone murder, and that those who commit murder should be held accountable for it.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The inclusion of a mandate does not justify murder. Look at Hitler, he had a mandate.

I've already clearly stated that I don't condone murder, and that those who commit murder should be held accountable for it.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Unfortunately, we are dealing with a state which sanctions murder

Yeah? Point me to the Act of Parliament where murder was sanctioned.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Are they mandated to murder? No they are not therefore they should be held responsible for their actions which they are not.

I've already clearly stated that I don't condone murder, and that those who commit murder should be held accountable for it.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Hold it, who are you talking about?

The people who elect the governments of the states in question. Who do you think I'm talking about?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Do 'we' also give the mandate for the forces to carry out murder and torture?

I've already clearly stated that I don't condone murder or torture, and that those who commit murder or torture should be held accountable for it.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

All your talk is of a democratically mandated army to do 'our' work yet you have not mentioned that the same army have been committing murder in Ireland during the 'Troubles'

What do you suggest, sack the whole lot and give the IRA some uniforms? Do you believe that countries shouldn't have armies? Do you think they should have armies, but that the armies shouldn't be given guns? Do you think they should be given guns, but that they should have to ask permission of the terrorists before they shoot them?

I don't know why I'm asking these questions, to be honest. The answers are self-evident to anyone who isn't seeking to justify the existence of an illegal army.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I naively assume that in the absence of war, the state has to comply with the law

Yet another example of changing the subject instead of acknowledging the point I made. Straight answer please: do you think that the government should somehow pretend that a terrorist organisation has the exact same status in law as the state's own army?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The use of 'were' indicates past tense. I asked about the present tense. I assume that you regard them as criminals now as the British did in the past?

It's not a question of regarding: they committed crimes, and therefore were criminals. Do you think that a revisionist view of history somehow changes the fact that they committed criminal acts?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You also live in the binary simple world then. Unfortunately the British state thinks it is OK to murder.

My world isn't so stupidly simplistic as to believe that an armed criminal is the same in the eyes of the law as a member of the armed forces.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

At least I gave Yes/No answers

Which shows how grossly oversimplified your worldview is. The accurate answer to the questions you replied "yes" and "no" to is "it depends" - with it being more likely that the criminal committed murder than the policeman.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Since we are in the maybe and probably frame of mind. What if the armed man knows that he will be executed if he gives up. Can he argue self-defence?

Almost certainly not.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Was it correct to shoot John Carthy?

Almost certainly, under the circumstances.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What if the policeman never gave the armed man the chance to surrender his weapon? Are the police always justified in shooting armed men even if they are in no danger?

You're starting to get the shades-of-grey thing, good.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Does not need to be violent

...but better not decommission, just in case.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I agree with your assertion that the Scottish Assembly is a puppet one

That wasn't assertion, it was irony.

Do you agree with the quote you posted: that treason is one of the most serious crimes there is?

Bateman

irish1 wrote:

Just a quick point, Mary Harney said earlier this week that Martin Ferris was on the IRA Army Council. Yesterday in the Dail Enda Kenny asked Bertie if Ferris was on the army council and Bertie replied "I don't know the makeup of the current Army Council".

Well Bertie might want to tell Ms Harney and the rest of the PD's to keep their mouth shut instead of trying to score cheap political points using rumours. It scares me how much of say this tiny Party has.

At one stage, it was as if the government was using Ed Moloney's book for all their intelligence. What amazes me is that the PDs ( I don't like them but they certainly aren't stupid) think that they have anything to gain by constantly floating such rumours.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

I've already clearly stated that I don't condone murder, and that those who commit murder should be held accountable for it. I've already clearly stated that I don't condone murder, and that those who commit murder should be held accountable for it.

What do you propose the people do if, through peaceful protest, the state comes down so hard that they murder people and are not held accountable? continue on this path or hit back? You condemn those affected for hitting back?

The people who elect the governments of the states in question. Who do you think I'm talking about?

We = anybody in the world who votes for the government

What do you suggest, sack the whole lot and give the IRA some uniforms? Do you believe that countries shouldn't have armies? Do you think they should have armies, but that the armies shouldn't be given guns? Do you think they should be given guns, but that they should have to ask permission of the terrorists before they shoot them?

I believe in the right of people to rise up in rebellion against occupying and repressive regimes. Of course everyone of those rebellions are breaking the applicable law of the rulers and according to you, should be classed as criminal.

I don't know why I'm asking these questions, to be honest. The answers are self-evident to anyone who isn't seeking to justify the existence of an illegal army.

I justify the existance of the army that created the country I'm from and the country you now live in yet it was an illegal army and you have already stated it was criminal.

Yet another example of changing the subject instead of acknowledging the point I made.

Really?

QBut equally, don't be so naive as to assume that the state has some sort of obligation to treat a terrorist army as having the same rights under law as the legitimate army

A I naively assume that in the absence of war, the state has to comply with the law

Changed the subject?? You disagree with my sentence above?

Straight answer please:

Is that so you can be condesending again and lambast the fact that I gave straight answers previously? A discussion full of maybes, depends and probably will be no discussion at all

do you think that the government should somehow pretend that a terrorist organisation has the exact same status in law as the state's own army?

In the absence of war, I expect the government ot obey the law

It's not a question of regarding: they committed crimes, and therefore were criminals.

Only if you believe the laws of an occupying and repressive force apply

Do you think that a revisionist view of history somehow changes the fact that they committed criminal acts?

They committed criminal acts according to the law of the occupying and repressive regime. I asked do you personally regard them as criminals and the whole independence of Ireland was criminal. Evidently, you do. I certainly do not.

My world isn't so stupidly simplistic as to believe that an armed criminal is the same in the eyes of the law as a member of the armed forces.

In the absence of war, are you so stupid simplistic to believe that the forces of the state need to obey the law? Apparantly I am and you have reminded me on a number of occassions.

Which shows how grossly oversimplified your worldview is. The accurate answer to the questions you replied "yes" and "no" to is "it depends"

Ha ha - there you go... I am damned if I give a straight answer and certainly damned if I try to give an non-commital answer (which is actually not an answer but that shows the inability of the questioner to phrase the question correctly). Any more patronising statements in your arsenal.

Almost certainly not. Almost certainly, under the circumstances.

mibbes aye mibbes naw

...but better not decommission, just in case.

Decommission what?

That wasn't assertion, it was irony.

Ha ha, you need to brush up on that

Do you agree with the quote you posted: that treason is one of the most serious crimes there is?

Depends

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Dub in Glasgo said "Correct, it is not relevant to the question about John Carthy"

oh yes it was , because it puts the difficulties of the time in context.



Dub said :"There is no instead, it is a different question. I am looking for acknowledgement that Loughall was a precision military operation which resulted in an IRA unit getting wiped out and a couple of civilians were also affected. That ambush could have been avoided as the state knew the plans but decided to carry out the ambush. That, to me, does not sound like the actions of a 'peace keeping' force ".

The British Army was not 100% certain if or when the IRA unit would strike, or if it itself was being led in to a trap etc. No military operation can be 100% precise when you are dealing with an unknown quantity of terrorists, which resulted in the civilian getting killed. The IRA were in the process of attacking the station, with a large bomb in the bucket of the JCB , and they were armed with guns which were used to murder members of the security forces previously. You are calling the episode an ambush. Was it not an IRA attack? Can you prove the IRA were not asked to surrender ? If you were confronted with an armed group of seven or eight murderers like the IRA, would you ask them to surrender ?
If it does not sound like you to be the actions of a peace keeping force, perhaps you think the British soldiers should have surrendered to the IRA, in which case they would have been shot, as other defenceless members of the security forces were.

If this Loughgall incident is the worst incident you can think of , then I think that speaks for itself. Whenever I met the army on my travels up North during the troubles, they were perfectly polite and peace keeping to me, even though I am from south of the border, and travelled in a southern reg. car.
This is the experience of all my family and friends too.



Dub in Glasgo said ". As I said previously, Open your eyes (although you have complained that I am showing you pro-IRA propaganda!)"

I just said that the one and only particular website you gave me details of , when you told me to open my eyes, is far from being a neutral source of information from which to solely base your opinions. The web site is litterally green white and gold in colour, it comes from the Falls Road, - nothing wrong with that in itself so far, but it is a pointer - and its content is maybe just a bit biased in places. eg it compares the police in Northern Ireland to abuses in some south American countries etc.



Dub said "I see inconsistancy regarding abhorrence of violence from you".

I cannot see how you, of all people, make that out Dub. You yourself seem to condone violence from the IRA, while condemning the security forces of elected governments out of hand. I always detest violence from terrorists, on both sides. If and when security force members step outside the law , as a small minority sometimes does in probably every country in the world - they are only human beings - then I believe they should be punished as well.

..

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What do you propose the people do if, through peaceful protest, the state comes down so hard that they murder people and are not held accountable?

Continue to protest peacefully. Ghandi demonstrated clearly that a government can't continue to violently suppress peaceful protest for long.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

We = anybody in the world who votes for the government

I've no idea where the confusion is coming from here. I'm talking, in general terms, about governments and their armed forces.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I believe in the right of people to rise up in rebellion against occupying and repressive regimes. Of course everyone of those rebellions are breaking the applicable law of the rulers and according to you, should be classed as criminal.

You just don't get the concept of criminality, do you? You don't get to decide that something is not a criminal act just because you don't agree with the law. Anto and Wacker may not agree with the law that says they're not allowed to steal my car, but that doesn't change the fact that they commit a criminal act by doing so.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I justify the existance of the army that created the country I'm from and the country you now live in yet it was an illegal army and you have already stated it was criminal.

That army no longer exists. Do you justify the existence of the current criminal organisation that bears its name?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Really?

QBut equally, don't be so naive as to assume that the state has some sort of obligation to treat a terrorist army as having the same rights under law as the legitimate army

A I naively assume that in the absence of war, the state has to comply with the law

Changed the subject?? You disagree with my sentence above?

Maybe if I say this enough times you'll stop ignoring it: Everybody, without exception, should be required to comply with the law. Now that we've got that out of the way, maybe you'll answer the question: Do you feel that a terrorist organisation should enjoy identical status in law to the legitimate armed forces of the state?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is that so you can be condesending again and lambast the fact that I gave straight answers previously? A discussion full of maybes, depends and probably will be no discussion at all

You give straight answers to rhetorical and hypothetical questions, and change the subject when asked straightforward questions. Like, for example:

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

do you think that the government should somehow pretend that a terrorist organisation has the exact same status in law as the state's own army?

In the absence of war, I expect the government ot obey the law

That's not even remotely like an answer to the question I asked.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Only if you believe the laws of an occupying and repressive force apply

Riight. So, the government has to obey the law, but terrorists get to choose whether they apply to them or not. "Do as I say, not as I do"?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

They committed criminal acts according to the law of the occupying and repressive regime.

...which happened to be the laws in force at the time.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I asked do you personally regard them as criminals and the whole independence of Ireland was criminal. Evidently, you do. I certainly do not.

First, you didn't ask me whether the independence of Ireland was criminal. Second, you don't regard them as criminal because you live in a fantasy world where you get to decide which laws apply to you.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

In the absence of war, are you so stupid simplistic to believe that the forces of the state need to obey the law?

Yes. I don't distinguish between laws that should be obeyed and broken according to personal preference, and I don't distinguish between people who are and are not allowed to break laws.

I'm not so naive as to believe that laws won't be broken, and I accept as an unfortunate fact of life that the perpetrators of many crimes will get away with them, but I don't seek to justify that fact.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Ha ha - there you go... I am damned if I give a straight answer and certainly damned if I try to give an non-commital answer (which is actually not an answer but that shows the inability of the questioner to phrase the question correctly). Any more patronising statements in your arsenal.

If you're not clear on what I mean by a question, ask me to clarify. I consider "maybe" and "it depends" straight answers, albeit answers that may need elaboration. I consider a non-sequiter that has no bearing on the question that was asked to be an evasion, and a sign that you don't actually have a valid answer to the question. For example: "Should terrorists and legitimate armed forces have the same rights in law?" - "The state should have to comply with the law." I mean, what the hell does the answer have to do with the question? I've already freely acknowledged and agreed with the point you're making, but you keep reiterating it in answer to my questions as if I've disagreed with it.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Depends

On what?

Nuttzz

irish1 wrote:

It scares me how much of say this tiny Party has.

PDs have 8 TD's SF have 5. Tiny alright..... Hello Pot this is kettle....

and before you start saying that 10% of the opinion polls would vote SF just remember that the job of a political party is to turn votes into seats something the PDs are more capable of than SF it would appear.

Councillors, MEP's and Sentators are in the halfpeny place compared to TD's

Villain

Nuttzz wrote:

PDs have 8 TD's SF have 5. Tiny alright..... Hello Pot this is kettle....

and before you start saying that 10% of the opinion polls would vote SF just remember that the job of a political party is to turn votes into seats something the PDs are more capable of than SF it would appear.

Councillors, MEP's and Sentators are in the halfpeny place compared to TD's

I wasn't comparing them to SF, I was stating that a party with 8 TD's seems to have a mighty lot of power, but thats probably just because Bertie is such a soft touch.

P.S. We'll see come the next election who can turn votes into seats.

Nuttzz

Its not Bertie who is the soft touch its the FF mindset. FF have to be in power, have to! They know nothing else it eats them up inside. Because they are that desperate it is easier for the junior partner to have more say, just like Labour did when they were in with FF in the early 90's.

SF performance in the next election will be interesting however if they are to win seats I think it will be at the expense of Labour.

true

Nuttzz wrote:

SF performance in the next election will be interesting however if they are to win seats I think it will be at the expense of Labour.

As long as sinn fein is in bed with an illegial organisation that has guns and semtex under the table, if Siinn Fein are to win seats it will be at the expense of democracy.

Slutmonkey57b

I think once you recognise that someone has taken it as obvious that the IRA had any kind of mandate whatsoever to conduct any terrorist campaign on behalf of anyone, then it is obvious that person has lost their marbles.