British Govt considering using 'control orders' in North

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Lemming

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

To quote your good self Merc:

I believe it is in letting go of the 6 counties.

Now the question is, who makes the first step. And who gets it afterwards. To be honest, once the polarising influences are removed (heh .. like that's going to be easy) the moderate voices in the middle can be heard. That's when the future of the 6 counties can be decided. Most people just want to get on with their lives irrespective of which flag is flying from the mast.

I'd almost be happy seeing an independent state (as unfeasible as that is anyway) since it would remove both of the hardcore camps from the equation overnight. But sadly any viable solution wont be that simple.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty

The only long term solution to the north that I can see is keeping the status quo for another twenty or thirty years, leaving a generation die off. Then people can start seriously talking about which way things should go, with a lot of them seperated by time from all the shít that went/goes on up there.

Who knows, a federal EU super state may be on the cards by then which would conveniently solve it all.

Balfa

Sand wrote:

if people are radicalising communities and recruiting terrorists for war against democratic nations and their freedoms then we need tools to defend ourselves with.

The tool of which you speak is called the judicial system.

Sleepy

mrhankey88 wrote:

Dont make a joke about that. My granmother had the black and tans come into her class room and beat her teacher, no lie.
I cannot believe some Irish people on this board, we cannot forget out history - The famine - caused by the british - Plantations etc etc...
They are a disease on the irish nation - me even typing this to you in english shows you how they corrupted us. Just becase we have a new generation of brits accross the water doesnt mean we should forget or forgive - NEVER.

Hey kid, you're 16. You're still going through puberty and all those hormones make you the perfect target for propaganda. Not to worry, you'll grow out of this soon and learn to think for yourself.

Hanging offence, that sleepy.
See you in a week.

Lemming

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Sorry for the delay - sleep beckoned and what-not!!

There is no single silver bullet to this mess Merc, as well you know. I think for a start, an exact time-table for the decommissioning of arms, to coincide with the handover of political powers. A bit like a 'reward' system. Of course how does one prove that organisations X, Y, & Z have handed over everything. You can't, not without a great deal of intelligence work both before, during and after the event as come to pass. In that regard I think very harsh penalties should be put in place in the future likelihood of such duplicity getting revealed. What such penalties would be, I'm not sure - but monetary is not a good idea given how much money some of these organisations have. Perhaps withdrawal of political privelge or some such.

Note: I would also consider duplicity to include paramilitary involvement in otherwise 'traditional' criminal activity. A cease-fire is not an a-la-carte thing.

I would not limit this to SF/IRA, but to all parties involved, although I would consider SF/IRA to be the chief protagonists and focus attention appropriately.

As for people's attitudes, unfortunately they can't be changed overnight. Moriarty's little suggestion has an element of truth in it in that regard.

mrhankey88

Hey kid, you're 16. You're still going through puberty and all those hormones make you the perfect target for propaganda. Not to worry, you'll grow out of this soon and learn to think for yourself.

did i hit a raw nerve there "sleepy"?? Can you not come up with something better then that? If were playing the guessing game then your an 11 year old polish prostitute.

What purpose doe it hold them keeping part of our country? Why cant they just let it go as it were

What purpose??! Simple - More land for the bastards!

Mrhankey88-take a weeks break for that abuse

billy the squid

mrhankey88 wrote:

people dont realise that the brittish are as bad as the IRA. If you were a northern catholic and the brittish treated u and your friends and family like scum then you IRA bashers might be singing a different tune.

And if your brother and one of his mates were in a pub having a quiet pint and six or seven members of the IRA beat the crap out of the two of them, cutting one from neck to naval during the beating, your views on the IRA would also be different.

Its all very easy shouting about the IRA and SF down here in the south with all the prodestant left-wing propenganda media we have here.

bias in the media is a matter for the broadcasting complaints commission. you are free to take it up with them.

The brittish have as much blood on their hands as the IRA do, if you think otherwise you are a fool. They commet state-sponsored terrorism.
I do not 100% support the IRA, but i do see where their coming from, and some of thier actions recently - which the IRA has denied - is not acceptable, but in the grand sceme of things not as bad as the brittish cover-ups and murders

both sides are equally to blame in the troubles. but when one side says its on ceasefire, it should not be out robbing banks.

I believe it should be the Irish Goverment fighting for a united Ireland, not the IRA, they need to protect our people in the north until we achieve the freedom...

the only people who will bring about a united ireland are the residents of the north through a referendum. It is not the job of the Irish government to tell the majority of people living up there which country they want to live in.

I cannot believe some Irish people on this board, we cannot forget out history - The famine - caused by the british - Plantations etc etc...
They are a disease on the irish nation

who said anything about forgetting history. if we were to forget ll the things that happened in the north for the last forty years then we would be leaving outselves open to it all happenning all over again.

As was posted before. The famine was caused by a combination of things, poor farming practices, dependency on one crop,

calling a people of a certain nationality "a disease" is just being racist. and serves only to create hatred at a time when reconsilliation is a better idea.

me even typing this to you in english shows you how they corrupted us.

actualy many irish families forced their children to speak english so that they would be able to go to america during the famine. this was a choice that irish people made themselves, any attempt the brittish made to force english language onto the irish failed.

Just becase we have a new generation of brits accross the water doesnt mean we should forget or forgive - NEVER.

with an attitude like this you are going to find yourself going around and around and around in a vicious little circle of hatred and you will accomplish nothing. things like the removal of section 31, the willingness of the irish and brittish governments to talk to extremists on both sides is a sign that it is time to get off the roundabout and move forward instead of passing hatred down to your children. if you hape that doing this will bring about a united ireland then your logic is seriously flawed.

the proof of this is the fact that the troubles in the north lasted so long.

oscarBravo

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Funny you should say that. I voted for an amendment to the constitution that was intended to have precisely that effect. The overwhelming majority in this republic did likewise.

Doesn't seem to have helped; there remain those who are determined to foist their vision of a united island on us, no matter what the cost in human misery.

CuLT

Patrick Kavanagh wrote:

Epic
I have lived in important places, times
When great events were decided, who owned
That half a rood of rock, a no-man's land
Surrounded by our pitchfork-armed claims.
I heard the Duffys shouting "Damn your soul!"
And old McCabe stripped to the waist, seen
Step the plot defying blue cast-steel -
"Here is the march along these iron stones."
That was the year of the Munich bother. Which
Was more important? I inclined
To lose my faith in Ballyrush and Gortin
Till Homer's ghost came whispering to my mind.
He said: I made the Iliad from such
A local row. Gods make their own importance.

This is what we fight over, and it all seems so depressingly pathetic when put into perspective...

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

As long as this was genuinely adhered to I don't see the problem tbh. Might make the North a safer place if the "fringe elements" are taken out.

lol

yeah it worked so well in the 70s there was hardly any trouble up there

Sand

I think you will find that the britsih army killed a lot more than that during the troubles period.

I can off hand think of at least another 250.

Ah, another battle in the age old David and Goliath struggle between properly sourced arguments, backed up by demonstratable statistics paired off against the knowledge of a single poster and unsourced, unsupported dismissals of respectable sources.

Hell, for the sake of argument Ill allow you that extra 250 only you know about. The IRA is still *WAY* out in front. By roughly what, 1200? Gwan, throw in 800 years of rape, theft and murder while youre at it.

As for blood on their hand.. do bloody noses count? And what about people put through the prison systems.



Your blinkered views are just that Sand

.

Oh thats just ****ing hilarious - I didnt even bother looking for statistics on IRA punishment beatings and the people put through the IRA justice system. I didnt think Id actually need to bother given the IRA death threats against 13 year olds, the unusually high incidence of suicide by young males in IRA "policed" areas, abduction/torture/murder of mothers and murdering of men outside pubs which have all been in the news recently. You know what? I still dont need to bother. Blinkered views? Your post sounds likes an excerpt from a Wolfe Tones ballad.

Funny you should say that. I voted for an amendment to the constitution that was intended to have precisely that effect. The overwhelming majority in this republic did likewise.

Doesn't seem to have helped; there remain those who are determined to foist their vision of a united island on us, no matter what the cost in human misery.

Agreed. The provos have become a sort of religious cult, where "the cause" has become far, far more important than *any* other consideration.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

As you can see below the British Army killed 297 people throughout the troubles, including 9 British security forces. The IRA killed 1706. Even if you added together *all* the British killings and *all* the Loyalist killings - because I know you guys reckon theyre one and the same - the total would still only be 1,383 killings - the IRA is still a comftable 323 killings out in front, single handed. Even if you want to go down to innocents, the British killed 152 non aligned. The IRA killed 516 non aligned.

Now theres logic for you....................

British army + loyalists (1383) = good guys
IRA (1706) = bad guys

Hobbes

Another thing to point out is that the IRA wouldn't of gotten the support it did in the 70's if it wasn't for the illegal actions of British Soliders.

Nice to have a scoreboard though. Means no Irish people can whine if the British kill a few more, after all we owe them that? Its not like civil liberties and being treated as a second class citizen in your own country didn't have any say in the matter?

Lemming

AmenToThat wrote:

Now theres logic for you....................

British army + loyalists (1383) = good guys
IRA (1706) = bad guys

Care to point out the post where anyone used the term "good/bad guys"??

Lemming

Hobbes wrote:

Another thing to point out is that the IRA wouldn't of gotten the support it did in the 70's if it wasn't for the illegal actions of British Soliders.

Tragically, quite correct.

Its not like civil liberties and being treated as a second class citizen in your own country didn't have any say in the matter?

At what point could any of that condone the sickening acts that have been carried out over the course of the troubles? I might also point out that it was not the British army that instigated that state of affairs but the ruling Loyalist elite which is why London took control of Stormont away from them. But by then the seeds had already been planted and the damage done. The army presence eventually went from keeping the peace to deteriorated into aggrivating the situation when the IRA became more and more active, culminating with Bloody Sunday.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Nice to have a scoreboard though. Means no Irish people can whine if the British kill a few more, after all we owe them that?

Ah, well, now.

Lets not be hasty there now.

You'd really have to population-link the figures...turn them into proper populous-proportional figures in order to see whats fair.

This "straight count" comparison gives those with the superior numbers an unfair advantage in the first place. No, no. Its percentages that matter.

So we'd need some heavy maths (and lets not even start on who's eligible to be counted in this or not) before we could say that we owe them. Could well be the other way round.



jc

AmenToThat

Lemming wrote:

Care to point out the post where anyone used the term "good/bad guys"??

Sand coninuously tells us about how bad the IRA and SF are while always reminding us about how good the British army/establishment are, he was using those figures in a childish attempt to prove this fact I was simply showing him how ridiculous his argument was through the use of sarcasm.

Lemming

AmenToThat wrote:

Sand coninuously tells us about how bad the IRA and SF are while always reminding us about how good the British army/establishment are, he was using those figures in a childish attempt to prove this fact I was simply showing him how ridiculous his argument was through the use of sarcasm.

You might want to work on your sarcasm skills. They're really quite bad.

As for Sand, I don't think he was trying to say or suggest any such notion of "good" or "bad" but was pointing out that SF/IRA are not, nor ever were, some sort of celestial choir of pristine virgins that republicans seem to hold them up to be. The fact that they have by FAR the highest count of bodies to be blamed for for any single group is somewhat damning in that regard. It also points out the absurdness when republicans start whining about why they're being picked on above anyone else.

Simple - they've done far more than any other group in terms of attrocities (and by inference the most active of all groups involved).

The only childish attempt I can see is yours, trying to deflect the figures into a "good/bad guy" trivialisation routine.

AmenToThat

Lemming wrote:

You might want to work on your sarcasm skills. They're
really quite bad.

Irrelevent to the overall argument as this is not a comedy forum but thanks for the imput.

Lemming wrote:

As for Sand, I don't think he was trying to say or suggest any such notion of "good" or "bad" but was pointing out that SF/IRA are not, nor ever were, some sort of celestial choir of pristine virgins that republicans seem to hold them up to be.

My point is that he has continually tried to paint the British army/establishment as a 'celestial choir of pristine virgins' thus turning it into a 'good guys v bad guys' scenario, when quiet clearly the actions of Britain have been anything but honourable or just.

Lemming wrote:

The fact that they have by FAR the highest count of bodies to be blamed for for any single group is somewhat damning in that regard. It also points out the absurdness when republicans start whining about why they're being picked on above anyone else.

Every death is/was regrettable as most Republicans have continually said and appologised for but again you try to score cheap points from the deaths of so many people which is very sad, shame on you.

Lemming wrote:

Simple - they've done far more than any other group in terms of attrocities (and by inference the most active of all groups involved).
The only childish attempt I can see is yours, trying to deflect the figures into a "good/bad guy" trivialisation routine.

You just dont get it do you, its you thats turning this into a 'good guys v bad guys' scenatio as the above just goes to show.
BTW the fact that you feel compelled to answer my points even though you consider them to be childish in nature says as much about your mentality as my own, more infact.

Lemming

AmenToThat wrote:

Irrelevent to the overall argument as this is not a comedy forum but thanks for the imput.

You're welcome.

My point is that he has continually tried to paint the British army/establishment as a 'celestial choir of pristine virgins' thus turning it into a 'good guys v bad guys' scenario, when quiet clearly the actions of Britain have been anything but honourable or just.

Once again I am going to ask you to point out where he has said this. I want quotations. Not your own innuendo.

Every death is/was regrettable as most Republicans have continually said and appologised for but again you try to score cheap points from the deaths of so many people which is very sad, shame on you.

I'm sorry? Come again? "most Republicans"? "Continually apologised for"? I'm sorry, what planet are you on? Planet Republica where everything is rosy? I have only ever seen SF/IRA apologise when they've been forced to, so it's not exactly a show of contrition. Further, the impression I get from republicans by and large is some sort of "all for the cause" mantra in regards to all these deaths which isnt' exactly pinning sackcloth and ashes to the mast now is it?

Further, I am not trying to score cheap points over deaths. Indeed, I would suggest that you take a look at the entire Republican cause in that respect.

"lets blow someone up and try to make political capital out of it"

*COUGH*

You just dont get it do you, its you thats turning this into a 'good guys v bad guys' scenatio as the above just goes to show.
BTW the fact that you feel compelled to answer my points even though you consider them to be childish in nature says as much about your mentality as my own, more infact.

jesus H f*cknig christ. Talk about redirection. You people are masters at it. The "Bloody Sunday" defense comes again ..... :rolleyes:

I would like you to point out exactly where I defended ANY party to the deaths attributed to teh troubles. Again, I want direct quotes, not some pathetic pedantaic, grasping-at-straws republican innuendo.

The fact that I commented on your post says nothing other than I was correcting an obvious misinterpretation of Sand's commentary. Leave your redirection innuendo attempts out of it because they wont work.

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

Ah, well, now.

Lets not be hasty there now.

You'd really have to population-link the figures...turn them into proper populous-proportional figures in order to see whats fair.

This "straight count" comparison gives those with the superior numbers an unfair advantage in the first place. No, no. Its percentages that matter.

So we'd need some heavy maths (and lets not even start on who's eligible to be counted in this or not) before we could say that we owe them. Could well be the other way round.



jc

perhaps the IRA were being hasty with the decommissioning

Sand

Re: Good guys/bads guys

I was responding to this, posted by our good Republican friend MrHankey88

The brittish have as much blood on their hands as the IRA do, if you think otherwise you are a fool.

I have shown that this is untrue. The IRA have far more blood on their hands, they have killed more Catholics, more non-aligned "civillians" and orphaned more children and widowed more people than the British during the Troubles. End of. Republicans can whinge, bitch, moan, whine, sob all they like but thats the simple facts. Even if you throw in all the Loyalist groups and count them as a sub group of the British Army theyre still behind the IRA in the bloodbath stakes.

I never said the British were good guys. But to claim they have as much blood on their hands is one of two things....a lie, or a lack of intelligent analysis.

Speaking of which

But I think if you check out the British Army and the various conflicts it has happily embraced over the last number of years since the troubles period it has amassed a much higher kill rate than the provos. I dont suppose I have to link you now do I?

This is a new variation of the so-called "bloody sunday" defence, mixed in with the age old favourite "800 years of rape, theft and murder!!!" defence. IRA murders are now justified by British actions that werent even in Northern Ireland or predated the Troubles!!!

This is hardly directly comparable because the IRA rarely operated outside the UK, with the exception of the Republic. But given the IRA track record in the Troubles, its logical that if they operated in the same theatres and conflicts as the British they would have killed roughly 6 times as many people and roughly 3 times as many civillians.

Sand coninuously tells us about how bad the IRA and SF are while always reminding us about how good the British army/establishment are,

No, I dont tell you how bad SF/IRA are. I tell you what a bunch of filth dwelling monstrous murdering scumbags they are. Theres a difference. Afterall, I was actually stunned by the evil of kidnapping a mans family to force him to drive a remote controlled bomb to an army checkpoint and detonating it as soon as they saw he had reached the checkpoint. Thats not an act of war, thats not "bad", thats disgusting on the most basic human level. Thats the ****ing IRA.

Every death is/was regrettable as most Republicans have continually said and appologised for but again you try to score cheap points from the deaths of so many people which is very sad, shame on you.

Bollocks tbh. The Balcombe Street gang were given a reception normally reserved for rock stars by SF/IRA members werent they? They celebrated and venerated the gang for the atrocities they carried out.

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

This is hardly directly comparable because the IRA rarely operated outside the UK, with the exception of the Republic. But given the IRA track record in the Troubles, its logical that if they operated in the same theatres and conflicts as the British they would have killed roughly 6 times as many people and roughly 3 times as many civillians.

Your right in saying that IRA didnt operate (generally) outside Ireland and Britain where as the British maimed and murdered hundreds of thousands across the globe over hundreds of years.
The reasons the IRA didnt engage across the globe (generally) was because they had no reason to.
To try and make a logical case against the IRA using the above case scenario is in my opinion of of the most illogical and indeed bizarre attempts at rationalization Iv yet come across on these forums.

Lemming

AmenToThat wrote:

Your right in saying that IRA didnt operate (generally) outside Ireland and Britain where as the British maimed and murdered hundreds of thousands across the globe over hundreds of years.

BLOODY SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY!!!
:rolleyes:

As has alreay been pointed out ... it's not exactly a very good analogy to use AmenToThat. At least try comparing apples to oranges instead of tractors.

The reasons the IRA didnt engage across the globe (generally) was because they had no reason to.

Indeed, by that rationale, the British military forces have been wholey vindicated in operating around the globe since "they had reason to" having an Empire back then and all.

To try and make a logical case against the IRA using the above case scenario is in my opinion of of the most illogical and indeed bizarre attempts at rationalization Iv yet come across on these forums.

Heh. Says he who has just tried to carry one of the most utterly and unfathomably bizarre scenario I've ever seen on the politics forum.

Once again, might I repeat myself AmenToThat:

Leave your redirection innuendo attempts out of it because they wont work.

Sand

To try and make a logical case against the IRA using the above case scenario is in my opinion of of the most illogical and indeed bizarre attempts at rationalization Iv yet come across on these forums.

I can and have made a very logical case against the IRA purely by their record of atrocities and murder in the Troubles. Youve been trying to justify the IRA by reaching, grasping, desperately at that straw of British actions that werent in the Troubles or in Northern Ireland. And now *youre* lecturing *me* on bizzare attempts at rationalisation?!?!?!? Pfffft - does this work often on the IRBB? You're not on it now so you'll have to do a lot better.