SF/IRAs record against drug dealers

uberwolf

quite what this has to do with IRA/SF record on drug dealers and I couldn't be arsed going back through the thread to see where it went wrong. So next off topic post closes the thread and the user may be in trouble too.

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

They have not been used in Britain though. It is good enough to hit a few Irish children in the face with them but don't use them in Britain as they are far too dangerous.

Apologies for the off-topicness uberwolf, but just want to comment on this and then hopefully drag it back into context of the SF/IRA record on drug dealers.

What you've just said Dub is extrordinarily racist. The fact of the matter is that there have been few riots in the UK, and even then few with enough overall threat to warrant the discharge of firearms. The closest that came to that would be the MayDay riots in central London, but the police presence was so heavy and had such control of the entire area that they could effectively just seal the troublemakers into one street and contain them before dealing with them.

Now that the British security forces issue of the use of plastic bullets has been addressed, I find it curious that SF/IRA can go on about the questionable use of plastic bullets (however good a point it might be) whilst condoning "community policing" by local heavies who are judge jury and executioner. At least the security forces arrest drug dealers and send them to the courts to be judged. SF/IRA do no such thing and take it upon themselves. As I've asked elsewhere, if the police are not allowed to dispense "justice", what makes you think anyone else is allowed to?

Incidentally, this also links to the question of SF/IRA members engaging in the taking over of ousted dealers patches to make money on the side (or officially? But that's speculative)

BuffyBot

They have not been used in Britain though. It is good enough to hit a few Irish children in the face with them but don't use them in Britain as they are far too dangerous.

Of course the fact that the police in the mainland UK haven't quite had to deal with the same situations as the NI forces of the past and present on an ongoing basis, have they?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I like plastic bullets, or approve of their use in NI, but trying to compare the situation there to the situation in the UK over the last X amount of years isn't a fair comparison.

Stabshauptmann

Lemming wrote:

The irony in that statement is pretty amusing. Figure it out.

Ok, you, an "anti-shinner" for lack of a better term bring up the RUC and its fairly decent record in your opinion.
A republican then argues it didnt have such a good record.
mycroft another anti-shinner attacks the republican for bringing up the RUC as it is in the past.

I then point out that it was unfair of mycroft to chastise the republican for responding to the RUC comment, while ignoring you who made the comment in the first place and placing all the blame on the republican.
THAT is ironic.

Now, you feel that because this happened more than a day before I posted, its ironic because I am as you see it bringing up the past. I disagree. *There was an outstanding point that I felt should be corrected. An error which I felt was still correctable
*Because of the slow pace of this thread reletively, the posts were all on the same page.
*I dont post as regularly as you it seems and thus the passage of time was felt more by you than me.
Time is relative.

Soo, if you're finished with your superiority complex, you might be able to treat me with respect. Implying I have a subsandard level of intelligence is a form of personal abuse.

And I think you've just missed the boat completely on the concept of justice and accountability. The reason why the only legally entitled entity for the dispensing of justice are the courts is based on the use of cold hard fact in an impartial environment. Accountability & Transparency. A couple of local 'RA boys tanked up on booze does not = either accountability nor transparency and their "punishment" isn't exactly reversible either nor subject to appeal.[/b]

Ok, I thought reasons to object to community policing (central to the topic of IRA's record on drug dealing IMO earthman) were that the IRA had no right to administer Juctice or that what it administers isnt juctice. You say emphatically that I totally dont understand what I'm talking about.
It is in FACT, IYO, that there is no impartiality, accountability or transperancy. That sounds a lot like an injuste process.

So, you just ignored what I posted and told me I was wrong, wrong, wrong - didnt know what I was talking about etc; then you go and say the same thing.
What is your problem with me? I made two points. Both fairly made. You attacked ME on both of them not what I posted, even though you seem to adree that what I said was correct.

The police themselves are not entitled to dispense justice (self-defense not withstanding), so why the hell do you think that anyone else is permitted?

What meaning are you attaching to the word juctice that it can only be used in self defence? You mean violence. You have a warped view of juctice.

Also what the fúck do you mean by "you think that anyone else is permitted?[to beat the crap out of someone]."

I didnt say that, you know I didnt and thats why you quoted my entire post except the part where I described punishment beatings as barbaric. You deliberatly lied.
I said juctice is a universal thing, of course you say that juctice=violence .
There are many arguements to be made as to whether or not juctice is a universal notion but instead you once again attacked me, this time through lies.
I believe in going through the established authorities, in this case the mods.
You personally attacked me.
Insulted me.
And deliberatly misrepresented my post.

Stabshauptmann

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

You detest IRA "community policing" right mycroft?
Is it A) That punishment doesnt equal the crime, torturing 14 year olds isnt really fair if all they've done is joy ride
or That you dont feel they have any right to administer juctice.

I believe the two reasons ppl who oppose punishment beatings oppose punishment beatings is that
a)The IRA dont administer justice, just violence and thuggary
b)The IRA dont have a right to administer justice

Ive since added c) btw, the process is injust to an insane degree

If its the latter then I think juctice is a universal thing, nobody owns it or has a monopoly on it and if the police dont administer it someone else should.

Setting aside that the IRA believe justice is a baseball bat and a gun, if it was something like citizen arrests, boycotts or something proportional to the wrongs commited by a person and setting aside c, ie let us suppose the person is guilty then anyone is entitled to make sure justice is fulfilled

If it is "A" then you and I are in the same boat. A barbaric over reaction, a cannon and moth scenaroi if you will. How so could you codone the use of plastic bullets. They cause horrible pain and injury and can KILL. Other police forces can disperse riots without plastic bullets why not the PSNI?

So building on what I said above, since an ordinary citizen can administer justice, reasonable opposition to "community policing" is a feeling that the punishments are disproportionate and thus unjust. And since mycroft and others oppose this, how can they support plastic bullets, which are a disproportionate and unnessesary response.

Lemming

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

<snip remove rest of rant>

What is your problem with me? I made two points. Both fairly made. You attacked ME on both of them not what I posted, even though you seem to adree that what I said was correct.

I attacked your posts not you. At no point did I start name-calling or throwing out innuendo based on nothing more than "J'accuse"

What meaning are you attaching to the word juctice that it can only be used in self defence? You mean violence. You have a warped view of juctice.

Self-defense not in the justice sense of the word. That would be hypocritical. As regards having to use violence to restrain or prevent further injury to the restrained part, restraining party, or bystanders.

I am not, nor could it be contrued that I did, attach "only self-defense" to the term justice. Self-Defense is not about justice. It is far removed from it.

Also what the fúck do you mean by "you think that anyone else is permitted?[to beat the crap out of someone]."

Ahhhh ... the wonders of quoting out of context. Please insert the rest of the sentence that came before "you think .... etc"

I didnt say that, you know I didnt and thats why you quoted my entire post except the part where I described punishment beatings as barbaric. You deliberatly lied.

No I did not. I did not lie. Tell me exactly where I lied. Please, give quotations to support your accusations or, as they say, "put up or shut up".

I said juctice is a universal thing, of course you say that juctice=violence .

I did not. You seem to be confusing the notion of self-defense being a possibly necessary evil in apprehending a suspect in order to bring them to justice.

There are many arguements to be made as to whether or not juctice is a universal notion but instead you once again attacked me, this time through lies.

Again, please provide quotations to support your accusations or withdraw them.

I believe in going through the established authorities, in this case the mods.
You personally attacked me.
Insulted me.

Who exactly is insulting whom here? You've thrown a series of unsupported accusations against me and you're the one who's insulted? Heh.

Stabshauptmann

The police themselves are not entitled to dispense justice (self-defense not withstanding), so why the hell do you think that anyone else is permitted?

It was my response to that comment that almost all of your last post has delt so Ill make it as clear as I can.

You said the police are only entitled to dispense justice in self defense. What meaning are you attaching to the word justice; it can only be deduced that you mean acts of violence, acts of violence can rarely be considered justice.

How did you come to the conclusion that I support vigilantism and brutal assaults when I said quite clearly I view them as barbaric and wrong, why was that the only part of my post you neglected to quote?

Please insert the rest of the sentence that came before "you think .... etc"

You asked a question, "why do I think X?"
That implies I think "X"
I wanted to expose that as the lie that it was, the result of a deliberate misquote by you.

I did not. You seem to be confusing the notion of self-defense being a possibly necessary evil in apprehending a suspect in order to bring them to justice.

You didnt say that either, you said a police man cannot administer justice apart from in self defence. You equated justice to acts of violence.

No I did not. I did not lie. Tell me exactly where I lied. Please, give quotations to support your accusations or, as they say, "put up or shut up".

I said punishment beatings are wrong and barbaric. You then quoted my entire post except that bit. You deliberatly left it out.
You then said I supported punishment beatings. That is a untrue. That is untrue, you knew it to be untrue because I had just denounced them. You lied, deliberatly.

Who exactly is insulting whom here? You've thrown a series of unsupported accusations against me and you're the one who's insulted? Heh

All accusation were accompanied by reasoning. I posted all this before forwarding my complaints to the mods because I believe in transparancy.

You have decided to continue with your personal attack by implying I am a liar, continuing your condescending attitude and threatening me. I will not be silenced.

Kaptain Redeye

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Soo, if you're finished with your superiority complex, you might be able to treat me with respect. Implying I have a subsandard level of intelligence is a form of personal abuse.

You know,I've read the contributions of all parties on this thread and on this page of the thread in particular a few times and I've a couple of observations to make.

Firstly dealing with the above quote,it's not in order to give out about what you see as an objectionable style in one posters postings and do exactly the same yourself.

You asked a question, "why do I think X?"
That implies I think "X"
I wanted to expose that as the lie that it was, the result of a deliberate misquote by you.

Well you would have to show exactly what you were accused of saying that you denied you are saying and you haven't done that.
All you have done is clarify what you mean in a later post than the one in which you stated an offence of lying occurred.
All that I can see happening here is something that happens commonly in non verbal communication and that is posts are being read into as saying something which they were never intended to say.

I dont see any lies here just misinterpretation after misinterpretation, which is desending into argey bargey rather than an enjoyable readable discussion.

Thread closed.