Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Karl Stein

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's philosophical Karl...you wouldn't understand!

oscarBravo is trying his best to present himself as some sort of supernatural moral arbiter when it's quite obvious he's not.

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

You wouldn't get Irish nationalists carrying on ...... oh wait! :D:D

The major difference being that Irish Nationalists weren't protesting for a UI when they were beaten and murdered for it (not that there would have been anything wrong with seeking a UI). Irish Nationalists sought equality within the north - they quickly learned that it was not going to be 'granted' *spit* without a fight. As most of recent history shows, Nationalists and Republicans didn't go looking for a fight - the fight came looking for them.

Learn.
Your.
History.

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

The major difference being that Irish Nationalists weren't protesting for a UI when they were beaten and murdered for it (not that there would have been anything wrong with seeking a UI). Irish Nationalists sought equality within the north - they quickly learned that it was not going to be 'granted' *spit* without a fight. As most of recent history shows, Nationalists and Republicans didn't go looking for a fight - the fight came looking for them.

Learn.
Your.
History.

Nonsense. Irish nationalists have a long tradition of using force to achieve their political ends. The problems in NI added an extra impetus but they were always as ready to use force as the unionists were at the foundation of the state.

The idea that Irish nationalists would have by now accepted partition were it not for the bad behaviour on the British side is what I said at the top, nonsense.

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not. I'm reiterating positions that I've read over and over and over and over again from republicans on these forums.

Because all Republicans or people who identify with them have a hive mind. I've called you out on this before. There is no uniform hive mind Republicanism that you can lazily stigmatise despite your attempts.

if you're offended at the characterisation,

Can you stop putting words in my mouth? I don't get offended easily and especially so for some random person on the internet.

please feel free to explain whether you feel that the threat of violence from unionists at the start of the 20th century was justified, or that the fact of violence from nationalists was not.

The violence of Unionists was an attempt to preserve power and privilege and the other was an attempt to challenge it. Again, welcome to planet Earth, enjoy your stay.

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER:
Some of the posts on this thread have gotten too personal. Now I enjoy a spirited discussion, but from now on please focus on the thread topic and not each other. Per NI charter:

Black Swan wrote: »

Certain standards of discussion and debate are expected, and will be enforced...

No personal abuse, or getting too personal, (i.e., challenge the post, not the poster).

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Irish nationalists have a long tradition of using force to achieve their political ends.

Reactionary force. If the British and Union/loyalists had not used terrorism to suppress the democratic aspirations of Reps/Nats then there'd have been no need.

The idea that Irish nationalists would have by now accepted partition were it not for the bad behaviour on the British side is what I said at the top, nonsense.

A failed attempt at Moral equivocation. What you're saying is 'Nationalists were always going to be equally as violent as Union/loyalists'. The civil rights movement was interested in gaining equality not seeking a UI by force, ask John Hume and Ivan Cooper.

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

Reactionary force. If the British and Union/loyalists had not used terrorism to suppress the democratic aspirations of Reps/Nats then there'd have been no need.

Ah, so when Pearse and the lads (who of course were not terrorists) used violence to put an end to their presence in a state to which they felt no allegiance, this was perfectbly justifiable but when Carson and his gang threatened violence to prevent being part of a state to which they would feel no allegiance, then this was terrorism?

Karl Stein wrote: »

A failed attempt at Moral equivocation. What you're saying is 'Nationalists were always going to be equally as violent as Union/loyalists'. The civil rights movement was interested in gaining equality not seeking a UI by force, ask John Hume and Ivan Cooper.

I am saying that republicans were as willing as loyalists to use violence to attain/secure their political aspirations.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, I have always been clear on which side I hold responsible. Stating that I have a bias is a statement of the obvious imo. I am not neutral, are you?

I'm completely neutral. I'm opposed to the sick ideology/sectarianism that attempts to dissemble about the murder of someone for their political perspective. I really could care less for the union or for a 32 county republic. It's six of one, and half a dozen of the other, and certainly not worth killing/dying for - let alone becoming an apologist for murderers.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

oscarBravo is trying his best to present himself as some sort of supernatural moral arbiter when it's quite obvious he's not.

No - he's simply pointing out the glaring contradiction at the heart of your biased opinion. But you knew that already.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'm completely neutral. I'm opposed to the sick ideology/sectarianism that attempts to dissemble about the murder of someone for their political perspective. I really could care less for the union or for a 32 county republic. It's six of one, and half a dozen of the other, and certainly not worth killing/dying for - let alone becoming an apologist for murderers.

Which is not a neutral position, and it's eternally funny that your 'neutrality' always has you on the opposite side to SF, who have not advocated or used violence (often in the face of violence) since the signing of the GFA.

I think the best bet is to re-examine your view and a dictionary.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is not a neutral position

I think you'll find it is.

ChicagoJoe

Godge wrote: »

Where are you getting that rubbish from that I ignore this, that and the other?

From reading your posts on the thread.

There has never been a referendum on Irish unity in living memory so there are no previous voting patterns to analyse. The opinion polls show differing outcomes with support for a united Ireland tomorrow ranging from about 3-4% up to about 20%, depending on the nature of the poll.

Little TV or newspaper polls from the BBC or pro unionist papers are certainly no indicator of how people may vote in an official border poll compared to election results for the last 90 years. If unionists or the British had the slightest belief in their little polls, they would want a border poll tomorrow.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

You are making the familiar mistake of assuming that all nationalists would actual opt for a united Ireland given the choice. If and when it comes to a vote, I expect the majority will ask themselves if they would be better off in a united Ireland or remaining within the UK.

Those hoping to forge a new 32 county state would of course hope that Northern nationalists didn’t to any thinking and simply followed them blindly (and brainlessly!).

This might happen, but I doubt it.

Elections in the six counties are nationalist v unionist contests, trying to pretend otherwise is only convoluted time wasting. Like above, if unionists or the British had the slightest belief in their little polls, they would want a border poll tomorrow (even though unionists would win but probably by only 4/5%). The fact that both of them resisted Sinn Fein's calls for a border poll says it all

ChicagoJoe

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is not a neutral position, and it's eternally funny that your 'neutrality' always has you on the opposite side to SF, who have not advocated or used violence (often in the face of violence) since the signing of the GFA.

I think the best bet is to re-examine your view and a dictionary.

Excellent !!!!!

twowheelsgood

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Elections in the six counties are nationalist v unionist contests, trying to pretend otherwise is only convoluted time wasting.

Yes, voting is almost totally tribal, I have never suggested otherwise. But it simply does not follow that nationalists will necessarily all vote for a united Ireland if there was an option in the immediate future. It would be like arguing that Ireland is still strongly a catholic country on the basis that most people still nominally identify themselves as such on the census.

Any of them who have even the tiniest grasp of economic realities will clearly see that a vote for a united Ireland for people in NI is a vote for a substantially diminished standard of living. And thus it will remain for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately for you, Irish nationalists are not idiots.

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Like above, if unionists or the British had the slightest belief in their little polls, they would want a border poll tomorrow (even though unionists would win but probably by only 4/5%). The fact that both of them resisted Sinn Fein's calls for a border poll says it all

A border poll will undoubtedly be defeated and thus will achieve nothing more than to antagonise unionists. Not calling one is a no-brainer.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Yes, voting is almost totally tribal, I have never suggested otherwise. But it simply does not follow that nationalists will necessarily all vote for a united Ireland if there was an option in the immediate future. It would be like arguing that Ireland is still strongly a catholic country on the basis that most people still nominally identify themselves as such on the census.

Any of them who have even the tiniest grasp of economic realities will clearly see that a vote for a united Ireland for people in NI is a vote for a substantially diminished standard of living. And thus it will remain for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately for you, Irish nationalists are not idiots.
A border poll will undoubtedly be defeated and thus will achieve nothing more than to antagonise unionists. Not calling one is a no-brainer.

What are you basing your figures on? You seem very certain on them, and I don't recall seeing any breakdowns on how it might work financially.
Are you just working on a hunch?

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

What are you basing your figures on? You seem very certain on them, and I don't recall seeing any breakdowns on how it might work financially.
Are you just working on a hunch?

Seriously? Are you unaware that the South still had a massive budget deficit, not to mention crippling debt obligations?

Are you unaware that the British Exchequer makes a net contribution to NI to the tunes of billions?

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Seriously? Are you unaware that the South still had a massive budget deficit, not to mention crippling debt obligations?

Are you unaware that the British Exchequer makes a net contribution to NI to the tunes of billions?

That's not what I asked you for. What are you basing your assessment of how it will work out financially on? Who has done the breakdown?

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's not what I asked you for. What are you basing your assessment of how it will work out financially on? Who has done the breakdown?

Er, I am basing it on our massive debt & deficit and the equally big hole in the finances of NI???

Do you think these problems will all disappear in a UI?

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Er, I am basing it on our massive debt & deficit and the equally big hole in the finances of NI???

Do you think these problems will all disappear in a UI?

So you are just guessing. You were so positive I thought you where working from ACTUAL figures.
I am well aware of our debt.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you are just guessing. You were so positive I thought you where working from ACTUAL figures.
I am well aware of our debt.

So you know about our debt? Good. So now you are positive too!

(Do you also know about the deficits both states on the island run?)

Godge

alastair wrote: »

The war crime (had it been applicable, which it wasn't) would still have been one of murder of course.

It is a war crime to torture and kill civilian informers who may have been acting under duress.

Happyman42 wrote: »

testimony will be made about motive, if he testifies that he was acting on orders because she was an informer and if I believe the testimony (and I don't trust Hughes btw) then you know my opinion on the death of an informer.
It is my opinion, already clearly stated. Think of it how you want.


.

We have been there moved on, we have pointed out that your definition leads to the IRA being guilty of a war crime.

Godge wrote: »

All right then, if it was a war and she was a civilian informer (unless you are saying she held a rank in the British army?) then the IRA are guilty of war crimes (equivalent to murder) under the Geneva Convention.

If it was not a war, then the IRA are guilty of torture and murder, simple enough.

Either way, the killing of Jean McConville cannot be justified and must be condemned by anyone with any credibility.

As I have already pointed out, unless you are prepared to excuse Bloody Sunday, all UVF and RUC killings, you must actually condemn this.

And stop pretending that you don't justify murder.

So answer the question please, was it a war crime or murder?

Don't try and avoid it again.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

So you know about our debt? Good. So now you are positive too!

(Do you also know about the deficits both states on the island run?)

Yes I do know, I also know what it costs Britain and what the cyclical violence costs them which will be a huge factor in their thinking. And I have always been aware of the economic possibilities for a united island because it makes common sense. I like many expect a period of ajustment of course, how long that will be is what I will leave to experts an I won't pontificate on the basis of a hunch.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

.




We have been there moved on, we have pointed out that your definition leads to the IRA being guilty of a war crime.



So answer the question please, was it a war crime or murder?

Don't try and avoid it again.

I don't know until the case is tried.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't know until the case is tried.

Here's a helpful reminder - it's murder either way, and all that's at issue is who's found guilty of murdering her. The organisation known to have murdered her, trial or no trial is the IRA.

alastair

Godge wrote: »

It is a war crime to torture and kill civilian informers who may have been acting under duress.

Or even if she wasn't acting under duress. But it's still classified as a war crime of murder.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes I do know, I also know what it costs Britain and what the cyclical violence costs them which will be a huge factor in their thinking. And I have always been aware of the economic possibilities for a united island because it makes common sense. I like many expect a period of ajustment of course, how long that will be is what I will leave to experts an I won't pontificate on the basis of a hunch.

No hunch is required - simply an acknowledgment of income and outgoings. Quite why you believe that 'cyclical violence' would cease, or suddenly become more affordable, under a 32 county republic, escapes me, but I'm sure you're not just pulling this stuff out of your arse, right? I'm delighted to hear that the economic possibilities for a united Ireland just make common sense though - very insightful stuff there, if not completely devoid of any argument or rationale.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

No hunch is required - simply an acknowledgment of income and outgoings. Quite why you believe that 'cyclical violence' would cease, or suddenly become more affordable, under a 32 county republic, escapes me, but I'm sure you're not just pulling this stuff out of your arse, right? I'm delighted to hear that the economic possibilities for a united Ireland just make common sense though - very insightful stuff there, if not completely devoid of any argument or rationale.

I don't believe that a campaign opposing a UI could survive or be sustained for very long , with the British and Irish governments uniting to stamp it out. They would need a supply line and between them the governments could strangle any supply, so opposition would be in the form of the usual throwing of toys from the pram.
I think when the time comes pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist anyway, as they will see the true nature of the relationship with Britain.

On the question of the economics, throw up the figures that you are basing your reasoning on and we'll have a look.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't believe that a campaign opposing a UI could survive or be sustained for very long , with the British and Irish governments uniting to stamp it out. They would need a supply line and between them the governments could strangle any supply, so opposition would be in the form of the usual throwing of toys from the pram.
I think when the time comes pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist anyway, as they will see the true nature of the relationship with Britain.

On the question of the economics, throw up the figures that you are basing your reasoning on and we'll have a look.

There is still a lot of unionist support on the mainland, especially in Scotland, but this is all guess work, let's just stick to the tangible stuff. How would you propose a UI deals with the massive state employment in the north? Areas like East and west belfast would cost Dublin more than most county's? NHS? Can the guards afford to buy and run the armoured vehicles? Helicopters? Will investment from multinationals drop with the almost certain trouble?

You believe there will be peace? Will the guards patrol the Shankill in a Ford focus? What if a guard gets killed and they clamp down on loyalists killing a few protesters and it all spirals out of control? How will the guards get on in strong nationalist areas like the lower falls where convoys of armoured cars are needed nightly for the joyriders etc? Realistically what would the police budget rise to? Double? Triple? Will the army need to be on the ground? Bring back the watch towers?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't believe that a campaign opposing a UI could survive or be sustained for very long , with the British and Irish governments uniting to stamp it out.

You believe that but you have no evidence to back it up. For the rest of us, if we believe that there is a risk (only a risk not a guarantee) of a return to violence in the event of a united Ireland, why would we vote for a united Ireland when the current status quo provides peace?

Happyman42 wrote: »

They would need a supply line and between them the governments could strangle any supply, so opposition would be in the form of the usual throwing of toys from the pram. .

Just like they stop the supply of arms and munitions to criminal gangs in say Limerick or Dublin. It has always been the case that where there is a buyer of arms, there is a supplier. Why would it be different in the case of a united Ireland?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think when the time comes pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist anyway, as they will see the true nature of the relationship with Britain..

Let us assume you are right and that pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist. A pragmatic approach to the question of a united Ireland would lead to a few questions:

- Will there be less violence in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is that the risk is that there will be greater violence

- Will I be better off financially and economically in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is no, as the removal of the British subsidy in the medium term will lead to increased taxes in a united Ireland

- Will I have better social rights in the event of a United Ireland? Access to abortion, contraception and divorce are easier in the current Northern Ireland so the answer is no.


Taken as a whole then, the pragmatic approach in the event of a United Ireland is to say no. Where many nationalists getting excited about the demographics fall down is when they fail to realise that a majority of nationalist will also take the same pragmatic approach and realise that a united Ireland in the short term is a bad idea.

Happyman42 wrote: »

On the question of the economics, throw up the figures that you are basing your reasoning on and we'll have a look.

The South is bankrupt. The North survives on a huge subsidy from the rest of the UK. You don't need any figures to know that a united Ireland makes no economic sense.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

On the question of the economics, throw up the figures that you are basing your reasoning on and we'll have a look.

Last year's NI annual deficit was €11.6 billion - Ireland's deficit for 2013 was €11.5 billion. Perhaps it's escaped your notice that our current deficit isn't sustainable as it stands, and in order to borrow, we've committed to reducing it to about half of those 2013 figures. That's an obligation to half our deficit, not double it.