The glorious 12th

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which allows you and jan and blanch etc to try to vindicate the actions of the state here, which is what you have been trying to do.
It will not wash and never will and no amount of moaning about we are the real victims is going to deflect away from that.



Which bit of 'It was ALL wrong', don't you understand?

So francie. I am not trying to be awkward. I just don’t like riddles. Let’s take for example A soldier killed while patrolling my town. Blew to bits as he knelt in a doorway.
Are you clearly saying that the ira were wrong to kill him.
This is quite important and may change my opinion of you. This ‘it’s all wrong’ stuff can be seen as a bit of a cop out.
A clear statement from you saying the ira should not have killed that young soldier in my town would be very well received by me.
Over to you - plain words please

downcow

citytillidie wrote: »

hmmm I was actually talking about the 2011 riots that were mainly in North London and other towns and cities in England (including Birmingham, Leeds, Coventry, Leicester, Derby, Wolverhampton, Northampton, Nottingham, West Bromwich, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Salford and York

Anyways back to the 12th and Marching

It will be nice to see nothing happen on Saturday when there is marching here in Derry but then the Apprentice boys of Derry talk to their catholic neighbours and hold talks about marching

Yes. Derry has been a breath of fresh air. I wonder does agent fisherman deserve some credit for that?
Yes I hope it all goes peaceful. No reason why not when there is some respect and tolerance.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

If the rioters set out to kill someone in Brixton, I would imagine someone would have been killed. In any event, I am glad they were not. If thats the worst civil disturbance you can think of in England, then good for you.





It was police who were in the front line in London, because nobody had killed the police there. You know, the police are those people with the funny uniforms, a bit like the police in Derry who some Republicans shot at only a month or two ago during a riot and injured a journalist instead? Sorry, did you insinuate security forces were never shot at, threatened or attacked during riots or civil disturbances in N. Ireland? You know what rioters used to lace petrol bombs with?

Utter self serving defending of the indefensible.

The police demanded rubber bullets in both the case of Toxteth and Brixton. But only got them in Brixton when Willie Whitelaw, the Home Secretary made them promise to not use them.

The British Government wanted to be seen to be tough but (take note again downcow, they have no compunction shooting you guys either of it comes to it) had no intention of using them on their own people. No such problems for Willie when he did his stint in NI.

citytillidie

downcow wrote: »

Yes. Derry has been a breath of fresh air. I wonder does agent fisherman deserve some credit for that?
Yes I hope it all goes peaceful. No reason why not when there is some respect and tolerance.

Again you can't post without trying to point score what is wrong with saying Martin McGuinness?

citytillidie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Utter self serving defending of the indefensible.

The police demanded rubber bullets in both the case of Toxteth and Brixton. But only got them in Brixton when Willie Whitelaw, the Home Secretary made them promise to not use them.

The British Government wanted to be seen to be tough but (take note again downcow, they have no compunction shooting you guys either of it comes to it) had no intention of using them on their own people. No such problems for Willie when he did his stint in NI.

and in 2011

The BBC reported that West Midlands riot police officers were issued with plastic bullets to use against looters, but that none were fired.[225]

Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner Stephen Kavanagh confirmed that police in London were considering using baton rounds against rioters, not previously used by mainland police in public order operations (though they were first approved for use in England and Wales in 2001)

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So francie. I am not trying to be awkward. I just don’t like riddles. Let’s take for example A soldier killed while patrolling my town. Blew to bits as he knelt in a doorway.
Are you clearly saying that the ira were wrong to kill him.
This is quite important and may change my opinion of you. This ‘it’s all wrong’ stuff can be seen as a bit of a cop out.
A clear statement from you saying the ira should not have killed that young soldier in my town would be very well received by me.
Over to you - plain words please

Of course it was wrong. It should never have happened. It was all wrong downcow. And it was 'wrong' because of a partition that should never have happened and the state sponsored sectarian bigoted state that ensued.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it was wrong. It should never have happened. .

Of course it was wrong and it should never have happened, but you are still talking in riddles Francie because you condoned Republicans on "active service" before.

Are you saying the ira should not have killed that young soldier in Downcows local town?

janfebmar

citytillidie wrote: »

and in 2011

The BBC reported that West Midlands riot police officers were issued with plastic bullets to use against looters, but that none were fired.[225]

If the West Midlands police were lured in to traps on a regular basis and murdered, and bombs exploding on a daily basis , often killing civilians, retired policemen, off duty policemen, shoppers, etc and there were hundreds of riots where petrol bombs and other missiles were chucked at police, then I would say the West Midlands police would start using them to keep the rioters away from getting too close. And do you know what? I think in certain circumstances plastic bullet use can be justified by the police force of every democratically elected government in the world, if the need arises.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British Government wanted to be seen to be tough but (take note again downcow, they have no compunction shooting you guys either of it comes to it) had no intention of using them on their own people.

Indeed a double digit number of loyalists were killed by security forces and a double digit number of security forces were killed by Loyalists during the troubles, so thank you for confirming that British security forces were fair and even handed Francie.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Of course it was wrong and it should never have happened, but you are still talking in riddles Francie because you condoned Republicans on "active service" before.

Are you saying the ira should not have killed that young soldier in Downcows local town?

If you don't understand what I said then sorry, I cannot make it clearer. I am and always have been against war and conflict. I blame those who allow it to happen primarily in all cases of war.

Do I blame the IRA for going to war? I can categorically say No, to that question. It was always always going to happen. It happened in the south and it was going to happen in the north.

Do I blame the IRA for atrocities and the innocents people they killed, absolutely I do. Do I blame them for not stopping earlier, absolutely I do.

Do I condone a single killing they carried out, absolutely I don't.

FrancieBrady

Indeed a double digit number of loyalists were killed by security forces and a double digit number of security forces were killed by Loyalists during the troubles, so thank you for confirming that British security forces were fair and even handed Francie.

British people live in Britain Jan. Northern Ireland, despite the imagination of some of it's people, is not Britain. The full title is The United Kingdom Of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't understand what I said then sorry, I cannot make it clearer. I am and always have been against war and conflict.

I think practically everyone is against war Francie. Few people want to see people and family members killed, blown apart etc.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I blame those who allow it to happen primarily in all cases of war.

The British of course. Which includes the Unionists/ protestants in some peoples eyes. Remember the old slogan "Brits out"?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do I blame the IRA for going to war? I can categorically say No, to that question. It was always always going to happen. It happened in the south and it was going to happen in the north.

So you think the IRA / pira was correct in going to "war". Well, at least you answered that.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do I blame the IRA for atrocities and the innocents people they killed, absolutely I do.

We have been though that before though, you do not think a British soldier blown up in a doorway or a retired policeman shot in the back were atrocities, they were "acts of war" according to you?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do I blame them for not stopping earlier, absolutely I do.

So when should they have stopped? 2 days earlier? 2 weeks earlier? 2 years earlier? 20 years earlier?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do I condone a single killing they carried out, absolutely I don't.

That statement contradicts your support for their "military action" in the "war."?
Maybe you are still talking in riddles, that people killed in uniforms or who had been in uniforms were not "killings"?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

British people live in Britain Jan. Northern Ireland, despite the imagination of some of it's people, is not Britain. The full title is The United Kingdom Of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

OK, the security services of the UK of Great Britain and N. Ireland. As I said, thank you for confirming that they were fair and even handed Francie.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I think practically everyone is against war Francie. Few people want to see people and family members killed, blown apart etc.

So why didn't the British simply lie down under the Germans? You never did answer that question in the context of you criticising the Irish, who like it or not, saw the British as an oppressor(excepting yourself of course) just as much as George from Croydon seen the Germans as oppressors. .

The British of course. Which includes the Unionists/ protestants in some peoples eyes. Remember the old slogan "Brits out"?

Yes, in my analysis the British are primarily to blame being the responsible government. They were in effect players in the conflict/war and didn't begin to create the circumstances to end it until the Anglo Irish Agreement, the effective ending of the Unionist veto.

So you think the IRA / pira was correct in going to "war". Well, at least you answered that.

Correct, in the sense they had no other option.

We have been though that before though, you do not think a British soldier blown up in a doorway or a retired policeman shot in the back were atrocities, they were "acts of war" according to you?

Yes I think they were acts of war.

So when should they have stopped? 2 days earlier? 2 weeks earlier? 2 years earlier? 20 years earlier?

For another thread. Not interested in this thread.

That statement contradicts your support for their "military action" in the "war."?
Maybe you are still talking in riddles, that people killed in uniforms or who had been in uniforms were not "killings"?

No it contradicts nothing. I am against war, but wars happen. I don't condone any killing, of anyone.

Don't confuse 'support' with understanding why something happened. I am glad the IRA are gone, that the BA are off the streets and that most loyalist groups are on ceasefire/stood down.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

OK, the security services of the UK of Great Britain and N. Ireland. As I said, thank you for confirming that they were fair and even handed Francie.

They weren't. They fired 98,000 rounds of rubber and plastic bullets in NI killing 17 people including 8 children up to 1983.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They weren't. They fired 98,000 rounds of rubber and plastic bullets in NI killing 17 people including 8 children up to 1983.

So the kill rate was 00.00017? And how many lives did they save from petrol getting hit by petrol bombs, nail bombs, or other missiles?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

So the kill rate was 00.00017?

I must console the mothers and fathers of the children with that one.

From depraved to hideous. Who is 'condoning' now?

downcow

citytillidie wrote: »

Again you can't post without trying to point score what is wrong with saying Martin McGuinness?

I seem to remember someone referring to Jamie Bryson on this thread in much more derogatory terms. But maybe that was ok. What is wrong with saying Jamie?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it was wrong. It should never have happened. It was all wrong downcow. And it was 'wrong' because of a partition that should never have happened and the state sponsored sectarian bigoted state that ensued.

A fair bit of qualifying there francie but I will be magnanimous and accept you are saying that the ira should not have killed people. I appreciate you saying that. What about blaaz and co. Do yous feel the same?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I seem to remember someone referring to Jamie Bryson on this thread in much more derogatory terms. But maybe that was ok. What is wrong with saying Jamie?

Jamie Bryson is not dead. Have some respect for a deceased man and some for yourself too maybe. It's a petty and filled with pure hate stunt.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jamie Bryson is not dead. Have some respect for a deceased man and some for yourself too maybe. It's a petty and filled with pure hate stunt.

Well willie Frazer has been referred to in fairly derogatory terms on this thread and he’s only dead a few weeks. A man that suffered horrendously at the hands of republicans.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Well willie Frazer has been referred to in fairly derogatory terms on this thread and he’s only dead a few weeks. A man that suffered horrendously at the hands of republicans.

AH, the old, if themuns do it, it's ok for me.

I have no problem with you criticising Martin McGuinness and what he did and stood for as I will continue to do about Willie Frazer. I wish no man dead and said that on the thread about him.

It's your petty and childish misspelling of his name and now no name at all that is the issue here.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So why didn't the British simply lie down under the Germans? You never did answer that question in the context of you criticising the Irish...

I did not criticise the Irish, I am Irish myself, do not confuse Irish with Republican. The British did not lie down under the Germans because they are a fair race, and knew life under the Nazis would not have been fair, or with the same democratic rights as the UK, imperfect as it was. They were not wrong.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, in my analysis the British are primarily to blame being the responsible government. They were in effect players in the conflict/war and didn't begin to create the circumstances to end it until the Anglo Irish Agreement, the effective ending of the Unionist veto.

So when they brought in British troops from "the mainland" they were not trying to end it, or when they flew Gerry Adams and other leading Republicans for secret talks to London in the early seventies they they not trying to end it, when they had the border poll ( voting was open to everyone) in the early seventies they were trying to end it... Even though it was costing them a fortune, billions, plus the lives of their soldiers , civilians and even themselves (blown up by IRA)? Does not make sense.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Correct, in the sense they had no other option.

Oh, so they had no option but to engage in Bloody Friday and all other pIRA activity. Okayyyy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes I think they were acts of war.

So you think killing "legitimate targets" like policemen, retired and off duty security forces, judges, politicians and so on was justified and not wrong.

Even though when you spoke in riddles it was "all wrong"?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For another thread. Not interested in this thread.

Aw, how disappointing Francie. I thought you could give a quick answer, it was a simple question. You said the ira should have stopped earlier. Do you think the ira should have stopped 2 days earlier? 2 weeks earlier? 2 years earlier? 20 years earlier? I seem to remember you supporting the Docklands bomb so it would be great to get an answer, without riddles.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Don't confuse 'support' with understanding why something happened.
.

Don't accuse others of confusing 'support' with understanding why something happened, because others are entitled to understand why something happened too.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am glad the IRA are gone, that the BA are off the streets and that most loyalist groups are on ceasefire/stood down.

We are all glad the IRA are ( mostly, compared to what they were) gone, that the BA are off the streets and that most loyalist groups are on ceasefire/stood down

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's your petty and childish misspelling of his name and now no name at all that is the issue here.

I think someone referring to someone by a harmless nickname "the fisherman" is relatively harmless. After all, I think he did like a spot of fishing?

You Francie, on the other hand,speak in riddles, and say all violence was wrong, but yet you say the ira was correct to go to war, that you think soldiers blown up, off duty policemen shot etc were acts of war etc

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I did not criticise the Irish, I am Irish myself, do not confuse Irish with Republican. The British did not lie down under the Germans because they are a fair race, and knew life under the Nazis would not have been fair, or with the same democratic rights as the UK, imperfect as it was. They were not wrong.

But when the Irish decide to do it, you have issues with it?

So when they brought in British troops from "the mainland" they were not trying to end it, or when they flew Gerry Adams and other leading Republicans for secret talks to London in the early seventies they they not trying to end it, when they had the border poll ( voting was open to everyone) in the early seventies they were trying to end it... Even though it was costing them a fortune, billions, plus the lives of their soldiers , civilians and even themselves (blown up by IRA)? Does not make sense.

Nothing that they did when they agreed to the Anglo Irish Agreement could not have been done in 1969. I.E. The ending of the Unionist Veto. They could have doen that at any time but for whatever reason(stupidity, incompetence, hoping they could re-impose Unionist rule, hate of the Irish, a strategic interest) they didn't do it. Once they did it they created the conditions for peace to be negociated and it is no accident that Jim Molyneaux knew it was 'the worst thing that ever happened Unionism' and no surprise that David Trimble thought it would require 'no little violence' to get rid of. Echoing Carson, the man who brought the gun back into Irish politics there, was David.

Oh, so they had no option but to engage in Bloody Friday and all other pIRA activity. Okayyyy

Yet another attempt to vindicate the British.

So you think killing "legitimate targets" like policemen, retired and off duty security forces, judges, politicians and so on was justified and not wrong.

Even though when you spoke in riddles it was "all wrong"?

When 2 sides go to war, that is what happens. I don't condone what the British Loyalists or The IRA did.

Do you condone blanket bombings of cities, the actual physical killing of another soldier in the wars you think were 'right', or the innocents killed?
I don't know a single British person who would condone the killing of women and children in a war, or who would condone the killing that happens.

Takes a special type of person to condone killing for any reason imo.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

AH, the old, if themuns do it, it's ok for me.

I have no problem with you criticising Martin McGuinness and what he did and stood for as I will continue to do about Willie Frazer. I wish no man dead and said that on the thread about him.

It's your petty and childish misspelling of his name and now no name at all that is the issue here.

Francie, a very poor attempt at wriggling out of being caught red handed. ie I can’t call M McG by his code name as it’s disrespectful but you can say what you like about willie Frazer and that’s ok.

Willie was understandably very very angry about how many of his family members were shot in the back by the hero’s of the ira. Yet you can say what you like about him!!

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie, a very poor attempt at wriggling out of being caught red handed. ie I can’t call M McG by his code name as it’s disrespectful but you can say what you like about willie Frazer and that’s ok.

Willie was understandably very very angry about how many of his family members were shot in the back by the hero’s of the ira. Yet you can say what you like about him!!

I criticise Willie Frazer for what I believe he should be criticised for. His death doesn't change that. Just as it didn't change for Maggie Thatcher or Garret Fitzgerald or anyone else.

I don't deliberately set out to disrespect them by childishly mis-spelling their name. If I do it by accident or rashly, and somebody points it out, I will stop doing it.

Keep it up downcow if you wish, there is no appealing to the stupid and the inane.

citytillidie

downcow wrote: »

Francie, a very poor attempt at wriggling out of being caught red handed. ie I can’t call M McG by his code name as it’s disrespectful but you can say what you like about willie Frazer and that’s ok.

Willie was understandably very very angry about how many of his family members were shot in the back by the hero’s of the ira. Yet you can say what you like about him!!

So i can be angry then with your heros the BA for killing my family ?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I criticise Willie Frazer for what I believe he should be criticised for. His death doesn't change that. Just as it didn't change for Maggie Thatcher or Garret Fitzgerald or anyone else.

I don't deliberately set out to disrespect them by childishly mis-spelling their name. If I do it by accident or rashly, and somebody points it out, I will stop doing it.

Keep it up downcow if you wish, there is no appealing to the stupid and the inane.

I have never purposely misspelt his name. The very reason I have been using initials is that some people have been annoyed at my spelling. I won’t though be lectured by people who regularly refer to my national flag as the butchers apron. And I see no reason why I can’t use a well known code name which is much easier spelt

downcow

citytillidie wrote: »

So i can be angry then with your heros the BA for killing my family ?

Absolutely. I would expect you to.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know a single British person who would condone the killing of women and children in a war, or who would condone the killing that happens.

Few people condone the killing of women and children in a war. You were talking about WW2. In WW2, the Germans and British could each have dropped gas on each others cities, but did not, they had a gentlemans agreement as that would have killed innocent people needlessly. If one done it, the other side would have retaliated. In the heavy bombing of cities, the Germans started it, the British retaliated. Personally I think it was wrong, others may be of the opinion it was an effort to shorten the war by affecting the output of German munitions factories and morale, and therefore save other lives. I think many British people during the war however would understandably have condoned the killing of German troops if there was a battle, because it was a war between countries and it would have been a feeling of "their troops or ours". If you were a British person during the war wouldn't you have been glad to hear of another few u-boats sunk for example, because no doubt someone from your street would have been in the navy?

You are fooling nobody Francie by saying the "killing" of "legitimate targets" like retired policemen and part time soldiers and judges and politicians were "acts of war" of which you approve, but yet you claim you do or did not condone such killings.


As Eagle eye said 6 days and 20 hours ago about you

eagle eye wrote: »

It's clear you are, or at least were, an IRA sympathiser at the very least.

That is fair enough. I will tell an IRA sympathiser I think they were wrong, just as I will tell a UVF sympathiser or sympathiser of the Shankhill Butchers I think they were wrong. I have not come across anyone yet on boards.ie who thinks or thought that UVF killings or Shankhill Butcher activity was justified.