The glorious 12th

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

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.

I think you'll find that the majority of people understand why a u-boat has to to be sunk or a city bombed in war. But very very few will condone it happening.

That's for a very small subset of people. Many many soldiers abhor the idea of killing and small amount enjoy it.

So, you have presented a case that allows you to condone killing, that is not surprising tbh. It underlines all your pathetic attempts to defend extrajudicial killings.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, you have presented a case that allows you to condone killing, that is not surprising tbh. It underlines all your pathetic attempts to defend extrajudicial killings.

All democratic countries in the world "condone killing" in certain circumstances, Francie. For the greater good. Show me a police force in the world who has not used force in certain circumstances. Just one country will do.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

All democratic countries in the world "condone killing" in certain circumstances, Francie. For the greater good. Show me a police force in the world who has not used force in certain circumstances. Just one country will do.

There are conditions where lethal force is necessary and legitimate and legal.
Extrajudicial killings and summary executions by the state are unlawful in any international court janfebmar, but you 'condone' them and have tried several times to vindicate soldiers who did it and whose PM accepted they did it, 'without ambiguity or equivocation'.

You don't get off that hook.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are conditions where lethal force is necessary and legitimate and legal.

Correct.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Extrajudicial killings and summary executions by the state are unlawful in any international court janfebmar, but you 'condone' them and have tried several times to vindicate soldiers who did it.

Like the lone off duty part time UDR man who was lured to a trap near the border and ambushed by an IRA gang, but who managed to shoot back? You think the ambush and killing of such public servants are "acts of war" and justified, I think he was correct to fight back. It was lawful.

You don't get off that hook.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Correct.



Like the lone off duty part time UDR man who was lured to a trap near the border and ambushed by an IRA gang, but who managed to shoot back? You think the ambush and killing of such public servants are "acts of war" and justified, I think he was correct to fight back. It was lawful.

You don't get off that hook.

We are talking about a fundamental principle of democratic governance here.

It shows how pathetically you are stuck morally that you cannot address the principle without trumpeting a single incident that has nothing to do with that principle. You are talking about an incident were self self defence was required, used and was legal.

Try and approach the subject with some level of intellectual rigour.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are talking about a fundamental principle of democratic governance here.

It shows how pathetically you are stuck morally that you cannot address the principle without trumpeting a single incident that has nothing to do with that principle. You are talking about an incident were self self defence was required, used and was legal.

And which incident or incidents were you talking about so? The killing of the driver of a car by an Irish army soldier in the eighties in Co. Kilkenny? Loughgall? Apart from scale, what was the difference between those two incidents, tell us?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

And which incident or incidents were you talking about so? The killing of the driver of a car by an Irish army soldier in the eighties in Co. Kilkenny? Loughgall? Apart from scale, what was the difference between those two incidents, tell us?

I told you before, I AM NOT going argue out specific incidents here. Do you or don't you agree.

The State should not be involved in extrajudicial killings (of whomsoever) or summary executions where an arrest and trial can be affected.


You either do or you don't.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The State should not be involved in extrajudicial killings (of whomsoever) or summary executions where an arrest and trial can be affected.

That goes without saying, and many thousands if not tens of thousands of arrests were made in Northern Ireland. However there are certain circumstances where armed people shoot first, or people are thought to be armed or have armed accomplices nearby, so incidents happen? As in all countries?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

That goes without saying, and many thousands if not tens of thousands of arrests were made in Northern Ireland. However there are certain circumstances where armed people shoot first, or people are thought to be armed or have armed accomplices nearby, so incidents happen? As in all countries?

Many incidents happened. The fact is we don't as yet know the extent to which it happened as many inquiries and calls for inquiries are outstanding.

Do you support the calls for inquiries from family members?


*I repeat, do not ask for the incidents, you are not a judge and neither am I. If you don't know how many, I suggest you google.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Many incidents happened. The fact is we don't as yet know the extent to which it happened as many inquiries and calls for inquiries are outstanding.

Do you support the calls for inquiries from family members?

As far as I know all that should have been investigated have been investigated, and in certain ones " the court did not rule that the use of lethal force itself was unlawful."

There are many victims on both sides, I think sometimes picking at the scabs will do no good as each side just hears what they want to hear.

90% of the killings between 1971 and 1989 in Fermanagh / South Tyrone were committed by Republicans, and nearly all of those are unsolved. Would you like to see those solved? In reality, I do not think they will be at this stage, so best to move on.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

As far as I know all that should have been investigated have been investigated, and in certain ones " the court did not rule that the use of lethal force itself was unlawful."

There are many victims on both sides, I think sometimes sometimes picking at the scabs will do no good as each side just hears what they want to hear.

90% of the killings between 1971 and 1989 in Fermanagh / South Tyrone were committed by Republicans, and nearly all of those are unsolved. Would you like to see those solved? In reality, I do not think they will be at this stage, so best to move on.

Yes or No will do and that answer is neither.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

I believe I have answered everything I’ve been asked. Unlike the response I get to most of my questions

You have ignored two posts of mine, from two days ago, actually.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you support the calls for inquiries from family members?

I am not aware of calls for inquiries from family members. Unless new evidence is produced what would be the point as the killings were already investigated a long time ago?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I am not aware of calls for inquiries from family members. Unless new evidence is produced what would be the point as the killings were already investigated a long time ago?

Do you support them if they do exist?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you support them if they do exist?

Not while 200 people got amnesty letters, and all other prisoners were released, and while the cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry was £195,000,000.00, and while other certain people will not even admit they were in the ira. As I said, unless new evidence is produced what would be the point as the killings were already investigated a long time ago?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Not while 200 people got amnesty letters, and all other prisoners were released, and while the cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry was £195,000,000.00, and while other certain people will not even admit they were in the ira. As I said, unless new evidence is produced what would be the point as the killings were already investigated a long time ago?

So that is a no them.

My opinion of your morals remains unchanged. You don't deserve decent government.

There were no letters of 'amnesty' btw. The 'letters of comfort' were given by the same government that had no regard to it's responsibilities nor it duties under fundamental human rights law either.
They also had to pay the cost of an inquiry because they ran away from the summary executions their soldiers carried out and they whitewashed them to such an extent that people like blanch152 still believes that the dead did not come out as innocent and people like you try to excuse and vindicate the soldiers for what happened.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My opinion of your morals remains unchanged. You don't deserve decent government.

LOL. Maybe I will be one of the people you want to deport in the event of a "United Ireland"?

I would be more worried if my morals were like yours Francie, as you expressed support for certain paramilitaries who you said were justified and correct in "acts of war" in "killing" certain "legitimate targets" which include certain public service pensioners, elected politicians etc.

I at least condemn the activities of paramilitaries on both sides, unlike you, and my opinion of your morals has not changed. If I was praised by you (or the mysterious davycc, who thanks you when you are desperate) I would be more worried.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

LOL. Maybe I will be one of the people you want to deport in the event of a "United Ireland"?

I would be more worried if my morals were like yours Francie, as you expressed support for certain paramilitaries who you said were justified and correct in "acts of war" in "killing" certain "legitimate targets" which include certain public service pensioners, elected politicians etc.

I at least condemn the activities of paramilitaries on both sides, unlike you, and my opinion of your morals has not changed. If I was praised by you (or the mysterious davycc, who thanks you when you are desperate) I would be more worried.

So once again your answer is a tissue of lies.

And your defence of the British government's activity is based on a tissue of lies. As we seen, what masquerades as your moral standpoint very quickly hit a wall.
You cannot even show support for a fundamental and basic principle of governance.

In your desperation and flailing around you even attack another poster whose terrible and heinous sin is that he chooses to read posts here.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As we seen, what masquerades as your moral standpoint very quickly hit a wall.

Does it? Not really. My view is consistent with that of the law, and most people north and south I would say.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot even show support for a fundamental and basic principle of governance.
.

I do actually. I believe the security forces of a democratically elected government have a right and obligation to act within the law, and that they in turn should expect to be able to live peacefully without fear of attack when on or off duty, or retired.

You, however, have justified attacks and murder of people by unelected paramilitaries.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Does it? Not really. My view is consistent with that of the law, and most people north and south I would say.


I do actually. I believe the security forces of a democratically elected government have a right and obligation to act within the law, and that they in turn should expect to be able to live peacefully without fear of attack when on or off duty, or retired.

You, however, have justified attacks and murder of people by unelected paramilitaries.

But you won't support the upholding of a fundamental principle of governance cause 'themums got something'.

Away up the yard, as they'd say around here. You don't even recognise your own hypocrisy.

It is crystal clear what you stand for and I am not the only contributor to this thread that can see it either.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you won't support the upholding of a fundamental principle of governance cause 'themums got something'.

And what fundamental principle would that be? In post no. 2649 I agreed the State should not be involved in extrajudicial killings (of whomsoever) or summary executions where an arrest and trial can be affected. They should not lower themselves to the standards of those attacking them.

Once again you got your facts wrong Francie. It is becoming extremely regular now.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

And what fundamental principle would that be? In post no. 2649 I agreed the State should not be involved in extrajudicial killings (of whomsoever) or summary executions where an arrest and trial can be affected. They should not lower themselves to the standards of those attacking them.

Once again you got your facts wrong Francie. It is becoming extremely regular now.

And that is the hypocrisy - identical to the hypocrisy of the British government who have signed up to this principle.

You spout that you believe it but you refuse to allow or support anyone who wants to challenge it = stone cold hypocrisy.

Goodnight janfebmar. We are done with this sick nonsense.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Goodnight janfebmar. We are done with this sick nonsense.

Goodnight Francie. And maybe tomorrow you can answer the questions Downcow asked you, seeing as you did not answer mine.

downcow

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have ignored two posts of mine, from two days ago, actually.

Don’t be so precious and tell me what the question was in simple plain language

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you support them if they do exist?

No. I would rather see the billions required spent on health and education ie our future

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

No. I would rather see the billions required spent on health and education ie our future

Thankfully you Unionists no longer have a veto. They never had a great sense of the responsibilities of power.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

downcow wrote: »

No. I would rather see the billions required spent on health and education ie our future

Thankfully you Unionists no longer have a veto. They never had a great sense of the responsibilities of power.

If you put as much effort into your own countries problems that would probably be more useful than constantly telling Britain and NI what they're doing wrong.
I don't know anyone else who is as vocal in their opinions on how to make everything right using your template-"the thoughts of chairman francie"

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you put as much effort into your own countries problems that would probably be more useful than constantly telling Britain and NI what they're doing wrong.
I don't know anyone else who is as vocal in their opinions on how to make everything right using your template-"the thoughts of chairman francie"

I'm in my 'own' country Rob.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm in my 'own' country Rob.

Ever think of fixing our own jurisdictions problems Francie instead of complaining so much about the neighbours all the time?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Ever think of fixing our own jurisdictions problems Francie instead of complaining so much about the neighbours all the time?

There is no nirvana out there janfebmar, anywhere. There will always be issues and problems and I do my fair share in addressing them.

The south is correct at the top. It has to all intents and purposes a functional (for the people) constitution inspired by the clauses of the Proclamation. It has stood us in good stead and allowed us to eventually shake off the yoke of the church.. As other writers have remarked, the Vatican congress of 1932 showed quite clearly that the new state didn't stand a chance.

I think, having read the latest biog of Dev, that his hard fought decision not to make the Roman Catholic religion the official state religion actually enabled us to separate church and state much more easily when the time came and was inspired.
The people of the south are as much as is possible truly sovereign in a republican sense and that is a testament to the founders of the state. .

In other words, we are set up properly as a state, and the rapid move away from the church and our emergence as a modern, progressive state (not without it's problems) that can speak it's own mind and make it's own way n the world shows that clearly.

In contrast the northern state is wrong from the top down, you had the British, like you jan, paying lipservice to notions of democracy and human rights while doing and supporting the exact opposite, for decades.
As a consequence the state has never worked and will never work properly. It is rotten at the top.
It's a microcosm of the UK itself whose rottenness is being laid bare in front of our eyes. That rottenness is it English centric core. History will see that as the reason it breaks up, not Brexit, which is only a symptom of their problem.