How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Lest we forget:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/pictured-for-the-first-time-since-prison-release-killer-michael-stone-on-a-stroll-with-wife-40103825.html

Michael was a good patriot.

Actually a bit unreasonable of the media to highlight his wearing a bullet proof vest. I would say the same if it was a republican killer who had done his time.

They have actually compromised his security significantly

Five Eighth

downcow wrote: »

Finally we agree. That was exactly the point I was making, evidenced for all

Thanks

This was the original quote:

"...The report also cited the close links maintained between the (NI) government and the Orange Order, the discrimination against Catholics in Judicial appointments, the maintenance of the exclusively Protestant B Specials, the 'frankly sectarian speeches' made by (NI) ministers and the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries as tendencies which make it difficult to contradict the assertion that the Unionist government's policies has resulted in the inflammation of religious bigotry and sectarianism..."
- The National Council for Civil Liberties (UK). 1936. Quoted by Chris Ryder in his book The RUC 1922-1997 (Revised Edition, 1997) p. 71.

...and your principal concern is with the omission of the word 'almost'. Comical.

Natterjack from Kerry

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Lest we forget:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/pictured-for-the-first-time-since-prison-release-killer-michael-stone-on-a-stroll-with-wife-40103825.html

Michael was a good patriot.

He is a good nothing. There is nothing about him but bad. Typical of many of the terrorists of NI, he is just a thug with a predilection for violence and inflicting harm on others. Being able to dress the violence up as motivated by a cause, or justified in some way, is the classic self deception of the fundamentally evil. A vile character.

downcow

Five Eighth wrote: »

This was the original quote:

"...The report also cited the close links maintained between the (NI) government and the Orange Order, the discrimination against Catholics in Judicial appointments, the maintenance of the exclusively Protestant B Specials, the 'frankly sectarian speeches' made by (NI) ministers and the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries as tendencies which make it difficult to contradict the assertion that the Unionist government's policies has resulted in the inflammation of religious bigotry and sectarianism..."
- The National Council for Civil Liberties (UK). 1936. Quoted by Chris Ryder in his book The RUC 1922-1997 (Revised Edition, 1997) p. 71.

...and your principal concern is with the omission of the word 'almost'. Comical.

I am baffled as to why you point out that my issue of lack of accuracy was 100% justified, but yet you are upset I raised it

BonnieSituation

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

He is a good nothing. There is nothing about him but bad. Typical of many of the terrorists of NI, he is just a thug with a predilection for violence and inflicting harm on others. Being able to dress the violence up as motivated by a cause, or justified in some way, is the classic self deception of the fundamentally evil. A vile character.

Wow, we agree on something.

I certainly hope you understood the obvious sarcastic tone of my previous post on Stone.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wow, we agree on something.

I certainly hope you understood the obvious sarcastic tone of my previous post on Stone.

The challenge for you Bonnie is, can you make the same statement about IRA members? or is this more cowardly hypocrisy? - over to you!

Natterjack from Kerry

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wow, we agree on something.

I certainly hope you understood the obvious sarcastic tone of my previous post on Stone.

Sorry, I missed it actually. I thought you were approving of him, even if, I think, opposing your own allegiance. A sort of respect for a successful adversary, using the line analogous to the 'good republican' euphemism for IRA murderers.

BonnieSituation

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Sorry, I missed it actually. I thought you were approving of him, even if, I think, opposing your own allegiance. A sort of respect for a successful adversary, using the line analogous to the 'good republican' euphemism for IRA murderers.

Eh, no.

BonnieSituation

Nice riposte to the Tommie Gormans' and Hugo MacNeills' of this world in that bastion of Republicanism that is the Old Lady of D'olier Tara Street:

The Irish Times wrote:

A chara, – Hugo MacNeill argues that the time is not right for a Border poll because of a lack of mutual respect (“Lack of mutual respect and understanding makes Border poll premature”, Opinion & Analysis, February 15th). He cites his belief that the views expressed through The Irish Times by nationalist politicians lack conviction, without any evidence of that lack of conviction. He refers to a belief that the North is “a failed state” and partition hasn’t worked as evidence of some lack of understanding. Refusing to see those views as legitimate is a glaring example of a lack of mutual respect and understanding. In the remainder of his opinion piece he refers to the nationalist position through the prism of the Dublin Government and Taoiseach Micheál Martin. This exercise in in itself shows a complete lack of respect for the Northern nationalists. Micheál Martin does not speak for Northern nationalists on this issue.

Mr MacNeill may have failed to notice that Northern nationalists have already begun discussing the issue with all sides. Perhaps the lack of mutual understanding might be eradicated if commentators took the time to look at who represents “the other side”. – Is mise,

KEVIN MacDERMOTT,

Cavan.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/border-poll-and-mutual-respect-1.4487743?mode=amp

maccored

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Sorry, I missed it actually. I thought you were approving of him, even if, I think, opposing your own allegiance. A sort of respect for a successful adversary, using the line analogous to the 'good republican' euphemism for IRA murderers.

translation: I never clicked the link and jumped to conclusions

Natterjack from Kerry

maccored wrote: »

translation: I never clicked the link and jumped to conclusions

No I clicked it. Loyalist murderer out for a walk, and Bonnie says he was a good patriot. Theres a lot people in NI, and SF supporters even in the south, who approve of terrorists and murderers. So not obvious that there was any sarcasm.

BonnieSituation

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

No I clicked it. Loyalist murderer out for a walk, and Bonnie says he was a good patriot. Theres a lot people in NI, and SF supporters even in the south, who approve of terrorists and murderers. So not obvious that there was any sarcasm.

It was pretty obvious.

FrancieBrady

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

No I clicked it. Loyalist murderer out for a walk, and Bonnie says he was a good patriot. Theres a lot people in NI, and SF supporters even in the south, who approve of terrorists and murderers. So not obvious that there was any sarcasm.

One of the most recent shows of support.

downcow

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

No I clicked it. Loyalist murderer out for a walk, and Bonnie says he was a good patriot. Theres a lot people in NI, and SF supporters even in the south, who approve of terrorists and murderers. So not obvious that there was any sarcasm.

And there are an awful lot vote for terrorists past or present.
I also note that Bonnie has avoided my question as to whether he would agree to similar words being used about ira members.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One of the most recent shows of support.

I don’t know the ins and outs of what happened that day, but I think it is quite legitimate to support soldier f.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

I don’t know the ins and outs of what happened that day, but I think it is quite legitimate to support soldier f.

Of course you do, but that's your moral high ground out the window. You can't maintain integrity while simultaneously claiming that it is legitimate to support one person who shot innocent civilians and condemning support for another person who shot innocent civilians.

I have no such trouble, I think killing innocent civilians is wrong no matter who does it, be that the PIRA, dissident Republicans, Loyalist paramilitaries or British state forces.

BonnieSituation

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Of course you do, but that's your moral high ground out the window. You can't maintain integrity while simultaneously claiming that it is legitimate to support one person who shot innocent civilians and condemning support for another person who shot innocent civilians.

I have no such trouble, I think killing innocent civilians is wrong no matter who does it, be that the PIRA, dissident Republicans, Loyalist paramilitaries or British state forces.

It would be interesting to see if the Partitionists' who are so quick to roll in behind Belligerent unionists are quick to stand beside them when it comes to supporting state sponsored terrorism and in particular soldier F.

lurleen lumpkin

downcow wrote: »

I don’t know the ins and outs of what happened that day, but I think it is quite legitimate to support soldier f.

If you're not a troll, why do you post in this thread?

jm08

downcow wrote: »

I don’t know the ins and outs of what happened that day, but I think it is quite legitimate to support soldier f.

So you don't know what happened and you don't want those affected to know what happened? Why does this person deserve not to face the courts? It could possibly clear his name!

Five Eighth

downcow wrote: »

I am baffled as to why you point out that my issue of lack of accuracy was 100% justified, but yet you are upset I raised it

"...The report also cited the close links maintained between the (NI) government and the Orange Order, the discrimination against Catholics in Judicial appointments, the maintenance of the almost exclusively Protestant B Specials, the 'frankly sectarian speeches' made by (NI) ministers and the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries as tendencies which make it difficult to contradict the assertion that the Unionist government's policies has resulted in the inflammation of religious bigotry and sectarianism..."
- The National Council for Civil Liberties (UK). 1936. Quoted by Chris Ryder in his book The RUC 1922-1997 (Revised Edition, 1997) p. 71.

Any comments on the above now that I've included your favourite word?

McGinniesta

Norther Ireland is a social, political and economic black hole.

Do we really want it back?

UDAWINNER

[QUOTE=downcow;116337635]I don’t know the ins and outs of what happened that day, but I think it is quite legitimate to support soldier f.[/QUOTE]
Yet you support the soldier who helped murder 14 innocent civilians, says an awful lot about yourself

UDAWINNER

Five Eighth wrote: »

"...The report also cited the close links maintained between the (NI) government and the Orange Order, the discrimination against Catholics in Judicial appointments, the maintenance of the almost exclusively Protestant B Specials, the 'frankly sectarian speeches' made by (NI) ministers and the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries as tendencies which make it difficult to contradict the assertion that the Unionist government's policies has resulted in the inflammation of religious bigotry and sectarianism..."
- The National Council for Civil Liberties (UK). 1936. Quoted by Chris Ryder in his book The RUC 1922-1997 (Revised Edition, 1997) p. 71.

Any comments on the above now that I've included your favourite word?

Don't forget their follow up, the UDR
The UDR was deployed within Northern Ireland and had been formed in 1970 to replace the notorious police "B Specials". By the time it was disbanded in 1992 it was almost 99% Protestant.
Obviously not sectarian at all:D

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Of course you do, but that's your moral high ground out the window. You can't maintain integrity while simultaneously claiming that it is legitimate to support one person who shot innocent civilians and condemning support for another person who shot innocent civilians.

I have no such trouble, I think killing innocent civilians is wrong no matter who does it, be that the PIRA, dissident Republicans, Loyalist paramilitaries or British state forces.

I understand (and am open to correction) that soldier f was a low ranking soldier, never trained to operate in such a situation, and potentially instructed to act as he did.
You can’t have it both ways. If soldier f is prosecuted for acting in an extremely inappropriate manner, then that protects those who sent him in and lays all the blame with him.
I actually don’t see any benifit in prosecuting people for troubles related crimes in the 70s.
But I completely disagree with singling out minnows for prosecution while letting the leaders off. Whether those leaders are army officers, Sinn Fein MLAs or unionist grand old dukes

downcow

UDAWINNER wrote: »

Yet you support the soldier who helped murder 14 innocent civilians, says an awful lot about yourself

I support him in the sense that he should only be prosecuted if others from the 70s on both sides are going to be prosecuted

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

I understand (and am open to correction) that soldier f was a low ranking soldier, never trained to operate in such a situation, and potentially instructed to act as he did.
You can’t have it both ways. If soldier f is prosecuted for acting in an extremely inappropriate manner, then that protects those who sent him in and lays all the blame with him.
I actually don’t see any benifit in prosecuting people for troubles related crimes in the 70s.
But I completely disagree with singling out minnows for prosecution while letting the leaders off. Whether those leaders are army officers, Sinn Fein MLAs or unionist grand old dukes

The fact of the matter is that he killed innocent people, Downcow.

The, 'just following orders' defense was never a moral justification. If my boss asked me to shoot someone in the face, I would refuse. Since Nuremberg, nor has it been a legal defense. Mitigating when it comes to punishment perhaps, but certainly not a carte blanche to abdicate responsibility.

When you say I can't have it both ways, what exactly are you implying? I haven't said anything which contradicts my position that murdering innocent civilians is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who murdered innocent civilians should be prosecuted, anyone who ordered the murder of innocent civilians should be prosecuted. There is absolutely no, 'having it both ways' about it. He should be prosecuted, and if he acted in that manner on instruction, then those who issued the instruction should also be prosecuted. Arguing that your government are fond of a cover up and have sent out a sacrificial sheep doesn't in any way invalidate the wrong he has done.

Would you be an ardent supporter if it was an IRA bomber facing prosecution? I very much doubt it.

JasonStatham

lurleen lumpkin wrote: »

If you're not a troll, why do you post in this thread?

Probably to stick it to republicans.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that he killed innocent people, Downcow.

The, 'just following orders' defense was never a moral justification. If my boss asked me to shoot someone in the face, I would refuse. Since Nuremberg, nor has it been a legal defense. Mitigating when it comes to punishment perhaps, but certainly not a carte blanche to abdicate responsibility.

When you say I can't have it both ways, what exactly are you implying? I haven't said anything which contradicts my position that murdering innocent civilians is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who murdered innocent civilians should be prosecuted, anyone who ordered the murder of innocent civilians should be prosecuted. There is absolutely no, 'having it both ways' about it. He should be prosecuted, and if he acted in that manner on instruction, then those who issued the instruction should also be prosecuted. Arguing that your government are fond of a cover up and have sent out a sacrificial sheep doesn't in any way invalidate the wrong he has done.

Would you be an ardent supporter if it was an IRA bomber facing prosecution? I very much doubt it.

That is commendable Fionn but what is disturbing about the majority of republican posters (for me anyway)is they appear selective about what they consider heinous crimes.To put it bluntly,killing policemen or soldiers(legitimate representatives) does`nt attract the same reaction from them as it does from yourself and the vast majority of people across Ireland and the UK.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that he killed innocent people, Downcow.

The, 'just following orders' defense was never a moral justification. If my boss asked me to shoot someone in the face, I would refuse. Since Nuremberg, nor has it been a legal defense. Mitigating when it comes to punishment perhaps, but certainly not a carte blanche to abdicate responsibility.

When you say I can't have it both ways, what exactly are you implying? I haven't said anything which contradicts my position that murdering innocent civilians is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who murdered innocent civilians should be prosecuted, anyone who ordered the murder of innocent civilians should be prosecuted. There is absolutely no, 'having it both ways' about it. He should be prosecuted, and if he acted in that manner on instruction, then those who issued the instruction should also be prosecuted. Arguing that your government are fond of a cover up and have sent out a sacrificial sheep doesn't in any way invalidate the wrong he has done.

Would you be an ardent supporter if it was an IRA bomber facing prosecution? I very much doubt it.

Do you believe he should have a fair trial?
Do you believe the same energy should be put into bringing Uvf/ira from 50 years ago in front of the courts?
Do you believe that someone facing trial is entitled to support?

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Do you believe he should have a fair trial?
Do you believe the same energy should be put into bringing Uvf/ira from 50 years ago in front of the courts?
Do you believe that someone facing trial is entitled to support?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) On a personal level, perhaps, from a legal and procedural level, absolutely.....from strangers for obviously political reasons? No.