Fusitive wrote: » No not one conspiracy, there's is literal mounds of testimony(probably a library at this stage) of British collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
forgottenhills wrote: » Yes it is obvious that many in the DUP were not is favour of the GFA and would like to see it shrivel out of existence. However it is equally clear to many neutral observers that SF don't seem to be in any great rush to restart the institutions of the GFA either. The GFA and devolved government in NI was leading to a separate NI identity among many NI people, particularly many of the younger generation in NI who didn't want to label themselves as British or Irish. This emergence of a nascent NI identity was an uncomfortable development for SF so in many ways they are happy to see the devolved government break down. Revolutionary movements thrive on chaos not settled conditions.
zapitastas wrote: » The north is a far cry from what anyone could term as a nation
forgottenhills wrote: » So you are focusing on one single conspiracy theory rather then the mountain of evidence that the British have spent billions and the lives of many of their soldiers with little or no thanks over the years in suppressing violence from both sides in NI and avoiding what would have escalated into a full blown civil war there between two sets of armed hardliners?
RobMc59 wrote: » NI suffered in the Belfast blitz in WW2 and stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the UK -do you think Britain will abandon such a valiant nation?-dream on.
evil_seed wrote: » There's far too many pages to trawl through to get the info I'm looking for. Can anyone ELI5 what Saoradh stand for and what NIRA stand for?
FrancieBrady wrote: » What immediately raises the hackles of the dominant unionist party these days is the involvement of Dublin in any way shape or form. That is motivated by a deep seated insecurity, so I take your delight with the GFA with a pinch of salt tbh. Unionists knew what it meant. And they would be 'delighted' to wreck it. Hence the Brexit mess. I could never pretend to have a 'roadmap to a UI' financial or otherwise. But I have to inform you that republicanism is far from dead. Work is being done in preparation for a UI by the very people I thought would never go near it.https://webarchive.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/implementationofthegoodfridayagreement/jcigfa2016/brexit-and-the-future-of-ireland.pdf
Berserker wrote: » I'm a Unionist, as you know and the GFA (*) delighted me. It's took republican terrorism out of play; the biggest threat to people on this island and guaranteed that NI will remain as part of the UK for the rest of my lifetime; speaking as a thirty something. We both know that a UI is a complete non-starter from an economic perspective. If you disagree with this, I'd welcome a financial road map for a UI. The likes of Saoradh show us exactly where republicanism is these days; on it's last legs. (*) I was opposed to certain parts of the agreement such as the release of republicans from prison.
Fusitive wrote: » Thats what the British wanted, a civil war to break out in the North. John Weir who was an RUC Seargent and a member of the UVF Glenanne gang and has provided huge amounts of testimony about the troubles said they were colluding with the UVF to organise a mass shooting at a Catholic school to make the conflict spiral out of control and for a civil war to break out so that British Forces would have justification to go to full war in the North. All these things sound like baths!t conspiracy theories but these are British sworn affidavits on collusion during the troubles. It's not Nationalist propaganda.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If I were Unionist, I would have been devastated by the GFA.
Grayson wrote: » Didn't churchill offer the north to the free state in return for the free state entering the war? Weirdly, it's the most nationalistic people in england who care the least about the north. There was a survey which showed that people who felt most strongly about brexit would be the people most likely to say they'd give up NI.
facehugger99 wrote: » The usual mealy-mouthed BS. Let whoever wants to change the status of NI campaign for it in a peaceful manner - they'll be in for a rude-shock when the notion is rejected in the ROI but let them try. The Brits just aren't going to 'leave' NI, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands. The current status of NI has been accepted by the vast majority North and South of the island - your usual attempts at deflection onto the DUP or British is shameful in the context of the murder of a young woman. Shame on you Francie lad. Shame on you.
forgottenhills wrote: » I am sure that if there were people on her acting as apologists for Loyalist violence then there would be many posters attacking their attitudes. I would for sure. So don't be surprised when posters come on here to counter the posters spouting SF propaganda and acting as apologists for PIRA actions in the Troubles.
forgottenhills wrote: » The funny thing is that those who use and have used the simplistic demand that Britain should just leave Ireland, would be among the first to demand that they come back and protect them, if indeed they had left, or did leave NI all of a sudden, and civil war kicked off there, as it inevitably would.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It may have escaped your notice that Britain created Northern Ireland and the concentration of one identity, whose bigoted and sectarian rule caused it to go up in flames. Rather than call on them to protect or to come back, I have always stridently called on them to leave, as it is the only way imo that we can create a real and lasting peace here. There is nothing 'simplistic' in that. The simplisitic and lazy thing to do is ignore what is happening and to satisfied with an 'acceptable level of violence'. What happened with Lyra McKee, as has always happened periodically, is that 'acceptable level of violence' has been crossed, hence the sudden interest. People have been living with the Real, New, Continuity IRA and all the other groups not content with GFA since 1998. A lot of the condemnation and moralising going on at the minute sounds very hollow tbh.
forgottenhills wrote: » So is this a roundabout admission that Britain since the 1930's played and plays a positive role on the island of Ireland? Even if their actions in defending our airspace etc. by scrambling jets to meet the Russians when they fly over our airspace may not be altruistic at least they are doing it. The funny thing is that those who use and have used the simplistic demand that Britain should just leave Ireland, would be among the first to demand that they come back and protect them, if indeed they had left, or did leave NI all of a sudden, and civil war kicked off there, as it inevitably would.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Point of order...I didn't call them the 'Brits'. I didn't discredit them for what they did in ww2 either, I merely pointed out that their defence then and their continued defence of our airspace is not the altruistic gesture it is sometimes portrayed as - it is much more 'defence of themselves' due to the proximity of our island. That proximity and their continued presence here is currently buggering up their desires to leave the EU. And once again you can see that they don't so much care for NI as they do about themselves. Simple reality. The IRA and the IMC both stated that armaments were stolen from caches before decommissioning. Something tells me the culprits would have been those that went dissident and refused to accept the GFA. So not sure what your point is.
citytillidie wrote: » Must make the loyalist the worst of the lot as they killed more bit not a peep from you about that
forgottenhills wrote: » If you understood history you would realise that the "Brits" as you call them saved our asses in WW11. They were under enormous military pressure after Dunkirk and if they had signed a peace agreement with Hitler at that point (and they were under huge pressure to do so) then the Nazis could have just walked into Ireland any time they liked. But the so called Republicans will never give credit to Britain for anything. And getting back to the point of this thread, why are there PIRA apologists on this thread, as you are in a roundabout way defending the actions of the Real IRA? It is also shameful that the PIRA obviously did not destroy all their weapons and explosives as they were supposed to do as part of the GFA, and claimed that they did, and that some of the PIRA's semtex has now turned up in the hands of their equally psychopathic offspring, the Real IRA.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Apart from pointing out that these guys would see themselves at war with the shinners too, it must be pointed out that the British started a catastrophic war on the basis that somebody had arms and explosives of mass destruction. What kinda logic would you call that? The natives of the place they started a war with would call it 'terrorist' logic.
facehugger99 wrote: » So the IRA killed nearly 600 more civilians than the big bad Brits? Absolute Scumbags.
Pter wrote: » Mod One more false equivelancy with sex offendering will be a thread ban for those who post, quote and or respond to it.
Chips Lovell wrote: » If I thought them how to be a sex offender and did some sex offending with them before I gave it up, yeah, kinda.
Tomas81 wrote: So if you have a family member who's a sex offender are you in turn responsible?
Chips Lovell wrote: If I thought them how to be a sex offender and did some sex offending with them before I gave it up, yeah, kinda.
facehugger99 wrote: If you're Gerry Adams, then yes, it turned out he was.
Tomas81 wrote: » So if you have a family member who's a sex offender are you in turn responsible?
