Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The glorious 12th
Options
Comments
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »And there is other evidence presented other than the 'car' downcow.
It isn't like it is trying to prove one single incident of collusion...we know there were many and this has all the hallmarks of another.
It 'doesn't' convict it alleges and calls for further action.
The very same thing the Bloody Sunday victims had to do.
Thanks Francie for your honesty. so it contains allegations!
I say again, most nationalists I know have taken it hook line and sinker as factual0 -
Thanks Francie for your honesty. so it contains allegations!
I say again, most nationalists I know have taken it hook line and sinker as factual
Speaking of honesty...do you believe by the same token (nothing of 'conviction' quality exists) that Gerry Adams is innocent of all allegations?0 -
For me the key thing is 'intent'
The intent of the security forces was to keep the killing to a minimum. Therefore it was essential to run agents, and sometimes turn a blind eye for their protection. and sure it went horribly wrong sometimes and people died. But the overall aim was Honorable.
The Terrorists intent was to kill as many of the 'others' as possible and unfortunately it went horribly right for them too many times.
Are you opposed to the running of agents in the current real IRA? ...and no doubt accidents will happen0 -
The intense focus on a relatively small number of security force unlawful killings compared to the relatively bigger number of unlawful IRA actions is bizarre.
We all know that Bloody Sunday was wrong, we know there were some other incidents that were wrong, but the vast majority of security force actions on a day-to-day basis were both lawful and justified. Not something that republicans want to hear because it challenges the 800-year narrative, but true nonetheless.
There's a significantly different expectation on the conduct of terrorists versus state forces. I would expect any normal, unbiased person to expect a higher standard from what you would describe as a, 'legitimate democratic security force' than I would from a terrorist group. IRA atrocities don't in any way justify the actions of British state forces.
I think your description of, 'the vast majority' of security force actions being lawful and justified totally ignores a large part of the core problem. We all know about the BIG events, like Bloody Sunday, we all agree they were wrong, and we all agree that the majority of British forces were not present at Bloody Sunday or significant events like these.
When you describe the vast majority having been lawful and justified, it heavily implies a lack of awareness of the constant (and I hate to use the very modern phrase) microaggressions experienced by people from a Nationalist background. The majority of interactions that normal people had with British forces weren't huge events, they were random stops, checkpoints, how they were treated passing in the street and the likes. This isn't something that's as easy to emotionalise, because taken as standalone events, they're totally insignificant. It's small things that you can only have a deep understanding of by growing up with it.
To give a simple, regular occurring example - as I've mentioned many times, part of my family has a typical Irish surname, another part of my family has what would typically be a Protestant surname. Living along the border, checkpoints were a very regular thing of course. I could not count the number of times where the Protestant named part of the family were waved through checkpoints after a quick look at a driving license, only to have to pull in and wait a few minutes down the road, because the Irish-named family members going to the same place received very different treatment, from in depth questioning, through to full car searches with large guns being pointed at the car (which often had children in it).
These were the realities of growing up on the border. Were they, 'legal and justified'? Legal probably, yes. Justified or wrong? You can be then judge of that yourself.
The constant minor things like this festered away constantly at relations and attitudes towards British forces, slowly, as much as the 'big events' around collusion and the likes of Bloody Sunday, and these minor events were not carried out by a minority, and so, can't be hand-waved away like the big events as, 'a few rotten apples'. It was systemic, all the way from top to bottom.0 -
For me the key thing is 'intent'
The intent of the security forces was to keep the killing to a minimum. Therefore it was essential to run agents, and sometimes turn a blind eye for their protection. and sure it went horribly wrong sometimes and people died. But the overall aim was Honorable.
The Terrorists intent was to kill as many of the 'others' as possible and unfortunately it went horribly right for them too many times.
Are you opposed to the running of agents in the current real IRA? ...and no doubt accidents will happen
I think the police and army should be fully answerable for what they do.
Hiding is not acceptable.
They have for instance thwarted investigations into Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Shoot To Kill, Loughliisland etc etc
The files on Dublin-Monaghan and Belturbet bombings have been buried for a further x amount of years.
By all means do what is necessary to do your job, run agents etc etc, but you must as a state be accountable and transparent.
Could you answer this please? Just say, if you don't want to and we will move on, I can't (and I am sure readers of the thread can't) be bothered with pages of evasions and deflections.
Speaking of honesty...do you believe by the same token (nothing of 'conviction' quality exists) that Gerry Adams is innocent of all allegations?0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »Speaking of honesty...do you believe by the same token (nothing of 'conviction' quality exists) that Gerry Adams is innocent of all allegations?
Its not really like for like. There are photos of Gerry in IRA uniform and he has represented the IRA in high level meets with government.
But i thought the basis of the film was that there is evidence available but the police won't act. Thats nonsense0 -
There's a significantly different expectation on the conduct of terrorists versus state forces. I would expect any normal, unbiased person to expect a higher standard from what you would describe as a, 'legitimate democratic security force' than I would from a terrorist group. IRA atrocities don't in any way justify the actions of British state forces.
I think your description of, 'the vast majority' of security force actions being lawful and justified totally ignores a large part of the core problem. We all know about the BIG events, like Bloody Sunday, we all agree they were wrong, and we all agree that the majority of British forces were not present at Bloody Sunday or significant events like these.
When you describe the vast majority having been lawful and justified, it heavily implies a lack of awareness of the constant (and I hate to use the very modern phrase) microaggressions experienced by people from a Nationalist background. The majority of interactions that normal people had with British forces weren't huge events, they were random stops, checkpoints, how they were treated passing in the street and the likes. This isn't something that's as easy to emotionalise, because taken as standalone events, they're totally insignificant. It's small things that you can only have a deep understanding of by growing up with it.
To give a simple, regular occurring example - as I've mentioned many times, part of my family has a typical Irish surname, another part of my family has what would typically be a Protestant surname. Living along the border, checkpoints were a very regular thing of course. I could not count the number of times where the Protestant named part of the family were waved through checkpoints after a quick look at a driving license, only to have to pull in and wait a few minutes down the road, because the Irish-named family members going to the same place received very different treatment, from in depth questioning, through to full car searches with large guns being pointed at the car (which often had children in it).
These were the realities of growing up on the border. Were they, 'legal and justified'? Legal probably, yes. Justified or wrong? You can be then judge of that yourself.
The constant minor things like this festered away constantly at relations and attitudes towards British forces, slowly, as much as the 'big events' around collusion and the likes of Bloody Sunday, and these minor events were not carried out by a minority, and so, can't be hand-waved away like the big events as, 'a few rotten apples'. It was systemic, all the way from top to bottom.
Given the nature of terrorist activity, and its hiding within the population, such actions, including profiling, would be seen as justified.0 -
Its not really like for like. There are photos of Gerry in IRA uniform and he has represented the IRA in high level meets with government.
That clearly isn't 'conviction' level evidence downcow. And there are many more allegations about Adams too.
You set the bar here remember.
So again:Speaking of honesty...do you believe by the same token (nothing of 'conviction' quality exists) that Gerry Adams is innocent of all allegations?0 -
There's a significantly different expectation on the conduct of terrorists versus state forces. I would expect any normal, unbiased person to expect a higher standard from what you would describe as a, 'legitimate democratic security force' than I would from a terrorist group. IRA atrocities don't in any way justify the actions of British state forces.
I think your description of, 'the vast majority' of security force actions being lawful and justified totally ignores a large part of the core problem. We all know about the BIG events, like Bloody Sunday, we all agree they were wrong, and we all agree that the majority of British forces were not present at Bloody Sunday or significant events like these.
When you describe the vast majority having been lawful and justified, it heavily implies a lack of awareness of the constant (and I hate to use the very modern phrase) microaggressions experienced by people from a Nationalist background. The majority of interactions that normal people had with British forces weren't huge events, they were random stops, checkpoints, how they were treated passing in the street and the likes. This isn't something that's as easy to emotionalise, because taken as standalone events, they're totally insignificant. It's small things that you can only have a deep understanding of by growing up with it.
To give a simple, regular occurring example - as I've mentioned many times, part of my family has a typical Irish surname, another part of my family has what would typically be a Protestant surname. Living along the border, checkpoints were a very regular thing of course. I could not count the number of times where the Protestant named part of the family were waved through checkpoints after a quick look at a driving license, only to have to pull in and wait a few minutes down the road, because the Irish-named family members going to the same place received very different treatment, from in depth questioning, through to full car searches with large guns being pointed at the car (which often had children in it).
These were the realities of growing up on the border. Were they, 'legal and justified'? Legal probably, yes. Justified or wrong? You can be then judge of that yourself.
The constant minor things like this festered away constantly at relations and attitudes towards British forces, slowly, as much as the 'big events' around collusion and the likes of Bloody Sunday, and these minor events were not carried out by a minority, and so, can't be hand-waved away like the big events as, 'a few rotten apples'. It was systemic, all the way from top to bottom.
Given the nature of terrorist activity, and its hiding within the population, such actions, including profiling, would be seen as justified.
Much like you say the vast majority of British forces weren't complicit in the likes of Bloody Sunday, the vast majority of Nationalists weren't in the IRA, Blanch....and the terrorists hiding within the population included those hiding within the Unionist population.
I think your bias is incredibly obvious from this post, when you suggest that hassling a car full of kids, including pointing weapons at the children, is justified because they have a, 'fenian sounding' name - as usual, the only militants you seem interested in stopping are those from the Nationalist community- that's exactly how the British forces acted in the majority of cases too....kinda the core of the problem right there.0 -
Much like you say the vast majority of British forces weren't complicit in the likes of Bloody Sunday, the vast majority of Nationalists weren't in the IRA, Blanch....and the terrorists hiding within the population included those hiding within the Unionist population.
I think your bias is incredibly obvious from this post, when you suggest that hassling a car full of kids, including pointing weapons at the children, is justified because they have a, 'fenian sounding' name - as usual, the only militants you seem interested in stopping are those from the Nationalist community- that's exactly how the British forces acted in the majority of cases too....kinda the core of the problem right there.
An abject failure and refusal to look at the base of the problem.
I thought a comment was interesting on Sean O'Rourke show this morning, a contributor said something along these lines:
'I was totally against the IRA and it's campaign but when I read the British press this week my blood bolied about their lack of care and concern for Ireland'.
What she was doing was getting at the fundamental, always present problem at the core here...partition and the selfish support of one identity.
That is why a UI vote will not solely go down pro IRA or SF lines. There are many who recognise and feel what the problem is, or has always been.0 -
Advertisement
-
The intense focus on a relatively small number of security force unlawful killings compared to the relatively bigger number of unlawful IRA actions is bizarre.
We all know that Bloody Sunday was wrong, we know there were some other incidents that were wrong, but the vast majority of security force actions on a day-to-day basis were both lawful and justified. Not something that republicans want to hear because it challenges the 800-year narrative, but true nonetheless.
That's incredibly silly B.
Let's put it this way. Which would be of greater of greater significance?
A: IRA killing 100 people
B: IRA given help by the Irish government to kill 5 people
Hopefully you'll realise that the implications are much more severe for one of the options.0 -
I did answer it. I believe Gerry adams was in the IRA. Is there evidence to convict him, much as its hard to believe, i have to assume there is not. So he will rightly not be convicted of IRA membership. same would apply in his case to the La mon massacre, the murder of jean mcconville, the cover up of child abuse, etc, etc.FrancieBrady wrote: »I think the police and army should be fully answerable for what they do.
Hiding is not acceptable.
They have for instance thwarted investigations into Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Shoot To Kill, Loughliisland etc etc
The files on Dublin-Monaghan and Belturbet bombings have been buried for a further x amount of years.
By all means do what is necessary to do your job, run agents etc etc, but you must as a state be accountable and transparent.
Could you answer this please? Just say, if you don't want to and we will move on, I can't (and I am sure readers of the thread can't) be bothered with pages of evasions and deflections.
Speaking of honesty...do you believe by the same token (nothing of 'conviction' quality exists) that Gerry Adams is innocent of all allegations?
I am not trying to be awkward and i hope that is now a clear answer for you0 -
I did answer it. I believe Gerry adams was in the IRA. Is there evidence to convict him, much as its hard to believe, i have to assume there is not. So he will rightly not be convicted of IRA membership. same would apply in his case to the La mon massacre, the murder of jean mcconville, the cover up of child abuse, etc, etc.
I am not trying to be awkward and i hope that is now a clear answer for you
Well that clears that up then. You are being willfully hypocritical.0 -
The intense focus on a relatively small number of security force unlawful killings compared to the relatively bigger number of unlawful IRA actions is bizarre.
We all know that Bloody Sunday was wrong, we know there were some other incidents that were wrong, but the vast majority of security force actions on a day-to-day basis were both lawful and justified. Not something that republicans want to hear because it challenges the 800-year narrative, but true nonetheless.
This coming from someone who self admittdely thinks killing is morally ok?(in circumstamce that remain so vague as to be widepsread)
Has the possibility that their shouldnt be soldiers on streets in ireland crossed your mind atal?
What other western country has to put up this0 -
There's a significantly different expectation on the conduct of terrorists versus state forces. I would expect any normal, unbiased person to expect a higher standard from what you would describe as a, 'legitimate democratic security force' than I would from a terrorist group. IRA atrocities don't in any way justify the actions of British state forces.
I think your description of, 'the vast majority' of security force actions being lawful and justified totally ignores a large part of the core problem. We all know about the BIG events, like Bloody Sunday, we all agree they were wrong, and we all agree that the majority of British forces were not present at Bloody Sunday or significant events like these.
When you describe the vast majority having been lawful and justified, it heavily implies a lack of awareness of the constant (and I hate to use the very modern phrase) microaggressions experienced by people from a Nationalist background. The majority of interactions that normal people had with British forces weren't huge events, they were random stops, checkpoints, how they were treated passing in the street and the likes. This isn't something that's as easy to emotionalise, because taken as standalone events, they're totally insignificant. It's small things that you can only have a deep understanding of by growing up with it.
To give a simple, regular occurring example - as I've mentioned many times, part of my family has a typical Irish surname, another part of my family has what would typically be a Protestant surname. Living along the border, checkpoints were a very regular thing of course. I could not count the number of times where the Protestant named part of the family were waved through checkpoints after a quick look at a driving license, only to have to pull in and wait a few minutes down the road, because the Irish-named family members going to the same place received very different treatment, from in depth questioning, through to full car searches with large guns being pointed at the car (which often had children in it).
These were the realities of growing up on the border. Were they, 'legal and justified'? Legal probably, yes. Justified or wrong? You can be then judge of that yourself.
The constant minor things like this festered away constantly at relations and attitudes towards British forces, slowly, as much as the 'big events' around collusion and the likes of Bloody Sunday, and these minor events were not carried out by a minority, and so, can't be hand-waved away like the big events as, 'a few rotten apples'. It was systemic, all the way from top to bottom.
I don't disagree with most of this and it is a fairly accurate description of some peoples experiences. But can you not see why it was the logical outcome of what was happening.
I grew up in a similar area and would have been on the other side. I would have experieced being treated well at checkpoints and waved through etc, but that came at its own price. The security forces felt safe socialising in the places we socialised and felt safety from our pressence in republican communities. They new if they got isolated etc they could make their way to any protestant house and they would be safe, they didn't need to know anything else about them but that they were protestant, they new we were much of their eyes to keep them safe reporting any suspicious activity that may be landmines waiting to kill them, etc, etc. They also knew that a significant % of the catholic population were out to kill them or set them up for killing.
Its the same reason you probably drank in catholic pubs and felt safer in catholic areas. Its only human. You are asking for super-humans if you want people to act exactly the same towards the community who is trying to kill them and the community who is trying to protect them.
That doesn't make it perfect but it does make it inevitable0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Well that clears that up then. You are being willfully hypocritical.
Wheres the hypocracy Francie. I am telling you Gerry adams should not be convicted of covering up child abuse, or masterminding the La Mon massacre if there is not evidence to convict him.
I am saying exactly the same about the Loughinisland killers.
I think it is the consistency that is making you uncomfortable0 -
Wheres the hypocracy Francie. I am telling you Gerry adams should not be convicted of covering up child abuse, or masterminding the La Mon massacre if there is not evidence to convict him.
I am saying exactly the same about the Loughinisland killers.
I think it is the consistency that is making you uncomfortable
So do you believe he is innocent of these allegations.
Yes or No? (Stop playing games, in other words)0 -
There's a significantly different expectation on the conduct of terrorists versus state forces. I would expect any normal, unbiased person to expect a higher standard from what you would describe as a, 'legitimate democratic security force' than I would from a terrorist group. IRA atrocities don't in any way justify the actions of British state forces.
I think your description of, 'the vast majority' of security force actions being lawful and justified totally ignores a large part of the core problem. We all know about the BIG events, like Bloody Sunday, we all agree they were wrong, and we all agree that the majority of British forces were not present at Bloody Sunday or significant events like these.
When you describe the vast majority having been lawful and justified, it heavily implies a lack of awareness of the constant (and I hate to use the very modern phrase) microaggressions experienced by people from a Nationalist background. The majority of interactions that normal people had with British forces weren't huge events, they were random stops, checkpoints, how they were treated passing in the street and the likes. This isn't something that's as easy to emotionalise, because taken as standalone events, they're totally insignificant. It's small things that you can only have a deep understanding of by growing up with it.
To give a simple, regular occurring example - as I've mentioned many times, part of my family has a typical Irish surname, another part of my family has what would typically be a Protestant surname. Living along the border, checkpoints were a very regular thing of course. I could not count the number of times where the Protestant named part of the family were waved through checkpoints after a quick look at a driving license, only to have to pull in and wait a few minutes down the road, because the Irish-named family members going to the same place received very different treatment, from in depth questioning, through to full car searches with large guns being pointed at the car (which often had children in it).
These were the realities of growing up on the border. Were they, 'legal and justified'? Legal probably, yes. Justified or wrong? You can be then judge of that yourself.
The constant minor things like this festered away constantly at relations and attitudes towards British forces, slowly, as much as the 'big events' around collusion and the likes of Bloody Sunday, and these minor events were not carried out by a minority, and so, can't be hand-waved away like the big events as, 'a few rotten apples'. It was systemic, all the way from top to bottom.
I don't disagree with most of this and it is a fairly accurate description of some peoples experiences. But can you not see why it was the logical outcome of what was happening.
I grew up in a similar area and would have been on the other side. I would have experieced being treated well at checkpoints and waved through etc, but that came at its own price. The security forces felt safe socialising in the places we socialised and felt safety from our pressence in republican communities. They new if they got isolated etc they could make their way to any protestant house and they would be safe, they new we were much of their eyes to keep them safe reporting any suspicious activity that may be landmines waiting to kill them, etc, etc. They also knew that a significant % of the catholic population were out to kill them or set them up for killing.
Its the same reason you probably drank in catholic pubs and felt safer in catholic areas. Its only human. You are asking for super-humans if you want people to act exactly the same towards the community who is trying to kill them and the community who is trying to protect them.
That doesn't make it perfect but it does make it inevitable
Thankfully you can acknowledge that a) this happened regularly and b) was wrong.
There is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario raised by your point though, Downcow. As you well know, on arrival, British soldiers were welcomed quite warmly along the likes of the Falls, as they were initially perceived to be there to protect Nationalists from treatment they received from the Loyalist community. Pretty quickly this grew frosty, and then openly hostile, due to how those same people perceived they were actually being treated by those British forces.
I suspect a more likely core reason behind the differing treatment was quite simple - the Unionist community considered themselves British, the Nationalist community considered themselves Irish, so the British soldiers from day one would've felt a greater affinity for the Unionist people they met. This very rapidly devolved into an Us vs Them scenario. Combine this with the fact that they were soldiers, not police, and the paranoia that everyone who isn't, 'one of us' is a potential enemy becomes inevitable.
My only conclusion is that soldiers shouldn't be used as a police force in a scenario like that which existed in the North.
EDIT: Just to add, no I did not ever exclusively drink in Catholic pubs, or only associate in Catholic areas. Any pubs or places I frequented, it was not on the basis of the predominant religious background of the patrons or residents.0 -
Again I can agree with much of what you say.Thankfully you can acknowledge that a) this happened regularly and b) was wrong.
There is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario raised by your point though, Downcow. As you well know, on arrival, British soldiers were welcomed quite warmly along the likes of the Falls, as they were initially perceived to be there to protect Nationalists from treatment they received from the Loyalist community. Pretty quickly this grew frosty, and then openly hostile, due to how those same people perceived they were actually being treated by those British forces.
I suspect a more likely core reason behind the differing treatment was quite simple - the Unionist community considered themselves British, the Nationalist community considered themselves Irish, so the British soldiers from day one would've felt a greater affinity for the Unionist people they met. This very rapidly devolved into an Us vs Them scenario. Combine this with the fact that they were soldiers, not police, and the paranoia that everyone who isn't, 'one of us' is a potential enemy becomes inevitable.
My only conclusion is that soldiers shouldn't be used as a police force in a scenario like that which existed in the North.
EDIT: Just to add, no I did not ever exclusively drink in Catholic pubs, or only associate in Catholic areas. Any pubs or places I frequented, it was not on the basis of the predominant religious background of the patrons or residents.
....and i did not say that you drank in eclusively catholic bars, rather my point is that you may have felt more secure during the troubles in a bar that was mostly you religious background - Well I will admit I did, and also had some scary moments in nationalist bars0 -
Again I can agree with much of what you say.Thankfully you can acknowledge that a) this happened regularly and b) was wrong.
There is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario raised by your point though, Downcow. As you well know, on arrival, British soldiers were welcomed quite warmly along the likes of the Falls, as they were initially perceived to be there to protect Nationalists from treatment they received from the Loyalist community. Pretty quickly this grew frosty, and then openly hostile, due to how those same people perceived they were actually being treated by those British forces.
I suspect a more likely core reason behind the differing treatment was quite simple - the Unionist community considered themselves British, the Nationalist community considered themselves Irish, so the British soldiers from day one would've felt a greater affinity for the Unionist people they met. This very rapidly devolved into an Us vs Them scenario. Combine this with the fact that they were soldiers, not police, and the paranoia that everyone who isn't, 'one of us' is a potential enemy becomes inevitable.
My only conclusion is that soldiers shouldn't be used as a police force in a scenario like that which existed in the North.
EDIT: Just to add, no I did not ever exclusively drink in Catholic pubs, or only associate in Catholic areas. Any pubs or places I frequented, it was not on the basis of the predominant religious background of the patrons or residents.
....and i did not say that you drank in eclusively catholic bars, rather my point is that you may have felt more secure during the troubles in a bar that was mostly you religious background - Well I will admit I did, and also had some scary moments in nationalist bars
Not really for me, Downcow. I tended towards more middle of the road bars when possible. My local was probably majority Nationalist, though by no means entirely.
Funny enough, the most uncomfortable moment I've had in any bar in the North happened quite recently, as I landed into a bar in Ards (a town I'm incredibly unfamiliar with) to get out of the rain without looking, ordered a pint of stout and began to clear my glasses off, only to look up and spot the largest UVF flag I've ever seen hanging above the bar.
A few funny looks and a quickly downed pint later, I moved on. I suspect without the giant UVF flag, I would've just considered it akin to one of those, 'local pub for local people' places and finished at a more leisurely pace, but the decor was very territorial, and given some of the background chat, I don't think my type was very welcome there.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wheres the hypocracy Francie. I am telling you Gerry adams should not be convicted of covering up child abuse, or masterminding the La Mon massacre if there is not evidence to convict him.
I am saying exactly the same about the Loughinisland killers.
I think it is the consistency that is making you uncomfortable
Tbf yous support soldier f.....a self confessed murderer0 -
The intense focus on a relatively small number of security force unlawful killings compared to the relatively bigger number of unlawful IRA actions is bizarre.
We all know that Bloody Sunday was wrong, we know there were some other incidents that were wrong, but the vast majority of security force actions on a day-to-day basis were both lawful and justified. Not something that republicans want to hear because it challenges the 800-year narrative, but true nonetheless.
Correct. I had reason to spend a lot of time in N. Ireland during the 80's and 90's, and I always found the security forces polite and respectful, even though I am a southerner. How they put up with the stress of knowing a significant % of Republicans wanted to kill them or set them up to be killed, I do not know.0 -
I live in a town with a big catholic majority. During the troubles small number of them murdered members of my community, a larger number physically attacked us and our premises and homes, a much larger and very significant number remained quiet and give tacit support to the more militant ones. Even today a very large majority of them elect some of the people who they know done the sectarian attacks to public office.
I am sitting parked now in the town and the restaurant that was ira hq is behind me, still run by the same family who ran the ira. To my left is an Irish tricolour and a Palestinian flag. In front of me is an illegal ira monument on council property to those who attacked us
I could dwell on this every day but I get on with life. Communicate and do business with my catholic neighbours (except the aforementioned restaurant).
Some of you guys need to catch yourselves on with regard to this constant harping on about how the army treated you 30 years ago and about the occasional death at their hands.
I don’t blame all the Catholics of my town for what went on and I realise they were caught up in the fear and hatred of the time.
To me the army were and always will be hero’s standing up to the men of violence. I am happy to forgive the times they got it wrong.
And as for getting a bit of gip at checkpoints because you had an Irish name. We got plenty of gip from many of the catholic neighbours because we had Scottish names. I have long since put that in context and moved on.
You guys need to move on0 -
I live in a town with a big catholic majority. During the troubles small number of them murdered members of my community, a larger number physically attacked us and our premises and homes, a much larger and very significant number remained quiet and give tacit support to the more militant ones. Even today a very large majority of them elect some of the people who they know done the sectarian attacks to public office.
I am sitting parked now in the town and the restaurant that was ira hq is behind me, still run by the same family who ran the ira. To my left is an Irish tricolour and a Palestinian flag. In front of me is an illegal ira monument on council property to those who attacked us
I could dwell on this every day but I get on with life. Communicate and do business with my catholic neighbours (except the aforementioned restaurant).
Some of you guys need to catch yourselves on with regard to this constant harping on about how the army treated you 30 years ago and about the occasional death at their hands.
I don’t blame all the Catholics of my town for what went on and I realise they were caught up in the fear and hatred of the time.
To me the army were and always will be hero’s standing up to the men of violence. I am happy to forgive the times they got it wrong.
And as for getting a bit of gip at checkpoints because you had an Irish name. We got plenty of gip from many of the catholic neighbours because we had Scottish names. I have long since put that in context and moved on.
You guys need to move on
You say this on a thread about the triumphalist celebration of something that happened in 1690 and your refusal to accept that some people don't want it anywhere near them.
What a hypocritical post. 'Move on, because you are getting too near the truth of what happened' is what you are really saying. Voiced most clearly in your support for Soldier F banners.0 -
Consistency. Move on about blood Sunday as well and forget about soldier f.FrancieBrady wrote: »You say this on a thread about the triumphalist celebration of something that happened in 1690 and your refusal to accept that some people don't want it anywhere near them.
What a hypocritical post. 'Move on, because you are getting too near the truth of what happened' is what you are really saying. Voiced most clearly in your support for Soldier F banners.0 -
Consistency. Move on about blood Sunday as well and forget about soldier f.FrancieBrady wrote: »You say this on a thread about the triumphalist celebration of something that happened in 1690 and your refusal to accept that some people don't want it anywhere near them.
What a hypocritical post. 'Move on, because you are getting too near the truth of what happened' is what you are really saying. Voiced most clearly in your support for Soldier F banners.
Just when I thought I could have a reasonable conversation with you, the switch flips and you've gone full nutter again.0 -
Consistency. Move on about blood Sunday as well and forget about soldier f.
You are asking people to move on when they haven't been told why their loved ones died. You know that is never going to work and just deepens resentment and division.
What is needed is the state to be the first to come to a Truth project and reveal all that they know about what went on.
The IRA and SF say they will take part too if that happens. It is long since time that the state, if it is an honest and responsible state do this.
If they don't then this process of dragging the truth out will continue...must continue imo.0 -
Just when I thought I could have a reasonable conversation with you, the switch flips and you've gone full nutter again.
So what is your solution. We have 3,000 £100m enquiries? Now that would be nuts.
My community is being told it’s ok for the people who killed our loved ones to tell blatant lies, like ‘I was never in the ira’, and take up the highest public office in the land while saying I left the ira in 1972.
I think some people on here think unionist hurt isn’t real.
Who are the nutters?
If you are offended by me saying forget about Bloody Sunday. Do you have no empathy or understanding how we feel when you elect the people who killed us.
Can you imagine if we were electing soldier f to first minister and naming playgrounds after him .
Try to put yourself in unionist shoes0 -
So what is your solution. We have 3,000 £100m enquiries? Now that would be nuts.
My community is being told it’s ok for the people who killed our loved ones to tell blatant lies, like ‘I was never in the ira’, and take up the highest public office in the land while saying I left the ira in 1972.
I think some people on here think unionist hurt isn’t real.
Who are the nutters?
If you are offended by me saying forget about Bloody Sunday. Do you have no empathy or understanding how we feel when you elect the people who killed us.
Can you imagine if we were electing soldier f to first minister and naming playgrounds after him .
Try to put yourself in unionist shoes
Mate yous telling people forget things and move is kinda undermined when your whole kkkulture is based around a 300 year old battle
I dont see anything wrong with holding public inquiries for anyone killed,whose relatives want one??0 -
Advertisement
-
So what is your solution. We have 3,000 £100m enquiries? Now that would be nuts.
My community is being told it’s ok for the people who killed our loved ones to tell blatant lies, like ‘I was never in the ira’, and take up the highest public office in the land while saying I left the ira in 1972.
I think some people on here think unionist hurt isn’t real.
Who are the nutters?
If you are offended by me saying forget about Bloody Sunday. Do you have no empathy or understanding how we feel when you elect the people who killed us.
Can you imagine if we were electing soldier f to first minister and naming playgrounds after him .
Try to put yourself in unionist shoes
There was a conflict/war downcow. The members of your army can return to civilian life free of any responsibility for what they did. And nobody wants (to and will actively support moves not) to hold them to account if they did wrong. There are many many instances were former BA soldiers go to the top of the tree in your state.
You are going nowhere with that further plea of victim hood.0
Advertisement