blanch152 wrote: » We are still not aware of who ordered the disapperance of Jean McConville, who were the real Birmingham bombers, who arranged the kangaroo courts for Maria Cahill etc. etc. I could give thousands of other examples. Neither SF nor the IRA are beacons of transparency and accountability.
steddyeddy wrote: » No they're sure not. We'll agree on that. I have a question though. Do you think the security forces should be held to a higher standard?
blanch152 wrote: » Yes, I do, the security forces should be held to a higher standard. That is the nature of democratic control over security forces. In many ways the failures around Bloody Sunday are more around the failures of the original enquiry. Not only was it wrong, but it set the tone. What is surprising to me is that so many republicans expect the security forces to be held to a higher standard. After all, many of them have repeatedly argued with me that there was a legitimate war and that the IRA and the British Army were on an equal footing. There is a cognitive dissonance at the heart of the republican position on accountability, but that is no surprise. Holding two opposite positions at the same time seems to be a common feature of Irish republicanism.
FrancieBrady wrote: » blanch, two posters had to ask you if you held the security forces to a higher standard so ambiguous is your position. :rolleyes:
RobMc59 wrote: » That's a load of bollocks francie and you know it-the ira aren't transparent or truthful.
blanch152 wrote: » Nothing I posted on the subject ever contradicted itself.
Matt Barrett wrote: » You know they were an illegal organisation viewed as Terrorists right? Sure the British forces behaved in a similar manner, but they had a state backing them and covering for them. A member or members of an illegal organisation wouldn't be very effective after being shot or locked up for being transparent.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Where does this leave nationalists like myself and Enda Kenny? For people who don't condone the IRA actions or support SF? You give a hell of a lot of credibility and weight to a party you seem to have issue with. Not everyone seeking to remain British supports the DUP or the UVF. How come you don't spout on about the UVF more often in these discussions? It's always people who want to remain British, verses Jean McConville, Maria Cahill and the 'RA. Apart from being disingenuous it's pretty pointless IMO.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sure, you are not legendary for having a hard-on for one party and one man, you are legendary for calling out those 'who you hold to higher standards'. Flat out opening threads about them I believe. :rolleyes:
downcow wrote: » Do you also think these 3,000 guns should also be dna tested. That may result in many empty sf seats in councils etc around the country?
blanch152 wrote: » Ah come on lads, answer the post, no need to continually deflect. Do you accept the cognitive dissonance at the heart of your arguments?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where is that im what I posted. the figures for 'civilians and children' killed by the army of the British state.
janfebmar wrote: » What has that to do with the 12th?
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » What has your endless repeated off roads into dev the Nazis the church Zimbabwe have to do with the 12th?
janfebmar wrote: » Zimbabwe was mentioned because it was Francie who proposed "relocation grants" in the event of a United Ireland, in an effort to repatriate some of the settlers overseas who did not wish to remain in a "United Ireland" , so there are obvious parallels there with what happened in Zimbabwe. The Nazis and Dev were mentioned because of Republican collaboration with them during WW2 / Sean Russell leader of the IRA etc. Why did Francie post "Where is that im what I posted. the figures for 'civilians and children' killed by the army of the British state." because he already posted about that earlier today?
Fionn1952 wrote: » I think anyone suspected of murder should face legal proceedings. End of story, no grey area, no, 'oh buts', no exceptions.
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Worth a listen. Our unionist pals here will a get a full case of the vapors if they listen but they never will even tho they should. Brendan O'Leary, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, has written a three-book treatise on the entity we call Northern Ireland that is both accessible and erudite. He talks to Hugh about the past, present and uncertain future of Northern Ireland,https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/irish-times-inside-politics/id794389685#episodeGuid=tag%3Asoundcloud%2C2010%3Atracks%2F672147965
downcow wrote: » I tried but got bored fairly early on with the nonsense. Eg in first few minutes ‘Stormont worked very well 2007-2017 until brits started brexit stuff’, lol ‘ Roi had house in order by 1930s’ lol. ‘Ni did not establish its own economy outside of uk’ lol we are part of UK ‘No significant discrimination against prods in roi’ lol. A load of nonsense based on no fact. He is clearly stinging that ni is leaving eu as part of UK and any possibility of growing closer to ui is gone forever. He is clinging to one or two way out statements. And his arrogance to tell us what way we should have voted on brexit lol
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Ps he didn’t say anything about what way NI should have voted. NI voted to remain. It’s been all over the news. Did you miss that somehow? Can’t imagine why
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Your reaction exactly as I predicted. And you know every single thing in it is true and fact and that’s why you’re saying it isn’t. In fact thats just confirmation for anyone else that it’s fact. Academics who study Their whole lives in their specialities don’t lie DC. They wouldn’t be published or respected if they did. I’ll refer you to the mans credentials posted a few posts back.
downcow wrote: » Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Ps he didn’t say anything about what way NI should have voted. NI voted to remain. It’s been all over the news. Did you miss that somehow? Can’t imagine why Don’t twist my words. I said “And his arrogance to tell us what way we should have voted on brexit lol”. He quite clearly said that unionists were wrong to vote for brexit. And wrong to oppose backstop. So maybe you will withdraw your inaccurate remark?
downcow wrote: » Don’t twist my words. I said “And his arrogance to tell us what way we should have voted on brexit lol”. He quite clearly said that unionists were wrong to vote for brexit. And wrong to oppose backstop. So maybe you will withdraw your inaccurate remark?
gwalk wrote: » Gonna answer the question that was posed to you twice on the orange order comitting and covering up rape or its it part of the culture for you all to keep hush about it?
downcow wrote: » Here’s the problem. It was a series of subjective viewpoints. He is clearly not neutral so don’t play the line that he is an esteemed academic speaking accurate facts. He is such an esteemed academic that he either doesn’t know what this place I live in is called or he is such a bigot he can’t even speak its internationally recognised name??. This from a man that says at the same time that he refuses to use term ‘brexit’ as ’ukexit’ is the accurate name ?? (ironically I can agree with him on that but his mask slips in his references to the ‘north’ - or maybe he’s referring to Donegal as being a sectarian statelet as its furthest north) Subjective nonsense, all of it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » At what point...or what has to happen for you to make voting for Brexit and against the backstop 'the right vote'? What is it you are looking for in voting that way?
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Downcow facts are not malleable things. They’re stubbornly rigid. You don’t write from an academic point of view using biase. That’s not how it works. You’re uncomfortable with the work and facts presented as they clash and confront your view of things. That’s just how life works. An adult would take an open minded view when presented with facts and realise ok. I’ve been looking at this the wrong way and now I know better. Rather than throwing a childish strop about it which you just have.
downcow wrote: » I tried but got bored fairly early on with the nonsense. Eg in first few minutes ‘Stormont worked very well 2007-2017 until brits started brexit stuff’, lol ‘ Roi had house in order by 1930s’ lol. ‘Ni did not establish its own economy outside of uk’ lol we are part of UK ‘No significant discrimination against prods in roi’ lol. A load of nonsense based on no fact.
downcow wrote: » As stated many times. I was neutral on Brexit but the arrogance of roi and eu have pushed me to a mild brexiteer position. Main reason being that if the UK don’t go through with this then eu will become even more arrogant and no nation will ever try to escape again. My problem with the backstop is the spin and lies. As if it’s only republicans feelings we have to worry about , no need to consider how unionists feel about a border in Irish Sea and the economics of it. So I feel we have to brexit for the benefit of every nation in the eu. You’ll all thank us for not giving in to the bully boys of eu They will pull their horns in after we leave, not because they need Uk, they’ll be fine without us, but because they will have to consider that if the piss off nations like Ireland etc then they might just leave to. B So I see pros and cons to being in eu and enjoy much of it. But we MUST get out or we are all screwed together.
