The glorious 12th

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?

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?

gwalk

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I think anyone suspected of murder should face legal proceedings. End of story, no grey area, no, 'oh buts', no exceptions.

I agree in principal - and I would go a step further - there should be equality with regard to pursuing people. It is irrelevant how many from particular groupings were convicted Either all individuals are pursued from the troubles or no more are pursued. Either all individuals get letters of comfort or none. Either all individuals get royal pardons or none.
Seems simple and consistent to me. Hence my belief that pursuing soldier f is wrong.

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?

Nothing. To. Do. With. The. 12th.

janfebmar

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

What has your endless repeated off roads into dev the Nazis the church Zimbabwe have to do with the 12th?

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?

janfebmar wrote: »

What has that to do with the 12th?

What has your endless repeated off roads into dev the Nazis the church Zimbabwe have to do with the 12th?

janfebmar wrote: »

What has that to do with the 12th?

Ah you want to confine a conversation that roamed all over the place because the civilian death toll of the BA gets mentioned?

Cute.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where is that im what I posted. the figures for 'civilians and children' killed by the army of the British state.

What has that to do with the 12th?

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?

Where is that im what I posted. the figures for 'civilians and children' killed by the army of the British state.

Odhinn

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?

The upshot of DNA testing and convictions will result - regardless of what crime was committed - an 18 month sentence, afaik.

blanch152

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:

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:

Ah come on lads, answer the post, no need to continually deflect. Do you accept the cognitive dissonance at the heart of your arguments?

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.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nothing I posted on the subject ever contradicted itself.

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:

James Brown

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.

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.

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

That's a load of bollocks francie and you know it-the ira aren't transparent or truthful.

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.

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.

blanch152

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:

Nothing I posted on the subject ever contradicted itself.

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.

blanch, two posters had to ask you if you held the security forces to a higher standard so ambiguous is your position. :rolleyes:

You can be a republican and or a nationalist in Ireland and not support sf or the ira

Until you stop conflating all three there’ll be nothing but nonsense about dev and Nazis.

It’s endgame for partition. It’s over.

Look forward and start carving out the place in that sphere an conversation. Unionists need to start at this now.

blanch152

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?

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.

steddyeddy

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.

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?

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you seriously expecting the IRA to reveal this stuff when nobody else is willing to reveal what they were involved in?

You really need to stop seeing one side as the principal 'culprits' blanch. Because that will never get us anywhere.

Let all come to a transparent table as players in the conflict/war and let the truth be told, the whole truth. And let the chips fall where they may, because all sides did wrong.

No, I am not seriously expecting the IRA to reveal this stuff. However, when a poster blatantly tries to make out that the IRA are paragons of "willingness to face scrutiny", I am demonstrating how out of touch with reality his posts are.

Of all the actors in Northern Ireland over the last 40 years, the IRA and Sinn Fein are the least transparent, the least willing to face scrutiny and the least accountable for what they did.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The only soldiers ending up in court are doing so after long campaigns seeking justice.
What we can compare is the willingness to face scrutiny and it is very clear that justice for victims has to be dragged kicking and screaming from the British.

It's to be expected,after all,republicans in their warped way of seeing things blame everyone except themselves for the rising tensions in NI(especially in Derry)as long as they appease the terrorists nothing will change. Btw,I was in Derry earlier this week and the amount of para flags displayed was surprising which suggests there is considerable support for soldier f there.

You could say it suggests that.....or, if you knew the place better, you might realise a VERY small group of people can put up a large number of flags.....and those people may or may not particularly care about Soldier F, but certainly care about being belligerent towards their neighbours.

This marking of territory is rife in the North, and is more akin to a dog taking a leak on a lamppost than it is any political message, Rob.

James Brown

Can we agree the great 'RA debate will go nowhere? They are stood down. We can be critical of current politicians we feel have an association but the IRA did this or did that is history regardless. The British forces have not stood down and currently operate. Also a section of Ulster is still occupied. The 12th is more about flying the flag and the tradition of doing so. Anyone who thinks its all about remembering/respecting heritage, beyond sticking it to nationalists and Catholics, is naive.

RobMc59

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you seriously expecting the IRA to reveal this stuff when nobody else is willing to reveal what they were involved in?

You really need to stop seeing one side as the principal 'culprits' blanch. Because that will never get us anywhere.

Let all come to a transparent table as players in the conflict/war and let the truth be told, the whole truth. And let the chips fall where they may, because all sides did wrong.

No, I am not seriously expecting the IRA to reveal this stuff. However, when a poster blatantly tries to make out that the IRA are paragons of "willingness to face scrutiny", I am demonstrating how out of touch with reality his posts are.

Of all the actors in Northern Ireland over the last 40 years, the IRA and Sinn Fein are the least transparent, the least willing to face scrutiny and the least accountable for what they did.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The only soldiers ending up in court are doing so after long campaigns seeking justice.
What we can compare is the willingness to face scrutiny and it is very clear that justice for victims has to be dragged kicking and screaming from the British.

It's to be expected,after all,republicans in their warped way of seeing things blame everyone except themselves for the rising tensions in NI(especially in Derry)as long as they appease the terrorists nothing will change. Btw,I was in Derry earlier this week and the amount of para flags displayed was surprising which suggests there is considerable support for soldier f there.

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