FrancieBrady wrote: » It's more likely the British establishment has been infiltrated given the path they are on. How many times have they and Unionists have their asses handed to them in the last few years, by everyone from the Rooskies, to the EU to the Yanks.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's an old story meant to mollycoodle unionists who think that Britain hold all the aces. They had a couple of spies...'completely infiltrated' is a load of unsustainable nonsense and codswallop.
downcow wrote: » you really do struggle with questions. I did not ask you if you would accept it, I asked you the same question as you asked me i.e. would you want it?
Well I do not sectarianise Northern Ireland quite as much as you. Of course there are differences between Northern Ireland nationalists and Northern Ireland Unionists, and of course there are differences within these blocks, and within the many other communities in Northern Ireland. I do believe though there are much greater differences between the people who have shared a place in the North which has came through 40 years of sectarian conflict compared to the people in the south who have not really been touched by it.
How about answering my question?
RobMc59 wrote: » It gets even worse for the terrorists as their paranoia knew no bounds,they turned on innocent people in their determination to rule by fear and intimidation.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/30/some-of-iras-victims-mistakenly-killed-as-informers-files-show
jh79 wrote: » I'd imagine that when it comes to spies it's quality not quantity. Donaldson and Stakeknife were pretty high up in the IRA. Also the rumours about Adams informing on the Tyrone and Armagh factions who wanted to continue fighting. Plausible enough that Mi5 had influence given the IRA ultimately surrendered and former members such as Gerry Kelly now work for the British.
RobMc59 wrote: » Many organisations in many different countries have been infiltrated down the years.This is successful if the infiltration goes undetected and is able to continue. Do you really think the British have`nt infiltrated current organisations they see as potentially hostile?
FrancieBrady wrote: » The 'surrender' that saw a British PM (John Major) quietly drop his demand that the IRA surrender their armaments? I don't think I have to point to hard to show somebody who has swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker.
jm08 wrote: » Why can't the British just mind their own bloody business and just stop all this cloak and dagger stuff? The British Gov. are really poor negotiators because they are so reliant on all this james bond cloak and dagger stuff that at this stage they have no idea who their friends are and they are just making their real friends and alies hostile to them.
jh79 wrote: » They did in the end and the British are still in NI with SF on their payroll.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And the British ended something that they steadfastly refused to do that cost many many lives. The Unionist veto and consequently the bigoted sectarian state. Something they could have done in 1969 had there not been a surplus of hat doffing apologists for the British colonial system. Those people who believe anything the British have to say about their colonies and the people of them. They did the same thing almost everywhere they have been, so you go ahead believing the spin and propaganda without any filter of doubt. Ultimately who cares, what you believe? The reality is that NI is a better place than it was in 69 and is heading only in one direction...propaganda or none.
jh79 wrote: » GFA worked out well for the British to be fair. A few million a year in wages to SF to maintain the status quo in a peaceful manner.
jh79 wrote: » I agree it's in a far better place but heading in only one direction? It's entirely plausible that there will never be a referendum on a UI.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The reality is that NI is a better place than it was in 69 and is heading only in one direction...propaganda or none.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Can you address the question that downcow ran a mile from? How is it, if the British were happy with the GFA that it was the British side that hated it most and railed against it from day one? From the UUP at times to the belligerence of the DUP who have never accepted it to elements of the Tory party like Michael Gove. Kicking and screaming is the analogy most suited to their reactions...yet now you are trying to play it as win to taunt people. (taunting which is not achieving it's aim by the way, having a great laugh at it here, actually )
jm08 wrote: » Do they still want to be in Northern Ireland with SF on their payroll?
jh79 wrote: » You'd have to ask them. Given that it's 20+ years later, the IRA are gone and SF are on the same payroll as them it is possible that their opinion of the GFA with hindsight is different now.
RobMc59 wrote: » What's not to like about it?The British are happy with it and have SF and the IRA in the palm of their hand, Ireland are happy with it.Its probably only disgruntled extremist republicans unhappy.
FrancieBrady wrote: » But it isn't, Gove has never retracted his views and the DUP certainly haven't accepted and signed up to the GFA. Not sure what the taunt is in 'SF are on the payroll' is. Are you suggesting that people are bought off in the British system government? Is it ok for me to now taunt the British on their high moral ground stance of 'never negotiating with terrorists' for throwing Unionists under a bus and giving into 'the terrorists' demands? Is that the level of debate you are looking for?
jh79 wrote: » SF are not like other British political parties so in my opinion they have been bought off given what they claim to represent.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What do they claim to represent?
jh79 wrote: » Sorry, represent isn't the best word to use. Should of said the principles they claim to hold. For a start they are supposedly anti partition yet facilitate partition. They are on the poilce board of a force they would claim belongs to an occupying force .
FrancieBrady wrote: » A force they had radically reformed and restructured first? No need to go any further jh...you are one of that breed that allows no win for Irish republicans no matter what direction they go in. Utterly pathetic tbh.
jh79 wrote: » I'm obviously glad the IRA gave up and fair play to SF for reforming the PSNI / RUC for the British. The GFA has been a massive success irrespective of whether or not it leads to a UI but i still think the MLA salaries and pensions and community worker jobs were a big enough carrot for the IRA to surrender their arms and disband.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The reasonable view is that both sides realised that a stalemate had been reached. When the British ended the Unionist veto (by the even more hated than the GFA) with the Anglo Irish Agreement the way was clear for a negotiated settlement that will lead to a UI if that is what a majority want. Adams insistence on a 'British intention to withdraw and a statement of no selfish or strategic interest' being included in the GFA are what ensured that the Hume - Adams talks succeeded where Hume had failed before. When that was achieved IRA disarmament and British de-militarisation (as critical to success IMO) followed
jh79 wrote: » The Military were only there because of the terrorists so i wouldn't describe that as a victory.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
