FrancieBrady wrote: » Oops you nearly slipped up there jh...imagine losing the abiliry to selectively pronounce the IRA still exists. Now they are 'not gone' thet are 'inactive'. I think you have exposed the ridiculousness of the selective debating of belligerent unionists/loyalists and partitionists. I have no problem accepting that the IRA gave up on removing the British by force and decided on a democratic path. Why getting a living from that is a bad thing only you can answer if you stop licking your bitter chops for a minute or two
FrancieBrady wrote: » No...lazily swallowing British/Unionist spin is the problem. Partitionists did it all through the conflict/war and indeed in the decades since partition.
RobMc59 wrote: » If the IRA leaving the theatre with their tails between their legs and their legs shaking is leaving on their own terms,then,yes I suppose they did.:rolleyes:
jh79 wrote: » Gonna assume you are referring to me. Are you saying that not being proud of the IRA means not being proud of being Irish or respecting my own people?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You guys have form for the auld spinning ROb. A scrambled retreat blessed by good luck from Europe with Hitler breathing down your necks has been spun into some heroic last stand...when the reality was it took the big boys to come and rescue youse. You can't con everyone with the spin, it only works on those too lazy to look at the facts and divested of pride in their own people and place - the stock in trade, calling card of the colonist/imperialist. The British were good at that, I'll give you that one.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The IRA left the scene on their own terms. They did exactly as they said they would if the British met their terms. The British tried to set terms but quietly dropped those terms in their desire to get an agreement. But yeh...the IRA surrendered, SF got conned something something something
jh79 wrote: » Obviously they know but all the silly word play to deflect from reality is really highlighted in a situation like this. It did bring both sides closer together but what's your point, the IRA's day didn't come if you're of the opinion they no longer exist.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Republicans KNOW it is still a part of the UK JH, they signed the agreement saying it would until the majority decided otherwise...did you fecking miss that too? Brexit showed that NI is not a 'full' part of the UK, that it HAS to be treated differently because of the GFA. The GFA that has pushed the two partitioned parts closer and closer together as Republicans and belligerent Unionists knew it would. Take the red white and blue tinted glasses off and smell the coffee.
jh79 wrote: » If anything is Brexit not a painful reminder for Republicans that NI is still part of the UK?
FrancieBrady wrote: » My point is and has been that an armed group negotiating an agreement is not a surrender in any ones eyes unless they are delusional or have nothing else to say or offer but bitter taunts. Pathetic debating JH. You are not interested in truthful or factual discussion, just petty taunting and demeaning. A bit like Gregory Campbell when he is in a corner. Even worse delusion if you watched the British get owned by an Agreement they spun as a victory (and you swallowed) over Brexit. I am having a good laugh at you and Rob trying to stay on message on that.
jh79 wrote: » What victory did i swallow over Brexit? I couldn't care less if there is a hard border, soft border or one in the Irish Sea. As long as the IRA don't come back it's all the same to me. I've no idea want Brexit has to do with my opinion that the IRA surrendered?
jh79 wrote: » Yes, the British were happy with the terms of the IRA's surrender. What's your point?
FrancieBrady wrote: » No. We all get a say when the constitutional position of NI is put to the test. I see we have made it to another 'the IRA are gone' hour because it suits. The IRA said they would disarm and disband if the British agreed to terms they approved. The British did...much to the dismay and objection of unionists. Surrender me derry air, as they say.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Decommissioning was a farce. Unionists wanted to put a hurdle in the way of SF in an attempt to collapse the GFA and the IRA called their bluff and put the ball back in their court. The biggest, most destructive, weapon the Provos had was made from off-the-shelf products and it was used to persuade the British to persuade unionists into power-sharing.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The IRA said they would disarm and disband if the British agreed to terms they approved.
jh79 wrote: » But the people of NI decide not "we". No matter how many people in the Republic want a UI it only happens if NI says so. The GFA allows for the North to remain British indefinitely yet the IRA are gone. Sounds like surrender to me or failure if you prefer.
jh79 wrote: » The GFA allows for the North to remain British indefinitely yet the IRA are gone. Sounds like surrender to me or failure if you prefer.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Because Britain will no longer defend it's interests. Which it very much did up to the GFA. It is now what it always should have been, up to the people of the island of Ireland to decide it's fate. Of course you and downcow will handwave that away as nothing but it was and is seismic. May and Johnson tested the strenght of the GFA but failed to find any wiggle room in it and had to shaft unionists instead. The 'majority' of people on this island wish to be in the EU and Britain has to accomodate that. 'We decide', not Britain. Poor old Enda and indeed Leo didnt realise the power they had and ruled out special status for NI until SF showed them the way in a series of Dail debates on the matter. The GFA was no surrender; it was an achievement that empowers and protects us to this day
jh79 wrote: » How was it a tacit withdrawal by the British after the IRA surrender? The BA were no longer required but it is still part of Britain, direct rule is possible at any time and the British decide when if at all a referendum takes place.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are so intent on demeaning you refuse to see or accept that disarming only happened when an agreement that massively advanced the interests of Irish people was achieved. No group ever went into battle saying.. 'Well, we might achieve this...or with a bit of luck we might...etc etc. The GFA is Britain's tacit withdrawal, thet have no longer got a selfish or strategic interest here and the GFA also protected the rest of us on this island over Brexit. It is a massive achievement by all who negotiated it and held strong in the face of unionist opposition to it.
jh79 wrote: » How is it hat doffing to call it surrender when a terrorist org disarms and as you claim fully disbands without achieving their singular aim?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Describe this 'surrender'? You can't because it didn't happwn except in feverish minds of the worst kind of Irish person and delusional British people. A fully armed group negotiating an agreement with a government that was previously trying to militarily defeat it is not a surrender. What you continue to reveal is a hat doffing servile mentality that swallows what colonists and imperialists want you to believe. It is evident in all colonies...the inability to shake off the inferiority complex your colonists gave you intentionally. It takes several generations for it to be shook off. Try thinking for yourself.
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: » How is it that bad doffing ? The IRA surrender without achieving a United Ireland is a fact.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Self serving deferential hat doffing as blatant as that post as I have rarely seen The combined forces of Britain and Unionism fought concession for decades until the British seen what the next stage was going to be, the campaign being fought in their back yard and economic heartland. The IRA warned them and they responded. The level of 'infiltration' mattered not a bit when it came down to it. The tragic fact is that the British only ever responded to force in Ireland Carson and Craig knew that just as the IRA did.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
