markodaly wrote: » Oh lord! Tell me exactly what results killing a 3 year old boy achieved? Be precise now. Did it free NI from the clutches of the British? Did it give the people of NI untold riches and raised their quality of life? Did it make the place un-sectarian? No, no and no is the answer to all them. Killing a toddler did nothing for Nationalists in the North. Tell me if that boy was not killed and lived, would life in NI be that much different?
What results did the killing of Lyra McKee achieve? Since we are going down the road that pretty much any unlawful killing in the name of a political goal is moral now.
Oh, softening your position now? Only a certain amount? When Lyra McKee was murdered by the New IRA you were quick out of the traps telling us all that partition killed her, not the terrorists who killed her. Victim blaming at its finest.
markodaly wrote: » Oh, softening your position now? Only a certain amount? When Lyra McKee was murdered by the New IRA you were quick out of the traps telling us all that partition killed her, not the terrorists who killed her. Victim blaming at its finest.
blanch152 wrote: » I am continually amazed at how an abstract concept such as partition (leaving aside the question of how you partition something that was never whole and united) has such an ability to plant bombs, shoot guns, kneecap teenagers, abuse kids and kidnap people in the dead of night.
Odhinn wrote: » ...no sectarianism, gerrymandering, discrimination, violence aimed at peaceful protests and activists....?
blanch152 wrote: » an abstract concept such as partition
I see sheep wrote: » 'Abstract concept' what are you on about?
blanch152 wrote: » A line on a map is an abstract concept.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Any honest assessment of that time would show that the IRA and the British had reached a stalemate in the conflict/war.
The IRA wanted their political wing to be at the negotiating table and began the bombing campaign in England. They achieved their aim, SF got to the table without the IRA having to disarm.
My opinion of killing by anyone is that it is immoral.
Partition and the holding on by the British to a part of this island is the reason what 3000 and more have died here mark. Again, how can you say otherwise.
Hamsterchops wrote: » I've heard of this suggestion before and I guess there's some merit in it, but just imagine the same Troubles breaking out in Spain for example, with the Basque separatist group ETA instead of the IRA firing the shots, would the Spanish authorities have dellt with it themselves or invited in the UN?
Dr Hillery repeated his government's request that there should be a UN peace keeping force in Northern Ireland," recorded a confidential memo of the meeting sent to the British ambassador in Dublin. "As an alternative he proposed a joint Anglo-Irish force. He asked HMG to do something dramatic to calm the situation, and suggested that the B-Specials be disarmed and disbanded, and that the programme of reforms in the north should be speeded up."
markodaly wrote: » What results have been achieved by the New IRA by the killing of Lyra McKee?
jm08 wrote: » The New IRA didn't go out to kill Lyra McKee so were not looking to achieve anything. I don't understand what point you are trying to make by asking this question.
markodaly wrote: » The PIRA didn't set out to kill Three-year-old Johnathan Ball, but they did. Does that mean the PIRA were not trying to achieve anything but the death of innocent people? Not really doing your side a service here. My question as it has always been, how did killing a 3 year old toddler help Nationalists in the North? The answer of course, it didn't. It did nothing, but we have apologists of child murderers here giving an Olympian effort in whataboutery as if killing that child resulted in something tangible.
Odhinn wrote: » Yet more intellectual dishonesty.
markodaly wrote: » The stalemate was so, since the 80's. Warrington happened in 1993. Why did the PIRA bomb it if they knew there was a stalemate. This was after the first ceasfire in August 1994 which they broke in February 1996. Warrington was in 1993. So again I ask, if the Warrington bomb never happened, would life be different for Nationalists in the North? Was killing a 3 year old boy crucil to the aims of the PIRA?
What results have been achieved by the New IRA by the killing of Lyra McKee?
The reason people died is because people killed them. That is first and foremost. the PIRA killed 2000 of those people, and killed more nationalists and Catholics than the British Security forces. They also killed more women and children than the British Security forces. As I keep saying, partition was inevitable but some hardline nutcases in Republican circles never got the memo and still live in fantasy land.
markodaly wrote: » My question as it has always been, how did killing a 3 year old toddler help Nationalists in the North? The answer of course, it didn't. It did nothing, but we have apologists of child murderers here giving an Olympian effort in whataboutery as if killing that child resulted in something tangible.
jm08 wrote: » You are still talking about the death of that 3 year old,
FrancieBrady wrote: » Because it is the nauseating thing these posters do, select victims for their 'emotive' value. No other reason. You won't find Mark or any other partitionist posters asking what benefit was the killing of 18 children (that we know about at this point) by the British Army or the killing of 120 people in a small geographical area. A sickening hierarchy of victims.
blanch152 wrote: » Nobody around here is arguing that any of the killings you mention brought results. That is the real sickening notion - killing people for results. That is what you support, the idea that killing people achieves something. It doesn't, it only adds to the total of misery, but you support it, you welcome it, you acknowledge it, you support the organisation that celebrates it, because it achieves results.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And the lies again. Where have I 'supported' killing? Again, I believe it was all wrong from the start - partition. Which you and mark agree was the right thing to do. This, despite the fact, that it only kicked an inevitable conflict down the road.
blanch152 wrote: » You crow about killings achieving results, that is support.
Many of us believe that those results would have happened much quicker without the killings. The IRA campaign intensified and deepened sectarian divisions, with the added aspect of their "community policing" imposing an apartheid in the North. As Seamus Mallon put it, the GFA was Sunningdale for slow learners, and those slow learners included Sinn Fein and the IRA. There was nothing inherently wrong with partition, it is the outdated clinging to notion of nationhood requiring territory that is commonplace on both sides of the sectarian divide that is the problem. Nobody in the world needs a united Ireland to be Irish. The Irish nation doesn't need a united Ireland to be Irish. Time you and others left the past behind.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Planting bombs is, & never was a good idea and can never be allowed to happen again! They can kill people. Oh yeah, so if we hadn't planted that bomb it might have taken us longer to get to the negotiating table, and yes it might have killed one or two, but at least we got to the table :cool:
FrancieBrady wrote: » Did the killing of Dublin Monaghan achieve results for Loyalist and the British...yes, Sunningdale collapsed. Am I crowing/supporting Loyalism and the British? Honestly I have never heard such a stupid argument in my life before. Never take 'History' as a subject blanch and mark...you'll be supporting all sorts if you do. Yeh, I hope you know by now what I think of your 'Lie down Croppy Boy and await the British to be democrats' tosh and nonsense. Even TODAY they will ride roughshod over northern Irish people to achieve their own English centric aims.
mynamejeff wrote: » how paisleyesk of you , shout down barrack and bully however id assume the irony is lost on you
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yeh, I hope you know by now what I think of your 'Lie down Croppy Boy and await the British to be democrats' tosh and nonsense. Even TODAY they will ride roughshod over northern Irish people to achieve their own English centric aims.
blanch152 wrote: » Lack of respect and tolerance for other viewpoints is one of the main characteristics of Irish "republicanism", a trait on full display here.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where is the lack of respect and tolerance? You routinely lie and misrepresent posters when it suits you, that is disrespectful.
