FrancieBrady wrote: » How predictable again. No comment on the topic but you arrive to have a go at a poster.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » How is pointing out that you are wrong now considered "having a go" at a poster?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You made NO comment on the topic of the thread and called me out for not doing something that has nothing to do with the thread. Your desire to get at me was bigger than your desire to comment on the topic. Weird tbh.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » You told a lie, I corrected you.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Who is allowed to kill civilians because they have come under attack elsewhere? And why does that vindicate what happened n Bloody Sunday which the British government has accepted was wrong and a crime? How is over 40 years of whitewashing and avoiding of delivering justice right for a state to be involved in. Do you think a state should be held to a higher account than paramilitaries or are they allowed to behave in the same way as paramilitaries if it suits them. I.E. DO you think it fundamentally important for the future to establish that distinction or are you happy to allow them behave to the same standard. The answering of those questions might help keep you on topic.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » America? Israel? As I said, you told I lie and I was just correcting you, no need to get upset over it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » We get it. You think the State is the same as paramilitaries. Paramilitaries who were caught faced the full force of the law, something you also seem to ignore.
blanch152 wrote: » P.S. Your last sentence is another full-blown lie, one of hundreds that you have peddled on this site, all in the cause of defending criminality, because even the paramilitaries who were caught were released early under the GFA.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If the last sentence is a lie. Explain how. *You tell your consistent lies in the rest of your post in order to attack me. I have never condoned the actions of paramilitaries and my position is that what happened here was wrong from the very beginning. The state ignoring it's responsibilities and becoming a player in the conflict/war and shoring up a sectarian bigoted statelet, being a major contributory part of that wrong. Bloody Sunday was one instance of that.
blanch152 wrote: » You said that those paramilitaries who were caught faced the full force of the law. They didn't, they got an amnesty, they got early release. Stop with the lies and propaganda and accept the truth.
blanch152 wrote: P.S. Your last sentence is another full-blown lie, one of hundreds that you have peddled on this site, all in the cause of defending criminality, because even the paramilitaries who were caught were released early under the GFA.
blanch152 wrote: All criminals should be brought to justice, no matter who they are, and regardless of any so-called amnesties or any embarrassment to others, including governments.
blanch152 wrote: All of the actions of the PIRA were criminal. No ifs, buts or maybes to that.
blanch152 wrote: Some of the actions of the British Army were criminal, others were completely justifiable on the basis of the democratic legitimacy of State security forces. I am not going down the road of discussing which were and which weren't with you, as that only opens up another rabbit-hole to a warren of whataboutery and dissembling.
blanch152 wrote: We have been over this ground with you many many times before, and you refuse to accept the realities and the reasonable sensible perspective.
Miniegg wrote: » Do you accept that the people killed on Bloody Sunday (and at Ballymurphy) were innocent British? Do you think the British government should have the right to murder its own innocent citizens? Do you think it is OK for the British government to cover up the murders, and to smear the victims? Do you think it is OK for the British government to shield a murderer of innocent British citizens (who acted in the government's name) from prosecution.Anything else being mentioned here is deflection and irrelevant, and a tacit acknowledgement that the above is acceptable.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, an agreed amnesty AFTER they had faced the full force of the law, were found guilty and sentenced. Nobody outside prison got an 'amnesty'. You are once again mis-informed, willfully or otherwise. No lie. Do you think, like Unionists, that the state should also receive an amnesty?
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.
blanch152 wrote: » Which bit of they didn't get to serve their full sentences means that they are not facing the full force of the law do you not understand? Here, mass murderer, you are facing the full force of the law but we are letting you out after 1 year instead of 40, but you faced the full force of the law. That is nonsense. As to your second question, again which bit of "All criminals should be brought to justice, no matter who they are, and regardless of any so-called amnesties or any embarrassment to others, including governments" which I posted earlier, do you not understand?
FrancieBrady wrote: » When will the Irish government vociferously call them out on this - 'reasonable prospects' on a postcard please.
steddyeddy wrote: » That's funny B. The person who did this: Never had the chance to be released as he never seen jail. His victims, unlike those of the Birmingham pub bomber were accused of being in the IRA and deserving it. The British state gave Dave Cleary (soldier F) medals for participating in armed conflict in Northern Ireland.
FrancieBrady wrote: » They kill civilians Timberrrrr, are you saying it's allowed/right to do that? Does it excuse the British here...what are you saying bar having a cheap snipe at a poster?
Frankie Machine wrote: » Did none of the victims hold Irish passports ?
Frankie Machine wrote: » The point of my asking the question was the assertion that... ... which in technically not true anyway. If any of the victims were Irish passport holders, then it certainly has a lot to do with the Irish government.
johnsae2231 wrote: » Absolute rubbish, sad to think there are many privileged snobs like this still around with attitudes like that.Back then all of Ireland was claimed by the republic of Ireland, which in effect made us occupied, innocent Irish teenagers killed in occupied territory by a foreign army. How could you say it has nothing do with the Irish government you clearly have no idea how big a deal bloody Sunday was in the republic, the 26 counties came to standstill for days the biggest protests in europe since WW2 were going on.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Have they been bought to task for it? Of course I'm not saying it's right, I've already made my thoughts clear on this but you already know that.
ec18 wrote: » to be clear. I don't condone the action and believe that they should be prosecuted for their actions. However Britain murdering it's own citizens is a problem for them, not a quagmire that the the republic should wade into willingly. I don't appreciate being called a snob for having a different viewpoint from you. The only people that truly believe the part highlighted above are SF/IRA sympathisers
FrancieBrady wrote: » There are 3 groups interested in vindicating what happened on Bloody Sunday for their own and crossover reasons: The British Establishment/Government Irish Unionists Irish partitionists. You can see two of those groups operating their 'look over there' dilution and excusing on this thread.With the British intent on leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR and operating at time akin to a rogue nation, now more than ever, it is important to establish the principle that the state is held to higher account than transitory paramilitary groups.
FrancieBrady wrote: » They FACED the full force of the law when caught. NO LIE. If you want to discuss what happened after that...legally and within the law incidentally - that is a different matter and DOES NOT vindicate the British state which is your prime and sick motive to be on this thread.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I'll rephrase the question you are too cowardly to answer without pointing elsewhere.Is the state above paramilitaries or the same?
johnsae2231 wrote: » 26 Innocent Irish men and boys shot and 2 ran down by British Army vehicles in occupied territory 14 people dead, any decent Irish person would find this more abhorrent than any killings by loyalists or Republicans as it was commited by a foreign army occupying our land and the killers were then decorated by the Queen for their "good work". For the eneducated people on here who will be thinking "we were not occupied" Article 2 of our constitution at the time said The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas. The partition of our island was done against the will of the vast majority of the people of Ireland under the threat of "immediate and terrible war".
blanch152 wrote: » We are now fully back to 19th century thinking.
blanch152 wrote: » More peddling of lies.
FrancieBrady wrote: » More peddling and refusal to answer the question. Is the 'state' to be held to the same standard as a paramilitary force? Yes or no will do blanch. So far, apart from the vitriol because somebody has a different opinion, you have only managed to say they are the same. We know all crime must be prosecuted by the way, so no need to point that out again. Just deal with the premise you are being asked about.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a24ae1e452bf8572806fd01e7fa8ecf5.svg)
