Unquiet graves RTE 1 tonight.....9.30pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There is no dealing with unionism in its current form. After a UI vote passes the never-never-never crowd become irrelevant overnight and you do business with whoever steps forward to take unionism into a new Ireland.

Bringing the people of the north into a UI will provide many opportunities to make a fairer country for everyone.

Ya I can see that 50% plus 1 being a success

Edgware wrote: »

Ya I can see that 50% plus 1 being a success

There will be a resettlement programme for unionists, some of the republicans on here have already promised that. In other words, if they don't like it, they can fu@k off somewhere else.

That is the republican mentality.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thousands upon thousands of stories like this. That is why there is such fear of a return to a hard border, because this kind of stuff will escalate and escalate again.

Questions were asked in the HOC about an incident here when a much tortured football team (held up and detained over many many years going to games and individually) got out of their cars and buses en masse after being detained coming back from a dinner dance and had a fist fight with the soldiers. I believe it was like something out of the wild west.

That kind of behaviour always always boils over. And it will again.

Was that team Crossmaglen Francie? I remember that checkpoint as a kid when many went up from the south to shop in Newry, the army there were arseholes, they would be rifling through your Woolworths bags of shopping just to hold you up for half an hour. The way they treated people was atrocious.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thatcher went to Oxford and was aware that her government were involved in killing innocent people. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/thatcher-aware-of-collusion-before-taking-office-1.781475

Failure to act on concerns about loyalist infiltration into the security forces would be negligence rather than malice. The only incident in which she authorised the killing of other human beings is the sinking of the Belgrano.

There is a problem with the definition of collusion - only one who acts with malice aforethought could be guilty of it, and it doesn't even exist as an offence in law! It's a bit like saying that bankers who gave mortgages without checking customers' personal finances are criminals even though what they did was not illegal.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Was that team Crossmaglen Francie? I remember that checkpoint as a kid when many went up from the south to shop in Newry, the army there were arseholes, they would be rifling through your Woolworths bags of shopping just to hold you up for half an hour. The way they treated people was atrocious.

No, a small team in the Drumully Salient in Monaghan. Tight boys to be in a scrap with...I believe it was some sight to see.
Anyone in the GAA would remember being held up crossing the border routinely on championship Sundays. They just did it to infuriate and annoy.

political analyst wrote: »

Failure to act on concerns about loyalist infiltration into the security forces would be negligence rather than malice. The only incident in which she authorised the killing of other human beings is the sinking of the Belgrano.

There is a problem with the definition of collusion - only one who acts with malice aforethought could be guilty of it, and it doesn't even exist as an offence in law! It's a bit like saying that bankers who gave mortgages without checking customers' personal finances are criminals even though what they did was not illegal.

killing people is illegal. security forces bound to the law giving (usually) inaccurate info to loyalist kill squads is illegal. doesnt matter how many mortgages you want to check.

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again the mask slips to reveal a republican bent on getting his pound of flesh, rather than any attempt to reach out.

Not surprising, join the ranks, there are plenty of you around here.

Ha ha ha...that one went right over your head.

Odhinn wrote: »

??????

Well, the Catholic Church is big on the sanctity of human life - just saying!

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again the mask slips to reveal a republican bent on getting his pound of flesh, rather than any attempt to reach out.

Not surprising, join the ranks, there are plenty of you around here.

ah blanch great to have you back. Now I'll ask that question for this third time seeing as you somehow missed it twice already. If you knew who the loyalist terrorists were who planted the Dublin and Monaghan bombs that killed 33 Irish citizens would you take that information to the Gardai?

political analyst wrote: »

John Weir is a convicted sectarian murderer. Why are so many people willing to believe his school-massacre plot claim? If there was a shred of truth in that accusation, he would have said it before he stood trial over 20 years ago.

Justice for the Forgotten isn't doing itself any favours by allying itself with Gerry Adams.

we believe him because the british are capable of such tactics and would have engaged in such a plot if they felt it would have benefited them.
remember that empire fever and belief in the empire was still quite large scale in the british government during the early years of the conflict at least and there was a want to keep hold of what remained of it by whatever means necessary.
nothing wrong with alining with gerry adams, he was a legitimate politician and is not guilty of any of the claims made against him, since if he was he would have been before the courts.

political analyst wrote: »

Why would senior British military personnel want to increase the level of violence in Northern Ireland anyway? It wouldn't be in the British government's interests to do that. Plotting such acts isn't the done thing at Sandhurst.

The death toll of the Troubles would've been far higher if the British Army had been withdrawn from Northern Ireland in the 1970s.

it actually would have been in their interests, they would have had cause in their mind to engage in a full scale invasion, slaughter the whole of the catholic population and then ultimately keep northern ireland as it was with no investment or oversite, but continue to benefit from what bit of strategicimportence it did bring at that time.
actually the deaths in the troubles probably would have been a lot less had the british army not been involved and instead a peace keeping force made up of forces from other independent countries been put in place.
really though a proper non-sectarian police force would have been capable of doing the job, as really this was a policing issue rather then a military one.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ha ha ha...that one went right over your head.

McMurphy wrote: »

**Woosh**

:pac:

Yes, I had an inkling that you and your fellow travellers and thankers would see that post as a joke.

However, that is the type of humour that sees a lad put a Kingsmill loaf on his head and thinks he is funny. A sick twisted sense of humour.

The two lads leading the hilarity don't surprise me.

political analyst wrote: »

From 1972, the "civil power" was the British government itself. Direct rule brought repeal of Stormont laws that discriminated against Catholics.

I acknowledge there were high-level agents run by MI5, the FRU and RUC Special Branch inside Loyalist groups - and also inside the IRA. Therefore, Special Branch's and British intelligence's were not sectarian-motivated, in all fairness.

By the way, the Stevens Report isn't about the Glenanne Gang.

they were very much sectarian, as their operations in the IRA were about getting information so as to benefit their loyalist proxies.

blanch152 wrote: »

There will be a resettlement programme for unionists, some of the republicans on here have already promised that. In other words, if they don't like it, they can fu@k off somewhere else.

That is the republican mentality.

no "mentality" about it at all, it's a simple recognition that some unionists will never want to be part of a UI, so a program to help them to settle in britain where they wish to remain part of is proposed, and i have no doubt some will take up that offer.
republicans don't want these people to be forced out of the country, they simply recognise that some won't want to remain here and believe they need to be helped to resettle rather then simply abandoned.
just shows once again how modernist and forward thinking republicans are and why we are people for the many and not the few.

McMurphy wrote: »

:pac:

Might be best to admit you didn't see the error you made in failing to spot the irony in what you thought you castigated chief, might look better on your character than crying foul when no foul was committed.

Anyways, now folk seem to have your attention, I believe there was a question asked (numerous times) of you that you either seem to have missed, or else flat out ignored.

I have no idea of the relevance of that question to any discussion on here.

political analyst wrote: »

Failure to act on concerns about loyalist infiltration into the security forces would be negligence rather than malice. The only incident in which she authorised the killing of other human beings is the sinking of the Belgrano.

There is a problem with the definition of collusion - only one who acts with malice aforethought could be guilty of it, and it doesn't even exist as an offence in law! It's a bit like saying that bankers who gave mortgages without checking customers' personal finances are criminals even though what they did was not illegal.

given it was thatcher, malice was more likely.
the sinking of the Belgrano is the only incident she ordered the killing of human beings that we can absolutely prove.
however, there are other killings which are likely to have been ordered by her which sufficient evidence isn't available to show, but it is well known that she is likely to have ordered, and been very capable of ordering.

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again the mask slips to reveal a republican bent on getting his pound of flesh, rather than any attempt to reach out.

Not surprising, join the ranks, there are plenty of you around here.

no, he's simply pointing out the irony of what people like you stand for as part of your politics.
how you engage in fo-outrage about people proposing something to help some unionists, yet would engage in the same if they just abandoned them, yet say nothing about nationalists being abandoned when partition was created.
no mask to slip on the republicans part, i'm afraid.

blanch152 wrote: »

I have no idea of the relevance of that question to any discussion on here.

So for the third time you refuse to answer a very simple question as to whether or not you would go to the Gardai with information about who the loyalist terrorists were that planted bombs that killed your fellow Irish citizens. I find that stunning really.

A new question for you blanch- are you a sympathiser of loyalist terrorism against Irish citizens?

political analyst wrote: »

That's a load of bull.

it's not.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's very concerning that there appears to be a hardcore of anti-Republican Irish people that would collaborate with Unionists in an attempt to prevent a United Ireland.

Well if FG are stupid enough to ignore what the Irish people are telling them, hell rub it up them.
They accept that fiscally they have the best handle on the economy but look what happened when they suggested a state commemoration of the Black and Tans. the quickest about face by a government that has ever been seen such was the outrage.

smurgen wrote: »

The logical explanation is that he's xenophobic against Irish citizens and supports loyalist terrorists.

Or he is on another thread defending his beloved green party after one of their members said not to use big words when talking to rural people and travellers or it could be just his hate for anyone or anything that is opposite to the government stance.

political analyst wrote: »

Weir's 'school massacre plot' claim is just that - a claim. The British authorities didn't do in Northern Ireland what they did in Kenya and Aden because Northern Ireland is part of the UK - so it's not a colony.

it was a colony because it didn't remain part of the uk by choice, but via the threat of violence upon the irish nation. not to mention that it is part of the uk in name only, the british don't really care and never have done so really, they only kept it because at the time it was strategically important with the likes of belfast and it's industries. when all of that wained somewhat they were in a position where they had no real balls to pull out, hence the GFA.
the british didn't do all of what they did in other countries in northern ireland because it would have finished them as a nation. it's much easier to hide behind proxies and engage in collusion and get away with it then sending troops in to slaughter whole scale or get your proxies to engage in a large massacre. after all it was the 1970s now and the modern media were on the rise, so it would not have been as possible to hide the old ways from the public like it once was, bloody sunday being proof of this among others.
the claim about the school massacre i have no doubt is absolutely true given the history of the british army throughout the colonies.