"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement

Purple said:
Just on the "Shoot to Kill" point; armed forces, including the police, are trained to shoot at the middle of the torso. They are neither trained to kill or not to kill, they are trained to hit the target.
Click to expand...
In the case of Loughall they absolutely riddled the van (if you ever saw the photo with the bars indicating the path of the bullets), and this was the SAS, reputedly a higher standard of marksman. So they knew what they were doing, but as I said I don't particularly have an issue with it since all involved were combatants in the act of combat. As regards Gibraltar, they were on foot so it may have been somewhat more feasible to arrest using non-lethal force.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
I'm all for holding security forces to account when they fall below that standard
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. They have fallen below the 'standard' set on many, many occasion and have never been held to account.
Therefore adding fuel to fire. It is no great secret that in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday attack, the subsequent demonisation of innocent victims and cover up of the truth that scores of youth lined up to join the IRA.

Duke of Marmalade said:
Firstly, whatever the chances of convicting a British soldier there is absolutely zero chance of any provo being held to account.
Click to expand...

Hundreds, if not thousands of Provos have been held to account and served long sentences in prison.
4 British soldiers have only ever been convicted.

If by that you mean Provos not holding their own to account, then as a excuse for not holding BA to account then what is the difference? Where is this 'higher standard'. It doesn't exist.
 
@WolfeTone I was explaining why SF/IRA have no fear of investigations into the past - no chance any Provos will suffer as a result. But their main reason for being so keen is the very one sided nature of the propaganda spin off. You are the perfect example of their target audience. You seem to have completely priced in all the horrendous atrocities of the PIRA to the point that a few further revelations won't faze you. But you regard every BA excess as evidence of a system of security that was chronically biased against the Catholic population and persecuted them with impunity.

You have no sense of proportion, the stats from Wiki made no impression on you at all. In fact you had cited half those stats asking "who killed the other 1800?". Maybe you failed to read the full stats as shown in Wiki and fed you own obsession that it must be the BA who killed the other 1800. Your mind is closed. So maybe after all SF are not targeting you. They are after people who have doubts but could be pushed to your grotesquely one sided narrative.
 

This is getting bizarre now.
I have made no assertion that the BA killed 1800 or anything like it. They killed 10% as you say. The reference to the 'other 1800' was to debunk the notion peddled by yourself and others that this was a one-sided affair. It most certainly wasn't.

Of those that the BA murdered, they should be held to account - this is the standard. To not apply this standard (which has been the case and now a proposed amnesty to boot) then that acts as a slap in the face for victims.

Im not talking about BA killings of IRA or any other protagonists. I'm explicitly talking about deliberate murder of civilians.

If the BA had murdered just one civilian do you think the people responsible should be held to account for that one death?
 
WolfeTone said:
I have made no assertion that the BA killed 1800 or anything like it. They killed 10% as you say. The reference to the 'other 1800' was to debunk the notion peddled by yourself and others that this was a one-sided affair. It most certainly wasn't.
Click to expand...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The thread at that stage was focussing on the culpability of the BA so I took it that the hanging question was intended to highlight that culpability rather than to play down the culpability of other players.
WolfeTone said:
If the BA had murdered just one civilian do you think the people responsible should be held to account for that one death?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And I do accept that the British security forces have some very murky deeds to their name and that there have been cover ups and collusion. Not denying any of that. I also think the announcement showed cynical timing by Bojo. But he needn't have worried - he is riding very high with the British electorate, but that is for another thread.
But your narrative prompts two reactions in me.
The first is that I think you have a very unbalanced perspective (I am sure the feeling is mutual). I speak from my own experience but I have also cited Garett's fear of a British withdrawal. This was a fear that I would have shared and which I think most people wanting an end to the nightmare or at least to see it contained would have shared. This fear of a withdrawal was despite Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy which had happened at that time. I know your preference was for Dublin to send troops into West Belfast, the rest of us know how that would have worked out.
But the reaction in me that is strongest is my revulsion at the hypocrisy of SF/IRA. What do they care about victims as they splattered body parts at Le Mon, Enniskillen, Warrington, Mullaghmore etc. They only have an eye for the propaganda possibilities for giving the needless extended campaign respectability. I doubt they even care about bringing accountability to a few British soldiers.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
But the reaction in me that is strongest is my revulsion at the hypocrisy of SF/IRA.
Click to expand...

Your disdain of all thing SF/IRA is clear. But this part of the thread emerged when @Purple posted the article that the British government is proposing to provide an amnesty for all pre-98 related killings. It has nothing to do with SF.

The British government had for 25yrs resisted the violence of the IRA.
So why in 2021 propose an amnesty?...
Duke of Marmalade said:
Absolutely. And I do accept that the British security forces have some very murky deeds to their name and that there have been cover ups and collusion. Not denying any of that.
Click to expand...

... because the murky deeds you speak were paid lip service during the conflict.
Your reversion to all things IRA when it comes to the victims of British State violence makes no sense.
The victims had nothing to do with IRA or SF. They were innocent. Their loved ones deserve to know the truth, their loved ones deserve justice. It is that simple.
Those who hold up that standard hold the high moral ground.
Those who hide behind mealy-mouth apologies and regret without trying to do all within their power to assist victims in their quest for truth and justice and simultaneously perpetuating the cover-ups do not hold any ground.

That is equally applicable in my eyes to those in SF who continue cover-ups for the IRA as those who continue cover-ups in the British government, or any other organisation or political representative of any other political party.
 
WolfeTone said:
Your disdain of all thing SF/IRA is clear. But this part of the thread emerged when @Purple posted the article that the British government is proposing to provide an amnesty for all pre-98 related killings. It has nothing to do with SF.
Click to expand...
SF are the most vociferous in their very hypocritical and faux demand for closure for the victims. What about the disappeareds?
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
What about the disappeareds?
Click to expand...

WolfeTone said:
Your reversion to all things IRA when it comes to the victims of British State violence makes no sense.
Click to expand...

If you want to discuss the disappeared I have no issue with that, but we are discussing the proposal of the British government to offer an amnesty to British soldiers engaged in killings pre-98.
It has been roundly condemned in many quarters across the political spectrum.
Unionism has broadly welcomed the move.

What is your position on this? Do you think BA soldiers (or their superiors) responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians should be held to account if those deaths are found to be deliberate?
Or do you think, as proposed, they should receive an amnesty?

After that, I'm happy to discuss the disappeared or any other injustice inflicted on innocent people by the IRA.
 
I gave @Purple a like. I am against the amnesty, which by the way is for all and has been rejected by unionism
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
I gave @Purple a like. I am against the amnesty, which by the way is for all and has been rejected by unionism
Click to expand...

Ok.
I must have misread a Unionist representation that suggested otherwise.
You are correct, opposition to this amnesty is across the political spectrum in Ireland.

Only in Tory England could is this to be welcomed - where presumably no British soldiers committed any alleged offences.

As I've said before, (Northern) Irelands interests are a distant second to Britains interests in the 'United' Kingdom.
 
Damning accounts being delivered by the families. Soldiers taunting the bereaved.
50yrs waiting for the truth.
Despicable.
 
Barely a mention on front pages of British newspapers that it's Army killed innocent civilians of its own citizens on the streets of the UK.
 
Purple said:
Interesting piece from Bertie Ahern in todays Irish Times putting the current Shinner drive for a boarder poll into a historical context.
Click to expand...

It is interesting, but I cannot understand his conclusion given his view of the deceitful nature of Llyod George and the British Administration.

"It was an imposed sectarian headcount that partitioned Ireland and, going forward, the last thing this island needs is another sectarian headcount. Right now it is not helpful to have premature demands for a border poll."

Except it won't be a sectarian headcount, as all of the people, North and South will vote. It will simply be, a headcount.
100yrs after a border that he describes as being 'vehemently opposed', engineered out of deception and political bad faith, he then jumps on the "now is not the time" brigade.

"The preparatory work needs to be undertaken and completed, setting out clearly the options and how it would work in the future."

I agree with this. It should be pointed out that unlike Brexit, for example, there is no two-year negotiation deadline for a UI should a border poll pass. Instead what should be made clear is, that if both jurisidictions vote in favour of a UI then in principle a UI should be brought into being. But there is nothing that says that that should not happen for another decade or two, or longer. Simply, the principle will have been set, the people will have voted for it, and it will be incumbent on both administrations north and south to set out the preparatory work to be undertaken to make it happen.

If, it were not to pass, either north or south or both, then it will be incumbent on those who wish for a UI to convince people to change their minds through exclusively peaceful and democratic means. But there would be no onus on the rejecting administration(s) to lay any preparatory work.

Critically however, as per the requirements of GFA which the people overwhelmingly endorsed, the precedent of self-determination will have been set.

"In my view the time for a border poll is not opportune until we reach a situation where nationalists and republicans and also a sizeable amount of unionists and loyalists are in favour of such a poll on the basis of consent."

This is just sustaining and perpetuating the unionist veto. This type of thinking needs to be smashed. 70% of people in NI voted for GFA. They are in favour of the people of Ireland alone determining their own future.
 
We need to keep the 50% +1 there, as the realistic prospect of UI may/should incentivise unionist politicians to make the 6 a more palatable place for middle-of-the-road nationalists (it'll never be enough for SF voters, and anything is too much for DUP voters, so its time to work on the centre). If you gave them a veto why would they ever change? The gerrymandered state has had 100 years to run itself properly, I'll shed no tears if it comes to an end, but my preference would be for a properly functioning and reconciled 6 counties - its debatable whether a UI would ultimately assist in that process, wouldn't in the short run I think, but again I wouldn't let that be a de facto veto.
 
Betsy Og said:
The gerrymandered state has had 100 years to run itself properly,
Click to expand...
I think that is the wrong use of the word "gerrymander". France is a very arbitrary geographical region but it has achieved political self determination because the majority of folk who live there speak French and are culturally different from adjoining countries.
Gerrymandering is were an electoral system is distorted to give a minority control as happened in Londonderry a long time ago but which patently does not apply today to the six counties.
 
Reading a bit about the era, (Ulster Unionism 2, Buckland) there were 9 county men and 6 county men, the 6 were chosen specifically to lock in a unionist majority - so specifically drawing the area to get the political outcome you want is, I think, close enough. You'd say something if the 6 were already an entity and/or were overwhelmingly unionist, leave them at it (the French equivalent). But to maximise the land while still keeping the power was not some convenient natural grouping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register