Free Leonard Hardy!

Big Bruffer

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
24
DOD said:
jjcarroll said:
Are the IRA party to the Good Friday Agreement?

Listen I'm not getting into this anymore. The purpose of the thread was to get people who were interested to take some action on it, not to get into an argument with blueshirts.
We are interested in it and we will take action to ensure truth and justice will prevail , regardless of the temporary little arrangement with the IRA
 


badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
DOD said:
badinage said:
If you think Kenya should prosecute them (because over a hundred Kenyans were killed), then are you saying that if a German citizen was killed by an IRA attack on a UK base in Germany (e.g. a civilian barman, or cleaner, employed by the MOD), that Germany should then be allowed prosecute IRA members?
I'll answer that silly little question with a question of my own. Are Al Quayeda subject to a peace agreement with America?
Are you saying that if an agreement is reached whereby Al Qaeda agree not to attack the US, in return for the US releasing its Al Qaeda prisoners, that means Kenya shouldn't prosecute those who bombed the US on its soil, killing over a hundred Kenyans?

I realise you said you're running away from this argument as you're increasingly doing on the site in general, but quite frankly you shouldn't turn up in threads and make big statements if you're not willing to defend them

(oh, and if you decide that response to your hypothetical situation is too hypothethical to be worthy of your response, you can just answer the original question: should Kenya not prosecute those who bombed the US embassy in Kenya?)
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
DOD said:
Presumably you mean you voted to change articles two and three? If not, I was unaware we were ever asked to vote for the GFA.
Well given that you didn't vote, that can be excused. However, you may want to check the exact text of what was voted on, where you'll find that you are wrong.

Doesn't green get very angry about people making this claim?

The GFA is the only argument to use. Germany should be made realise the change in the situation since the GFA.
The political situation may have changed. However, this doesn't mean that the Government is under any obligation to help this guy. Situations like this aren't spelled out explicitly under the GFA, and it'd take a pretty ropey interpretation of the Agreement to suggest that there's any need to actively intervene in this case. Interestingly, if such an obligation did exist, it would apply to both the British and Irish governments. Will Sinn Fein be lobbying Tony Blair on this issue?

You were probably right when you said that the German government wouldn't want a diplomatic row with Ireland. By the same token, the Irish government wouldn't want to start one with Germany, particularly over someone they owe absolutely nothing to. I've yet to hear you present a convincing argument about why they should.

Listen I'm not getting into this anymore. The purpose of the thread was to get people who were interested to take some action on it, not to get into an argument with blueshirts.
Guess what? You're on a discussion forum, not handing out leaflets on O'Connell Street.
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
smiffy said:
Guess what? You're on a discussion forum, not handing out leaflets on O'Connell Street.
Yes it is a discussion forum, so people are free to discuss things if they wish. However, they are also free to agree to disagree with people. I have no intention of convincing people that are opposed, I merely wanted to highlight this, so that people who are interested can take what action they wish to take. I was never under any illusion that non-shinners would be as enthusiastic about this.
 

Risteard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
456
Badboy said:
My understanding was that if the referendum had failed the GFA would have sunk with it.
Then you understand incorrectly. The late Mowlam made it quite clear that only the vote in the Six Occupied Counties mattered.

And I'm glad some of you now finally accept the fact that people in the Free State did not vote on the Stormont Agreement.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
Risteard said:
Badboy said:
My understanding was that if the referendum had failed the GFA would have sunk with it.
Then you understand incorrectly. The late Mowlam made it quite clear that only the vote in the Six Occupied Counties mattered.

And I'm glad some of you now finally accept the fact that people in the Free State did not vote on the Stormont Agreement.
What precisely was voted on then, Risteard (i.e. what question was put to the electorate of the 'Free State')?
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
DOD said:
I have no intention of convincing people that are opposed, I merely wanted to highlight this, so that people who are interested can take what action they wish to take. I was never under any illusion that non-shinners would be as enthusiastic about this.
don't you at least want to show that you have a logical, comprehensive argument, rather than one based on an emotional desire to get all Provo republicans out of jail?

My question's still waiting up there
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
badinage said:
DOD said:
I have no intention of convincing people that are opposed, I merely wanted to highlight this, so that people who are interested can take what action they wish to take. I was never under any illusion that non-shinners would be as enthusiastic about this.
don't you at least want to show that you have a logical, comprehensive argument, rather than one based on an emotional desire to get all Provo republicans out of jail?

My question's still waiting up there
I answered it with a question. Try answering it.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
I did. Its only 8 posts up for christ's sake. Its at 17.17.

But I'll repeat it anyway:

"Are you saying that if an agreement is reached whereby Al Qaeda agree not to attack the US, in return for the US releasing its Al Qaeda prisoners, that means Kenya shouldn't prosecute those who bombed the US on its soil, killing over a hundred Kenyans?

(oh, and if you decide that response to your hypothetical situation is too hypothethical to be worthy of your response, you can just answer the original question: should Kenya not prosecute those who bombed the US embassy in Kenya?)"


If you want a specific answer to your question (which was simply trying to get out of my question without answering it, which is why I didn't think it needed an actual answer), then my answer would be: I think Kenya should still prosecute them, even if the US and Al Qaeda make a deal.
 

green

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
136
Website
www.younggreens.ie
Risteard said:
And I'm glad some of you now finally accept the fact that people in the Free State did not vote on the Stormont Agreement.
"Some of you" seems to equal DOD and Badboy. They are wrong.

Not in any propagandistic, anti-Shinner, open-to-interpretation sense - just wrong. As are you, Risteard, as I pointed out on another thread somewhere.

See here for the Act by which the Irish people voted. I really don't understand the confusion, it states in black and white that the Irish electorate voted to change Articles 2 and 3 pursuant to the conditions mentioned in the Act, and Article 29 (which specifically mentions the "British-Irish Agreement").
 

Risteard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
456
As I have said, the Brits made it quite clear that the result of the referendum in the 26-Counties was inconsequential. Also the Irish people were not acting as a single unit, and the Stormont Agreement was presented as war v. peace. They were not asked if they wanted a united and independent Ireland or not.

It also ignores the lesson of history, which is that English rule will always be resisted through force of arms, and as such the Stormont Agreement could not and would not deliver the "peace" promised.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
Risteard said:
As I have said, the Brits made it quite clear that the result of the referendum in the 26-Counties was inconsequential. Also the Irish people were not acting as a single unit, and the Stormont Agreement was presented as war v. peace. They were not asked if they wanted a united and independent Ireland or not.

It also ignores the lesson of history, which is that English rule will always be resisted through force of arms, and as such the Stormont Agreement could not and would not deliver the "peace" promised.
All of which is irrelevant to the fact that you were factually wrong in your statement that the electorate of the 'Free State' did not vote on the Good Friday Agreement.
 

Risteard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
456
I didn't say I accepted his conclusions.
 

thegeneral

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
156
This thread simply reeks of hypocrisy.
 

thegeneral

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
156
ON THE ONE ROAD said:
think some sort of truth commision could be good for some people, personal view.
The shinners would never agree to that. You'd be able to have kittens before they'd agree to that one.
 

Justin

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
60
thegeneral said:
ON THE ONE ROAD said:
think some sort of truth commision could be good for some people, personal view.
The shinners would never agree to that. You'd be able to have kittens before they'd agree to that one.
You say that as if the British and Irish goverments would be ok with the idea.
 

Bogwarrior

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
322
Look, can we just erase this "Truth Commision" idea from our heads. Do we really believe the likes of Johnny Adair are actually gonna speak the truth, just because it's a Truth commission.
The situation in South Africa was different. The ANC achieved their demand, (an end to Apartheid), and the struggle ended. THAT my Shinners friends is conflict resolution.. We do not have conflict resolution, nor even a process of conflict resolution. Republicans have not achieved any of their demands, and the causes of conflict remain.
I really believe the only benefitors from any such hearings will be the greedy lawyers and barristers.. Look at the many Tribunals in the 26 counties. Has this benefitted the public in any way?
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
It's pure window dressing, like most of the process.
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top