• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




Unionists seethe with rage at Martin McGuinness' headstone

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,379
So essentially you are excusing state sanctioned murder as a means to an end? What, then is the difference between the 'security forces' and the 'terrorists'?

I, personally, did not call for any files to be released. But, there has been numerous calls for truth and reconciliation commissions for a number of years. It would be a long and difficult process for all involved, but, I do believe that it would help this place to move forward
The difference is the State represents all of us and their duty is to protect us. To do that they must use whatever methods necessary. They obviously fought the IRA with one hand tied behind their back.

Terrorists represent a tiny minority who have essentially elected themselves. Their motive is to gain power for themselves by overthrowing the democratically elected government or in our case getting them to pull out and leave the Unionists at the mercy of the IRA. To achieve that they carry out atrocities. They murder civilians and protect no one. They bomb, shoot ,kidnap, torture and disappear people.

The question you have to ask is what would a reasonable man do when he is under attack by terror gangs?
 


hollandia

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
30,893
The difference is the State represents all of us and their duty is to protect us. To do that they must use whatever methods necessary. They obviously fought the IRA with one hand tied behind their back.

Terrorists represent a tiny minority who have essentially elected themselves. Their motive is to gain power for themselves by overthrowing the democratically elected government or in our case getting them to pull out and leave the Unionists at the mercy of the IRA. To achieve that they carry out atrocities. They murder civilians and protect no one. They bomb, shoot ,kidnap, torture and disappear people.

The question you have to ask is what would a reasonable man do when he is under attack by terror gangs?
That question, is one many "terrorists" have asked themselves to justify their position. 4/10.
 

Commander of the North

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
948
The difference is the State represents all of us and their duty is to protect us. To do that they must use whatever methods necessary. They obviously fought the IRA with one hand tied behind their back.

Terrorists represent a tiny minority who have essentially elected themselves. Their motive is to gain power for themselves by overthrowing the democratically elected government or in our case getting them to pull out and leave the Unionists at the mercy of the IRA. To achieve that they carry out atrocities. They murder civilians and protect no one. They bomb, shoot ,kidnap, torture and disappear people.

The question you have to ask is what would a reasonable man do when he is under attack by terror gangs?
For starters Novos, the state never represents all of us.

If it is a democratically elected government,it will only have had the support of a percentage of the nation they claim to represent. the current Tory govt only represents the 36.1% that voted for them. Meaning a majority of the electorate did not want them. Dictatorships generally tend not to be widely supported by the citizens under such leaderships.

Atrocities have been carried out by many 'legitimate' armies. Many, by British and US troops. They have been found to use 'enhanced' interrogation methods (read 'torture'), they imprison 'suspects' without evidence or trial (internment in Ireland, Guantanamo and the British invention of the concentration camp)
There have been numerous mass murders by state forces. But, I don't think even you could could believe that wearing a uniform justifies actions like these.

Also, as holls has already stated, the question you put to the forum at the end, is widely used to justify armed uprisings and revolutions.
 

Craigmore..

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2013
Messages
5,534
Christian? LMFAO

Mahatma Gandhi — 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

Theloner shall leave it at that, have you not a Sabbath to observe?
I dont hold alliance to any NI politicos,if you do, you are just a bigger part of the Jeremy Kyle show.
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,379
For starters Novos, the state never represents all of us.

If it is a democratically elected government,it will only have had the support of a percentage of the nation they claim to represent. the current Tory govt only represents the 36.1% that voted for them. Meaning a majority of the electorate did not want them. Dictatorships generally tend not to be widely supported by the citizens under such leaderships.

Atrocities have been carried out by many 'legitimate' armies. Many, by British and US troops. They have been found to use 'enhanced' interrogation methods (read 'torture'), they imprison 'suspects' without evidence or trial (internment in Ireland, Guantanamo and the British invention of the concentration camp)
There have been numerous mass murders by state forces. But, I don't think even you could could believe that wearing a uniform justifies actions like these.

Also, as holls has already stated, the question you put to the forum at the end, is widely used to justify armed uprisings and revolutions.
Like it or not the State is all of us and the Government represent all of us whether we like it or not. The method used to elect the government is as I have been told many times the only one we have.
The Security Forces have a democratic mandate from the Government and they must use it to protect life. If that involves armies killing people that is also has a mandate as long as long as it is to protect us. The purpose of the Security Services is not to kill people but to protect them.
The IRA murdered people. The IRA didn't have a mandate. The IRA were not here to protect anyone. They brought death on Catholic Community.
The IRA did not behave like a "reasonable man" (which is a legal term) used to define reasonable behavior.
The PIRA did not form because they were under attack from the Brits. The formed to try and bring a UI by force against the democratic wishes of the majority. Brits out was the cry. When their meeting in in 1972 to demand British withdrawal was rejected they attacked the Men, Women and Children of Belfast with 23 Car Bombs in a 2 hour period. They set off bombs in crowded restaurants and hotels. Their modus operandi was to kill civilians.

Those ar not the actions of a "reasonable man".
 
Last edited:

mac tíre

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
8,450
Their modus operandi was to kill civilians.
They weren't very good at that then if that was their modus operandi since 2/3 of those they killed were not civilian.

British forces had a better rate at just over 1/2 of those they killed being civilian.

British forces' brothers-in-arms, Loyalism, well, it wins hands down in the modus operandi of wiping out civilians.
 

Cai

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
7,970
So essentially you are excusing state sanctioned murder as a means to an end? What, then is the difference between the 'security forces' and the 'terrorists'?

I, personally, did not call for any files to be released. But, there has been numerous calls for truth and reconciliation commissions for a number of years. It would be a long and difficult process for all involved, but, I do believe that it would help this place to move forward
I always assumed that paramilitary 'crimes' had been investigated at the time they were committed while ones committed by the British military weren't - hence the difference in current investigation processes.
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,379
They weren't very good at that then if that was their modus operandi since 2/3 of those they killed were not civilian.

British forces had a better rate at just over 1/2 of those they killed being civilian.

British forces' brothers-in-arms, Loyalism, well, it wins hands down in the modus operandi of wiping out civilians.
I didn't claim they were good at anything. They and the Loyalist Paramilitaries spend their time sending messages to each other using the murders of innocent civilians. The loyalists said they would kill Catholics every time the IRA killed members of the Security Forces and to be fair to them they usually did. When the IRA stopped , they stopped.
 

Commander of the North

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
948
Like it or not the State is all of us and the Government represent all of us whether we like it or not. The method used to elect the government is as I have been told many times the only one we have.
The Security Forces have a democratic mandate from the Government and they must use it to protect life. If that involves armies killing people that is also has a mandate as long as long as it is to protect us. The purpose of the Security Services is not to kill people but to protect them.
The IRA murdered people. The IRA didn't have a mandate. The IRA were not here to protect anyone. They brought death on Catholic Community.
The IRA did not behave like a "reasonable man" (which is a legal term) used to define reasonable behavior.
The PIRA did not form because they were under attack from the Brits. The formed to try and bring a UI by force against the democratic wishes of the majority. Brits out was the cry. When their meeting in in 1972 to demand British withdrawal was rejected they attacked the Men, Women and Children of Belfast with 23 Car Bombs in a 2 hour period. They set off bombs in crowded restaurants and hotels. Their modus operandi was to kill civilians.

Those ar not the actions of a "reasonable man".
If that involves armies killing people that is also has a mandate as long as long as it is to protect us. That, by definition, is state sanctioned murder. You can't spin it any other way. If it's not state sanctioned murder, then it is an act of war. But, since the British govts deny there was a war here, it can only be murder.

I see that you've concentrated solely on the IRA. Were the actions of the UVF, UFF, UDA, Ulster Resistance, Orange Volunteers and the LVF, those of 'reasonable men'? What was their modus operandi? What conditions drove them to the gun? Are they any more or less legitimate than the republicans?
 

Commander of the North

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
948
I didn't claim they were good at anything. They and the Loyalist Paramilitaries spend their time sending messages to each other using the murders of innocent civilians. The loyalists said they would kill Catholics every time the IRA killed members of the Security Forces and to be fair to them they usually did. When the IRA stopped , they stopped.
They are just killing fellow loyalists now. No Unionist fury at that
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,379
If that involves armies killing people that is also has a mandate as long as long as it is to protect us. That, by definition, is state sanctioned murder. You can't spin it any other way. If it's not state sanctioned murder, then it is an act of war. But, since the British govts deny there was a war here, it can only be murder.

I see that you've concentrated solely on the IRA. Were the actions of the UVF, UFF, UDA, Ulster Resistance, Orange Volunteers and the LVF, those of 'reasonable men'? What was their modus operandi? What conditions drove them to the gun? Are they any more or less legitimate than the republicans?

To me all terrorists are scum.



That, by definition, is state sanctioned murder.


Sometimes the State does have to kill people, call it state sponsored murder if you like. But it is the reality of life. I'm not a pacifist. I believe when attacked we should fight back and the rules should be the same rules the attackers are playing by or harder.
 

Commander of the North

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
948
To me all terrorists are scum.


That, by definition, is state sanctioned murder.


Sometimes the State does have to kill people, call it state sponsored murder if you like. But it is the reality of life. I'm not a pacifist. I believe when attacked we should fight back and the rules should be the same rules the attackers are playing by or harder.
If that is the case, do not just use one side as an example. You are showing your bias again.

Here's the Queen with a terrorist



Like Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy? That was state murder.

Does the state have the death penalty? No. Therefore it cannot kill people unless it is at war. As I said before, a uniform does not justify killing.
 

Commander of the North

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
948

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,379

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,379
If that is the case, do not just use one side as an example. You are showing your bias again.


Like Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy? That was state murder.

Does the state have the death penalty? No. Therefore it cannot kill people unless it is at war. As I said before, a uniform does not justify killing.
Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy were a disgrace. I don't see any evidence that the Government planned either though.

How would you like the state to deal with terrorist gangs who are murdering innocent civilians?
The actions of the IRA were little different from ISIS or the UVF. Do you want to run a sterling defence of their actions?
 

Commander of the North

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
948
Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy were a disgrace. I don't see any evidence that the Government planned either though.

How would you like the state to deal with terrorist gangs who are murdering innocent civilians?
The actions of the IRA were little different from ISIS or the UVF. Do you want to run a sterling defence of their actions?
They were a disgrace. If they weren't planned, there was a hell of a lot of effort to cover them up.
I would like due process to be followed in the pursuit of criminals. The use of evidence would be great place to start.

By the way, I haven't tried to defend anything
 

vinoboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
10,956
They are just killing fellow loyalists now. No Unionist fury at that
Factions of factions on both sides are doing occasional killings - 2 on the "loyalist" side (though I would call them gangsters) this past year .
There was condemnation of both murders by all unionist parties as indeed on the republican side but the useless PSNI senior management do not seem to be able to get a grip on such matters .
So,stop peddling your own brand of disinformation Commander Shinnerbot.
 

hollandia

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
30,893
They were a disgrace. If they weren't planned, there was a hell of a lot of effort to cover them up.
I would like due process to be followed in the pursuit of criminals. The use of evidence would be great place to start.

By the way, I haven't tried to defend anything
Relax commander, it's pie 101. If you point out that the Brits or unionists have behaved in any way that is less than upstanding, morally questionable, or not adhering to less than British standards of fair play, then you my friend are a shinner. No doubt you are also supportive of no warning bombs in shopping centres, hotels and killing every unionist firstborn. And you probably sunk the titanic with sub par fenian rivets. Whether you happened to be alive, of voting age or even aware of these events is entirely irrelevant. Why can't you just be a nice non unionist like novos, and just accept what are his many contradictions?
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top