Messages

I'll chat about anything, what you and Milhouse were doing was trying to score points with a care home resident, you show what type of person you are, we all knew Milhouses form.

You raised it to make a point did you not?

No nor will any of my family.

Seaney the first page of this thread (will you take vaccine) you said no, and nor will my family!

Jesus you are as thick as pigs shite, read the thread title.

So thicko, the person that's in your family that you care for. Have they taken the vaccine?

No one in my care has had the vaccine, what's your point Milhouse?

I'm guessing Seymour, that's he is wondering (like the rest of us) about your posts which said you would end up having to give to said family member the vaccine?

Can I clarify once again for the halfwits trying to score points of a care home resident. I, like you I am sure, are not in charge of my siblings or parents, I am also not a medical practitioner so won't be administering any vaccinations to anyone. My parent in care is not in my charge they are there under a Deprivation of Liberty from the Courts and Tibunals Service, so you and Milhouse wind your f**king necks in and have some human decency for folk not as well of as you and yours.

When did I not show decency Seymour?

All I did was ask about someone you brought up in this forum and juxtaposed it against your publicly aired views.

To the extent you don't want to chat about it, don't raise it in a forum.

Given it's clearly personal I'm happy to leave it though. It's your business not mine.

Uachtarán Shinn Féin must be a hypocrite so

I think this thread has proved all major political party leaders are hypocrites - it's just whatever flavour of hypocrisy you're into that determines your vote.

Whatever about Sid, Maryloo seems to have had a problem with Stanley comparing Kilmichael to Narrow Water.

I'm guessing she knows it wasn't tactically smart - whatever about the rights and wrongs of it.

No nor will any of my family.

Seaney the first page of this thread (will you take vaccine) you said no, and nor will my family!

Jesus you are as thick as pigs shite, read the thread title.

So thicko, the person that's in your family that you care for. Have they taken the vaccine?

No one in my care has had the vaccine, what's your point Milhouse?

I'm guessing Seymour, that's he is wondering (like the rest of us) about your posts which said you would end up having to give to said family member the vaccine?

Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

But the old IRA did win

They achieved an independent Irish state

The PIRA lost

They did not achieve what they wanted

Can you point me towards any evidence of the Old IRA outlining that their objective was to partition Ireland?

It wasn't their objective

Their objective was an independent Irish state

And that they got

No it wasn't. It was for an Irish Republic - in fact to be more precise they wanted recognition of the Irish republic declared in 1916, and run the Dail elected in 1917.

When the old IRA surrendered under the threat of "immediate and terrible war" what they got in return was a 26 county British Dominion in which parliamentarians had to swear allegiance to the British Crown.

"Home Rule for slow learners" if you paraphrase Seamus Mallon.  I don't say that to be disrespectful, at least half of the army of the Republic of first Dail broadly agreed with that conclusion.

The British Dominion then preserved this Dominion status by borrowing cannons from the British, and hiring ex-British servicemen to fight in the enduring civil war - committing unspeakable atrocities in the process (as did the other side).

The Republic was won (de jure) peacefully in 37. Declared (defacto) to in 49. Peacefully by diplomatic skill and opportunism.

The Old IRA had no chance of "winning" their war from the outset. That justification doesn't stack up Sid to support your argument.

A better example would have been Pearses surrender in 1916 where he explicitly done so to avoid more civilian casualties.

Well it was for an Irish Republic but they got an Irish Republic before long - the freedom to achieve freedom

And what was there from 22/23 was effectively an independent Irish state

It was unquestionably a victory

I don't think I would characterise it as a victory - more the "best defeat" that could be achieved.

Again - these men (aside from those who committed war crimes) were hero's. I mean them no disrespect - they deserve their exalted position in Irish history and long may that continue.

Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

But the old IRA did win

They achieved an independent Irish state

The PIRA lost

They did not achieve what they wanted

Can you point me towards any evidence of the Old IRA outlining that their objective was to partition Ireland?

It wasn't their objective

Their objective was an independent Irish state

And that they got

No it wasn't. It was for an Irish Republic - in fact to be more precise they wanted recognition of the Irish republic declared in 1916, and run the Dail elected in 1917.

When the old IRA surrendered under the threat of "immediate and terrible war" what they got in return was a 26 county British Dominion in which parliamentarians had to swear allegiance to the British Crown.

"Home Rule for slow learners" if you paraphrase Seamus Mallon.  I don't say that to be disrespectful, at least half of the army of the Republic of first Dail broadly agreed with that conclusion.

The British Dominion then preserved this Dominion status by borrowing cannons from the British, and hiring ex-British servicemen to fight in the enduring civil war - committing unspeakable atrocities in the process (as did the other side).

The Republic was won (de jure) peacefully in 37. Declared (defacto) to in 49. Peacefully by diplomatic skill and opportunism.

The Old IRA had no chance of "winning" their war from the outset. That justification doesn't stack up Sid to support your argument.

A better example would have been Pearses surrender in 1916 where he explicitly done so to avoid more civilian casualties.

[30 years of peaceful Catholic protest]

The end of the RUC didn't happen by murdering people, it happened by peaceful negotiation

Just like the RIC could have? Explain how the RUC could have been disbanded, and at what point? The Anglo-Irish Agreement didn't countenance the idea. Neither did Sunngingdale. So you'll need something more convincing than "oh it just would have magically happened if nationalists agitated for it enough or if enough peaceful nationalist protesters got shot dead in the street"

In the exact same way it eventually happened in 2000, by peaceful negotiation

You achieve this by mass political mobilisation and protest, mass sustained civil disobedience, international attention continually being drawn to the plight of Catholic civilians

And even if the RUC hadn't ended until 2000, well you would have been spared the intervening years of murder

Two situations:
i) a hypothetical - 30 years of peaceful Catholic protest and the end of the RUC in 2000
ii) the reality - 28 years of murder, societal devastation and the end of the RUC in 2000

i) is miles better than ii)

Isn't it?

Unlike others on here, I actually agree with some of your stuff on this board, not this thread though. This bit here I'm afraid you have no idea of what life is like up here. If plenty of the unionists had their way catholics would be living in hovels still with little chance of getting out of it. They'd quite happily slaughter catholics if they were able to. The vitriol, if you have ever experienced it which you clearly haven't it, is akin to Trump on speed!

Shouting "you have no idea what life is like up here" is a non sequitur

A cousin of mine, a Catholic, a civilian with no connections whatsoever to the Brits or the British state, was kidnapped by the PIRA for the crime of working in a bank

Firstly, I do have an idea, a very good idea, I have been extremely interested in the Northern conflict and history for my whole life and visited it more times than I'd care to remember and you don't need to have lived anywhere to know basic, easily identifiable facts about life on the ground

Secondly, the majority of the Catholic population of the North agreed with me - during the Troubles, they voted for the SDLP, not Sinn Fein

Your post effectively says that John Hume, Seamus Mallon, the rest of the SDLP, and the majority of the Catholic population of the six counties did not know what they were talking about

I will say it again - you have no idea what life is like up here. You haven't lived here, vicariously via your cousin doesn't count.

I worked in a Catholic bar around the time of the Greysteel massacre and everyone was bricking themselves but refused to be housebound. Try living in Co Antrim (all of the O6) in those times, you'd have a totally different viewpoint on it. As I said Loyalists and many Unionists would slaughter Catholics if they could and they did at times with British state collusion. A man locking up a GAA ground at night in 1997 (not the 70s) and getting brutally killed like Sean Brown in Bellaghy, these things would exist to this day if they could get away with it.

Sorry but that's more bluster

What you are saying is that if I lived in the North between 1969 and 1997, I'd have supported the IRA's campaign of murder

But the majority of the Catholic population who lived in the North did not support it

The majority wanted it to stop and to live normal lives, not lives clouded with suspicion and fear

If the IRA had not abandoned their ceasefire, Sean Brown would probably not have been murdered, he might even still be alive - because the circle of tit for tat would have been broken or at least greatly lessened - the LVF would likely never have come into being

You are way out of line on this one and clearly out of your depth.  I mean WAY WAY out of line.

The above comment re Sean Brown is totally naive, inaccurate, and insulting to the Brown family and the GAA.

Disgraceful.

It's not in any way inaccurate, it's exactly right

You made zero effort to say why you think my post is disgraceful, zero effort to engage

And therefore your post has zero merit or credibility

You've no right to stop people voicing opinions and facts and truths you don't like

Sid - there was nothing inevitable about that death when placed in the context PIRA ceasefire status.

If you intended to make a point about how breaking the ceasefire made civilian deaths, generally speaking, more inevitable then fine - but the way you called out that specific incident, and painted a straight line from IRA activity to his death I'm sure was crass and hurtful to many.

It also sadly echos Loyalist justifications for such murders - which should be roundly rejected by fair minded people. By providing what you view as the context, you are (again likely unknowingly) giving the perpetrators a degree of cover in the minds of some (e.g. "these things were nasty but  necessary because the IRA were back on the scene")

Deliberately or not, your are deflecting status away from those who need to held truly accountable for that killing, by bringing in actors who had no link to the man in question.

The rest of your comments about SF are fine and part of political debate- they can be debated and talked through (I actually agree with certain percentages) but the Sean Brown comment should be retracted.

[30 years of peaceful Catholic protest]

The end of the RUC didn't happen by murdering people, it happened by peaceful negotiation

Just like the RIC could have? Explain how the RUC could have been disbanded, and at what point? The Anglo-Irish Agreement didn't countenance the idea. Neither did Sunngingdale. So you'll need something more convincing than "oh it just would have magically happened if nationalists agitated for it enough or if enough peaceful nationalist protesters got shot dead in the street"

In the exact same way it eventually happened in 2000, by peaceful negotiation

You achieve this by mass political mobilisation and protest, mass sustained civil disobedience, international attention continually being drawn to the plight of Catholic civilians

And even if the RUC hadn't ended until 2000, well you would have been spared the intervening years of murder

Two situations:
i) a hypothetical - 30 years of peaceful Catholic protest and the end of the RUC in 2000
ii) the reality - 28 years of murder, societal devastation and the end of the RUC in 2000

i) is miles better than ii)

Isn't it?

Unlike others on here, I actually agree with some of your stuff on this board, not this thread though. This bit here I'm afraid you have no idea of what life is like up here. If plenty of the unionists had their way catholics would be living in hovels still with little chance of getting out of it. They'd quite happily slaughter catholics if they were able to. The vitriol, if you have ever experienced it which you clearly haven't it, is akin to Trump on speed!

Shouting "you have no idea what life is like up here" is a non sequitur

A cousin of mine, a Catholic, a civilian with no connections whatsoever to the Brits or the British state, was kidnapped by the PIRA for the crime of working in a bank

Firstly, I do have an idea, a very good idea, I have been extremely interested in the Northern conflict and history for my whole life and visited it more times than I'd care to remember and you don't need to have lived anywhere to know basic, easily identifiable facts about life on the ground

Secondly, the majority of the Catholic population of the North agreed with me - during the Troubles, they voted for the SDLP, not Sinn Fein

Your post effectively says that John Hume, Seamus Mallon, the rest of the SDLP, and the majority of the Catholic population of the six counties did not know what they were talking about

I will say it again - you have no idea what life is like up here. You haven't lived here, vicariously via your cousin doesn't count.

I worked in a Catholic bar around the time of the Greysteel massacre and everyone was bricking themselves but refused to be housebound. Try living in Co Antrim (all of the O6) in those times, you'd have a totally different viewpoint on it. As I said Loyalists and many Unionists would slaughter Catholics if they could and they did at times with British state collusion. A man locking up a GAA ground at night in 1997 (not the 70s) and getting brutally killed like Sean Brown in Bellaghy, these things would exist to this day if they could get away with it.

Sorry but that's more bluster

What you are saying is that if I lived in the North between 1969 and 1997, I'd have supported the IRA's campaign of murder

But the majority of the Catholic population who lived in the North did not support it

The majority wanted it to stop and to live normal lives, not lives clouded with suspicion and fear

If the IRA had not abandoned their ceasefire, Sean Brown would probably not have been murdered, he might even still be alive - because the circle of tit for tat would have been broken or at least greatly lessened - the LVF would likely never have come into being

No - that last paragraph is out of order.

The people who killed Sean Brown take responsibility for it alone - they don't get to drag any other protagonists into it to share responsibility.

The same goes for any other killing of civilians by any other protagonist.

The escalation in violence in the 70's was not for a United Ireland. It was a breaking point in that Catholic frustration finally boiled over and knew they were never going to be treated equally by talking. There may have been some headbangers in the movement where a United Ireland was the only goal but equality was the driving force.

Saying GFA was a surrender is only half right, it was British surrender. Sunningdale in 73 would have achieved power sharing and the violence of the years that followed would never have been. What was the British response to this? Murder of 33 Irish civilians in Monaghan and Dublin in 74. Women and children deliberately targeted in a no warning attack, worst single atrocity in the whole of the Troubles. As clear a statement as ever that they would not tolerate negotiations with vermin.

Major dragged his heels on GFA, he was under political pressure at home and needed Unionist support (all through the years they always had too much influence in the House of Lords and by proxy, British Government policy). But Canary Warf and time finally caught up with them. The money men in London took the decision out of his hands, the financial cost of the IRA campaign was too much. World was changing, Europe was changing, the troubles possibly caused the ECB to not be in London or at least never to be on the negotiating table. The cost was greater than they will ever admit, same as their surrender will never be admitted. But it wasn't talking brought them to the table.

Can't agree with this.

This was an PIRA negotiated surrender. They gave up their guns, disbanded, accepted the unionist veto, accepted the removal of the 26 county State's claim to the 6 counties and recognised crown forces as the legitimate enforcers of the rule of law in the 6 counties. In return they got their prisoners out, were allowed to contest elections in for a place in a mandatory coalition administration with limited powers with a petition of concern stapled to it.

To claim it was about equality is nonsense. Inequality fuelled the sense of oppression surely but the end goal was a United Ireland.

SF performed mental gymnastics to spin the surrender as a victory and executed these gymnastics very well in order to make it palatable to nationalism and ex combatants. The fact the PIRA weren't militarily wiped out is painted as a victory but it clearly wasn't by any objective standard.

The fact SF basically stole the SDLP's policies and place was painted as an electoral revolution, when all it done was spurs a Newtonian reaction in Unionism in the form of the DUP.

To be fair though - the southern parties are unbelievably hypocritical in their approach to SF. Their war was equally as morally justified or unjustified (depending on your position). Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

It was the old IRA's own surrender under the threat of "immediate and terrible war" (an immediate surrender in the case of FG and a slower one in the form of FF) which gave them both their positions in politics in the 26 counties. It provided the moral platform for the PIRA to pursue their campaign (Christ they even considered arming them on occasion) and allowed SF to accept the same broad terms of surrender at the end of the century.

It is beyond irony for them to criticise SF for learning the same lessons they did.

It is also beyond irony for SF to call dissidents "traitors" for doing the same things they did with the exact same electoral legitimacy they had when they were doing it.

I've watched this thread for a while now and both sides haven't a moral leg to stand on.

Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.

You are a clown.... you'll say yes?

You have to be the most self centred ballbag on this board. We have 5 family members, we get 30 minutes once a week for one person to see a parent with complicated medical needs, if we as a family say no it will continue,  I have yet to set foot inside said care home we are not allowed all window visits or outside visits in the summer  you are a hateful selfish individual who cares about no one but your status on a discussion board,.

Hang on, are you saying you won't get it personally but will consent to its administration a family member, even though you have all sorts of concerns about it?

I might be missing any intended sarcasm or irony...

[I find it almost hilarious that establishment parties celebrate the likes of Kilmichael which was every bit as ruthless, had the exact same aims against the exact same enemy, carried out by men who would likewise execute in cold blood people suspected of informing, RIC members etc but when it's done in the north 60 years later it's "wanton" violence.]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

The truth is that your entire viewpoint on the troubles has been formed by the simple accident of birth.

Can't speak for the other poster but I'm not, nor ever have been, a SF member (or any other political party). Haven't been indoctrinated either. Virtually non-political immediate-family background - soft nationalist/SDLP voting parents. I'm ardent Republican in my outlook. Not a pacifist. I've formed my views around first hand experience, reading, research etc.

Militarily, Narrow Water was a resounding success. "Magnificent" may not be the term I would use but it was an excellent operation by the PIRA fighting a guerrilla campaign against the British. I find it almost hilarious that establishment parties celebrate the likes of Kilmichael which was every bit as ruthless, had the exact same aims against the exact same enemy, carried out by men who would likewise execute in cold blood people suspected of informing, RIC members etc but when it's done in the north 60 years later it's "wanton" violence.

On the flip side of things I am more than willing to acknowledge the war crimes carried out under the banner of Republicanism. There may still be men alive that should be rotting inside a jail cell for actions carried under the guise of the IRA but Narrow Water isn't one of them

This is the issue when political legitimacy is drawn from political violence. The justification for violence perpetuates itself because the perpetrators of the previous violence must show a degree of hypocrisy in condemning any current incarnation.

This is the same reason why SF haven't a moral leg to stand on when criticising dissident violence.

It's also why posters on here from the 26 counties struggle, in operational terms, to meaningfully distinguish Kilmichael from Narrow Water.

This is why the new approach to Irish Unity must be one which is peaceful and claims victory and legitimacy from the ballot box - otherwise British/Loyalist separatist violence will be hard to morally distinguish from previous Irish/Republican efforts.

Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.

You can sleep easy now.

You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.

The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.

Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.

In our discussions we've established:

1) The vaccine is effective;
2) The vast scientific majority think it is safe;
3) These experts were not the same experts who modelled infection rates or developed lockdown measures
4) That it won't be mandatory;
5) People like me that would have been happy to have paid for it will not be allowed to do so;
6)  Anybody that wants it should have it within a couple of months - again nobody will be forced.
7) That you know little to nothing about the laws surrounding Director Dealing(s) and when CEO's can and cannot sell shares.

Your last stand here seems to be though inventing hypothetical scenarios about vulnerable old people being head locked and hood winked into getting it.

You are clutching at straws big time.

[It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.]

My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.

You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.

No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.

No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.

There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.

FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!

The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.

But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!

Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?

Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?

So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?

And you don't if anyone will not be.

You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.

No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?

No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953

Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff

So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!

Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.

You can sleep easy now.

You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.

The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.

There you go lads - don't get killed in the rush. Covid Pfizer vaccine approved for use next week in UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55145696

Great news isn't it.

I'll get it just the very second I can.