Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lurgan Bomb

Options
1…5681011…13

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    So, are you guys condoing these actions and giving them some credence or condemning them?

    Where did anyone condone their actions?

    Please, I'd love to find out where you're pulling this out of. It's not your arse by any chance, is it?

    Perhaps you missed my first post where I stated this:
    As for the OP - Shameful bombing. Thankfully the children are OK. It's painful that they still don't understand that their actions are counter-productive to unification. This island needs inclusive actions, enabling communities to come together - rather than segregation.

    I'll expect an apology for your accusations.

    Next time, read the thread before you interject and accuse people of condoning anything - especially attacks that have harmed innocent children.


  • Options
    #213
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I said that I thought it was "Absolutely disgraceful" I believe dlofnep said something similar.


    OK , thats fair enough, can't argue with that.

    I apologise for any misunderstanding.

    Sorry.


  • Options
    #214
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    OK , thats fair enough, can't argue with that.

    Damn right you can't argue with it. So take it onboard next time, before you interject with your usual bollocks.


  • Options
    #215
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    rovert wrote: »
    Word games with Republicans!

    A classic boards.ie trope

    What word games?

    Examples, please.


  • Options
    #216
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I stated that currently, the PSNI constitutes of a majority of people from a unionist/protestant background. Currently, only 27% of the force is made up from people with a Catholic background. Which is better by comparison to the RUC which had only 8%, but still problematic.

    Do you lay the blame for any of that imbalance at the door of PIRA, given that anyone from a nationalist area who joined the RUC was expelled from that area and threatened with murder?

    It must have been difficult for the RUC to attract Catholic recruits and the one-sidedness of the organisation, facilitated by the IRA, allowed less than favourable cultures to develop.

    Many of those from nationalist areas who refused to be intimidated by thugs and joined up anyway managed to prosper through the ranks. Guys like Brian McCargo and Desmond Conroy spring to mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Terrontress wrote: »
    Do you lay the blame for any of that imbalance at the door of PIRA, given that anyone from a nationalist area who joined the RUC was expelled from that area and threatened with murder?

    Some of it, certainly. A sizable portion of nvolvement from nationalists with the RUC resulted in attacks. The RUC at the time was considered an enemy to the nationalist community, and was routinely colluding with loyalist terrorists. Anyone who supported the RUC's stance at the time, was indeed considered an enemy.

    Much of the blame for lack of involvement with the RUC however was because of the RUC's treatment of the nationalist community, and their involvement with loyalist terrorists. I would say that this was the primary reason for lack of engagement with the RUC by members of the nationalist community.


  • Options
    #218
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Terrontress wrote: »
    Do you lay the blame for any of that imbalance at the door of PIRA, given that anyone from a nationalist area who joined the RUC was expelled from that area and threatened with murder?

    It must have been difficult for the RUC to attract Catholic recruits and the one-sidedness of the organisation, facilitated by the IRA, allowed less than favourable cultures to develop.

    Many of those from nationalist areas who refused to be intimidated by thugs and joined up anyway managed to prosper through the ranks. Guys like Brian McCargo and Desmond Conroy spring to mind.
    Oh, it is you again. Going to refrain from personal insults this time?


    Oh, dlofnep said it all really.


  • Options
    #219
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    Ugh. Nice to see the thread has turned into an idiot-nationalist circle-jerk pile on.


  • Options
    #220
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    dlofnep wrote: »
    What word games?

    Examples, please.

    ^ You see


  • Options
    #221
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    rovert wrote: »
    ^ You see

    Actually I don't. Examples please?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Some of it, certainly. A sizable portion of nvolvement from nationalists with the RUC resulted in attacks. The RUC at the time was considered an enemy to the nationalist community, and was routinely colluding with loyalist terrorists. Anyone who supported the RUC's stance at the time, was indeed considered an enemy.

    Much of the blame for lack of involvement with the RUC however was because of the RUC's treatment of the nationalist community, and their involvement with loyalist terrorists. I would say that this was the primary reason for lack of engagement with the RUC by members of the nationalist community.

    It's difficult to say "at the time" given the period over which people were murdered, intimidated, expelled from neighbourhoods for wanting to be police officers.

    Prior to the beginning of "the troubles" there were plenty of members from Catholic backgrounds and from Catholic areas in both the RUC and UDR.

    I feel that if the PIRA and Sinn Fein had allowed people to join their local Police without the threat murdering them, a lot of the difficulties, as they exist now and have done for the past few decades, would not have been so severe.


  • Options
    #223
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Please tell me we are not going to go down the "before the IRA everything was rosy" route?


  • Options
    #224
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Terrontress wrote: »
    It's difficult to say "at the time" given the period over which people were murdered, intimidated, expelled from neighbourhoods for wanting to be police officers.

    It's not difficult to say. The RUC was a force that colluded with loyalist terrorists, and had engaged with loyalists over the course of decades until they were disbanded.
    Terrontress wrote: »
    Prior to the beginning of "the troubles" there were plenty of members from Catholic backgrounds and from Catholic areas in both the RUC and UDR.

    There may, or may not have been. Perhaps you could provide figures like I have provided. The crux of the matter was that the RUC was not trusted by the nationalist community, and that is why they did not engage with them. Do you dispute this?
    Terrontress wrote: »
    I feel that if the PIRA and Sinn Fein had allowed people to join their local Police without the threat murdering them, a lot of the difficulties, as they exist now and have done for the past few decades, would not have been so severe.

    Yes they would. A few more catholics joining the RUC would have not changed the political landscape in the north - nor would it have stopped the RUC from colluding with loyalist terrorists. Collusion would have still occured, and the RUC would have been there to protect the interests of the unionist community.

    I find the revisionism on the role the RUC played during the troubles to be amusing. The RUC did not gain support, because they did not deserve it.


  • Options
    #225
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It's not difficult to say. The RUC was a force that colluded with loyalist terrorists, and had engaged with loyalists over the course of decades until they were disbanded.



    There may, or may not have been. Perhaps you could provide figures like I have provided. The crux of the matter was that the RUC was not trusted by the nationalist community, and that is why they did not engage with them. Do you dispute this?



    Yes they would. A few more catholics joining the RUC would have not changed the political landscape in the north - nor would it have stopped the RUC from colluding with loyalist terrorists. Collusion would have still occured, and the RUC would have been there to protect the interests of the unionist community.

    I find the revisionism on the role the RUC played during the troubles to be amusing. The RUC did not gain support, because they did not deserve it.

    But surely on the numbers issue alone, which you have used to condemn the RUC, part of the reason for the under-representation of Catholics was due to the threat of murder from the IRA.

    Since that threat has been lifted Catholics from both sides of the border have been lining up to join.


  • Options
    #226
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    What excuses did he give? I didn't see him excusing the act in that post. Perhaps you might point out where he did?

    "This bomb was not aimed at school children" well that's alright then, bomb away lads, a school is far game in August.

    If it isn't aimed at children, then why bomb an area where there are likely to be children.

    There is no justification for this bomb, none whatsoever so why try and pretnd that t is somhow acceptable?

    Thee scumbags are tryiong to bring NI back to the bad old days and there should be no quarter given. no excuses or apologies made. It is 100% wrong.

    No?


  • Options
    #227
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Terrontress wrote: »
    But surely on the numbers issue alone, which you have used to condemn the RUC, part of the reason for the under-representation of Catholics was due to the threat of murder from the IRA.

    Since that threat has been lifted Catholics from both sides of the border have been lining up to join.
    Nationalists did not join the RUC because of the RUCs actions. It is quite simple really.


  • Options
    #228
    shampon
    Registered Users Posts: 580 ✭✭✭shampon


    Terrontress wrote: »
    But surely on the numbers issue alone, which you have used to condemn the RUC, part of the reason for the under-representation of Catholics was due to the threat of murder from the IRA.

    Since that threat has been lifted Catholics from both sides of the border have been lining up to join.

    Horse the figures are lost on barstool Nationalists...you might aswell be pissing in the wind...


  • Options
    #229
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Nationalists did not join the RUC because of the RUCs actions. It is quite simple really.

    the RUC is no more, it is now the PSNI and they are trying to progress. Targetting the PSNI and catholic officers in particular does nothing but worsen the situation. No?


  • Options
    #230
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    "This bomb was not aimed at school children" well that's alright then, bomb away lads, a school is far game in August.

    It was not aimed at school children though. I am just pointing out the truth here. As for the bold bit where did I say that? Read my first post in this thread.
    If it isn't aimed at children, then why bomb an area where there are likely to be children.
    The idea, as it appears, was to phone in a bomb threat, lure the PSNI and then detonate a bomb at a spot were a police cordon would be, thus killing some officers.

    There is no justification for this bomb, none whatsoever so why try and pretnd that t is somhow acceptable?
    Where did I pretend it was acceptable? I made my views quite clear on this attack earlier in the thread. Disgraceful.


  • Options
    #231
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    the RUC is no more, it is now the PSNI and they are trying to progress. Targetting the PSNI and catholic officers in particular does nothing but worsen the situation. No?
    We were talking about the RUC before the armed campaign and why there were very few nationalists in it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    "This bomb was not aimed at school children" well that's alright then, bomb away lads, a school is far game in August.

    That's completely and utterly disingenuous. He never stated that it was ok to "bomb away". People like you who get their panties in a twist because someone provides an accurate context for what happened are hilarious.
    • You're not the thought police. Don't tell me what to think.
    • When someone states that their intentions were to attack the police, rather than children - it does not mean that they are excusing their actions.
    • We all know very well that the bomb's target was the PSNI. The media agrees with his assessment.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    If it isn't aimed at children, then why bomb an area where there are likely to be children.

    It wasn't aimed at children. Those responsible obviously didn't care about any innocents who might have been harmed during the bombing. This is condemnable and inexcusable. Anyone harmed, whether it be on purpose, or by accident is solely the responsibility of those who planted the bomb.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    There is no justification for this bomb, none whatsoever so why try and pretnd that t is somhow acceptable?

    Nobody pretended that it was acceptable. You seem to have a habit of pulling random thoughts from your arse, and trying to pass them off as the thoughts of other posters.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Thee scumbags are tryiong to bring NI back to the bad old days and there should be no quarter given. no excuses or apologies made. It is 100% wrong.

    He stated that it was wrong, and he never once excused their actions. Not once.


  • Options
    #233
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    It was not aimed at school children though. I am just pointing out the truth here. As for the bold bit where did I say that? Read my first post in this thread.

    The idea, as it appears, was to phone in a bomb threat, lure the PSNI and then detonate a bomb at a spot were a police cordon would be, thus killing some officers.


    Where did I pretend it was acceptable? I made my views quite clear on this attack earlier in the thread. Disgraceful.

    you are trying to claim that it was OK, which it clearly isn't. It was a bomb in an area where children are/where present. it is wrong, full stop.

    lets get this straight, The bomb should not have been placed in the first place. Right or wrong? easy question to answer.


  • Options
    #234
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    shampon wrote: »
    Horse the figures are lost on barstool Nationalists...you might aswell be pissing in the wind...

    I'd just like to point out the utter hypocrisy of trotting out an 8% Catholic figure as evidence that the RUC was unequal.

    If any section of society were to be threatened with murder for joining any organisation, you could bet that there would be a marked decrease in the number of people signing up from that section of society.


  • Options
    #235
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    you are trying to claim that it was OK, which it clearly isn't.

    He is not trying to claim that it was OK. He is providing context for the attack. The context being that those who set off the bomb, were initially aiming to attack the police - but as a direct result of their attack - children were harmed, and that the attack was wrong in every possible way.


  • Options
    #236
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    you are trying to claim that it was OK, which it clearly isn't. It was a bomb in an area where children are/where present. it is wrong, full stop.

    lets get this straight, The bomb should not have been placed in the first place. Right or wrong? easy question to answer.
    No I am not saying it is ok. What do you not understand about this?
    I highly doubt that it was an attempt to kill children although it is just plain retarded and helps no one, not their cause, not anyones, to have a bomb near a school. Absolutely disgraceful.


  • Options
    #237
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    That's completely and utterly disingenuous. He never stated that it was ok to "bomb away". People like you who get their panties in a twist because someone provides an accurate context for what happened are hilarious.
    • You're not the thought police. Don't tell me what to think.
    • When someone states that their intentions were to attack the police, rather than children - it does not mean that they are excusing their actions.
    • We all know very well that the bomb's target was the PSNI. The media agrees with his assessment.



    It wasn't aimed at children. Those responsible obviously didn't care about any innocents who might have been harmed during the bombing. This is condemnable and inexcusable. Anyone harmed, whether it be on purpose, or by accident is solely the responsibility of those who planted the bomb.



    Nobody pretended that it was acceptable. You seem to have a habit of pulling random thoughts from your arse, and trying to pass them off as the thoughts of other posters.



    He stated that it was wrong, and he never once excused their actions. Not once.

    that's it. end of story.

    you can't try and excuse the bomb. it was completely and utterly wrong.

    I'm not pulling thoughts from my arse, I am reading what people write, which is that it is somehow OK because they didn't target children. it is irrelevant, they shouldn't have done it in the first place.

    I've never killed any children mainly because i don't go placing bombs in areas where there are likely to be children.


  • Options
    #238
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Terrontress wrote: »
    But surely on the numbers issue alone, which you have used to condemn the RUC, part of the reason for the under-representation of Catholics was due to the threat of murder from the IRA.

    I didn't state at any point that threats to nationalists put some people off joining the RUC. I explained that the RUC's actions destroyed trust in the nationalist community. You've refused to accept this as a valid reason why a large portion of the nationalist community did not engage with the RUC.

    Any chance that you might accept it?
    Terrontress wrote: »
    Since that threat has been lifted Catholics from both sides of the border have been lining up to join.

    The actions of the PSNI have not been comparable with the RUC. The PSNI has tried to be inclusive - the RUC was very exclusive.


  • Options
    #239
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Savage Tyrant wrote: »
    He sounds like a bit of an eejit alright... But what is so funny about his wife being Protestant?
    It's funny because he's the type of person who wants to get rid of all Protestants from the North. He cannot see the irony in being married to a Protestant woman, while wanting to get rid of Protestants from 1/5 of the island.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    Damn right you can't argue with it. So take it onboard next time, before you interject with your usual bollocks.

    In fairness, he did apologise. Do you not think that post was a bit too much?
    It's a rare occasion that the Flutter is classy in AH.


  • Options
    #240
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    you can't try and excuse the bomb. it was completely and utterly wrong.

    No one has tried to for gods sake.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    that's it. end of story.

    you can't try and excuse the bomb. it was completely and utterly wrong.

    I'm not pulling thoughts from my arse, I am reading what people write, which is that it is somehow OK because they didn't target children. it is irrelevant, they shouldn't have done it in the first place.

    I've never killed any children mainly because i don't go placing bombs in areas where there are likely to be children.

    Nobody once said it was OK. Please point me to the point where anyone in this thread stated that it was OK. The attack was wrong. You don't have to convince me, nor that other poster.

    Now - This is where you link a post that stated that the bomb attack was OK. If you fail to do so, I can only conclude that you are putting words in people's mouths and have taken it upon yourself to be board's official thought police.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement