Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Open another thread Billy, and tell us were he lied in that and then explain why he isn't in jail for it after two or three inquiries conducted by people who know how to forensically test statements and evidence?

Are you a yes or a no on the question I asked btrw?

Oh sorry, I forgot your rules regarding burden of proof on all matters relating to SF/IRA members 'innocent unless jailed'....:D

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Oh sorry, I forgot your rules regarding burden of proof on all matters relating to SF/IRA members 'innocent unless jailed'....:D

As opposed to your way?
Guilt by journalist? Guilt by smear?
It's incredible that one of the inquiries had to point out almost 15 yrs after the end of the conflict, that Gerry Adams was not the subject of that trial, but he became the focus of both a flawed investigation (at the expense of the victims needs) and the trial. It is people like you and your insatiable need for one sided retribution that caused that.
So no thanks to your justice Billy, there was too much pain involved in getting a police and justice system that worked for everyone.

Adams made mistakes, ordinary human mistakes. You want the lynch mob, I don't see the need tbh.


Now any chance of dealing with the question related to the thread?

K-9

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Jesus the disdain for John Hume is ridiculous. Francie let me guess Gerry the great did it all single handed did he ?
What normal elections ? Northern Ireland isnt a normal place in terms of election or government.

Hume is being white washed out of history because SF can claim all the credit on the Nationalist side for the peace process.

The truth is both the IRA and British Government lost the war. They all came around to what Hume had been saying for decades.

K-9

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, I believe I was one of the people you asked.

But I realised who you were in a 'previous' incarnation and decided to step away from the thread......

Mod:
Cut the insinuations about previous accounts out please.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Hume is being white washed out of history because SF can claim all the credit on the Nationalist side for the peace process.

Didn't somebody on here say that the 'victors get to write the history', and as the SDLP lost heavily to SF that would be how it works, suck it up?

IMO the reality is different, Adams pays Hume his due all the time.
Note in this link, Hume is named first.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/humes-adams-statements
And no attempt at whitewashing here either:
http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/8349

I think there is a bit of over sensitivity on this. Seamus Mallon did a bit of 'what about me' crying a while back on it too.
The SDLP couldn't broker a deal, that is the bottom line. Hume realised that and went to talk to one of the real power brokers. His party didn't back him. It was a solo run. Fair play to him for that.

The truth is both the IRA and British Government lost the war. They all came around to what Hume had been saying for decades.

As shown in the letter I quoted earlier from Heath, and it is also shown if you read the demands of republicans since the civil rights era, everybody 'knew' what had to be done, and had been saying it for decades.
Except the Unionists, who were saying differently, even though Ian might have claimed differently in his great hindsight interview.

K-9

Well I would argue SF came around to Hume's thinking as they increasingly saw the futility of their campaign.

The tragedy is it took so long to get their and that's the fault of all sides involved in the Troubles.

Nobody has to suck anything up! Hume and the SDLP knew it would probably end up that way, as you say history teaches us that. Over time the extremes often adopt the moderates position and eventually become the mainstream party.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Well I would argue SF came around to Hume's thinking as they increasingly saw the futility of their campaign.

The tragedy is it took so long to get their and that's the fault of all sides involved in the Troubles.

Nobody has to suck anything up! Hume and the SDLP knew it would probably end up that way, as you say history teaches us that. Over time the extremes often adopt the moderates position and eventually become the mainstream party.

The Unionists repudiated any attempt to do what everyone knew had to be done. It was all there at Sunningdale, but nobody saw fit to include 'everybody'.

The Unionists with British backing brought Sunningdale down, nobody else did that.

If the SDLP 'knew' it would end up that way (I agree Hume foresaw the SDLP's demise just as Paisley saw the writing on the wall) what was Seamus Mallon whinging about a year or two ago about Sinn Fein being allowed to the table.
It was never going to work without them on board.

K-9

Even though I blame everybody, you go straight to automatic blame Unionists mode Francie!

No mention of how it was impossible to include the 1973 IRA in a Sunningdale agreement. We had a ceasefire before that and their demands were crazy, and they showed little signs of compromising.

Everybody knows the main reason Sunningdale failed, but a little introspection on your side wouldn't go amiss!

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Even though I blame everybody, you go straight to automatic blame Unionists mode Francie!

No mention of how it was impossible to include the 1973 IRA in a Sunningdale agreement. We had a ceasefire before that and their demands were crazy, and they showed little signs of compromising.

Everybody knows the main reason Sunningdale failed, but a little introspection on your side wouldn't go amiss!

I never said ever on here that SF or the IRA were blameless.

The IRA only existed because of what was going on on the island, neither they or SF were consulted about Sunningdale. It took everyone else another 30 odd years to include them, as equals.
That was something everyone knew had to happen even before the lid came off as I have shown here. Much rhetoric but little honesty or actual intent.

I think there is a fair element of whitewashing going on to say that it was SF who came around to Hume's way of thinking.
Both knew the same thing, that everybody had to be included. Hume acted on that eventually and made the leap.

K-9

I'd say that is about a grudging admission that I'll get, so I'll leave it there.

I'm kind of ignoring my own mod warning as well!

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say that is about a grudging admission that I'll get, so I'll leave it there.

I'm kind of ignoring my own mod warning as well!

Nothing grudging about it. I have always said there was blame on all sides.
I think though that a historian/analyst claiming that there wasn't one side that blocked every initiative to broker a settlement/agreement up until the GFA, would be laughed out of the room. There is still a significant rump who want the old days to continue - see: marches, flegs etc.
Real historians don't whitewash/run away from that because it is the politically correct thing to do 'du jour'. So to speak. You wouldn't get your PHd/masters if you tried as Jawgap would no doubt tell us.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing grudging about it. I have always said there was blame on all sides.
I think though that a historian/analyst claiming that there wasn't one side that blocked every initiative to broker a settlement/agreement up until the GFA, would be laughed out of the room. There is still a significant rump who want the old days to continue - see: marches, flegs etc.
Real historians don't whitewash/run away from that because it is the politically correct thing to do 'du jour'. So to speak. You wouldn't get your PHd/masters if you tried as Jawgap would no doubt tell us.

Glad to see you've mellowed and accepted that both sides were as bad as one another in the conflict, in your previous existence you were quite steadfast in your refusal to accept this fact.

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Glad to see you've mellowed and accepted that both sides were as bad as one another in the conflict, in your previous existence you were quite steadfast in your refusal to accept this fact.

Only somebody who was completely unaware of what went on (and you were Billy, that is a sad fact) would attribute the phrase 'as bad as one another' to the period. It flies in the face of the tragic facts that I have often posted.

As I said, and it relates directly to the subject of this thread, EVERYONE knew what had to be done, violence/conflict/ war is always a symptom of something that has been done/or hasn't been done.

Edward Heath like Enda Kenny and Theresa May today kno what has to be done, here is Heath in 1971 peddling the solution to Jack Lynch:

Ed Heath wrote:

As you know, our aim is still to discuss the way forward with representatives of all the communities. We
are committed to finding a way to give the minority there an active, permanent and guaranteed role in the
life and public affairs of Northern Ireland.

Tragically it took them far to long to do that.

Kenny now pays lip service to notions about the 'truth' on behalf of 'all', but like Heath before him he doesn't really mean that, he, like the cowards we typically elect will leave it to others to achieve that while he fumbles, he will leave it to men of the calibre of Adams, Hume, Trimble and indeed Paisley (who knew with clarity that the sectarian, bigoted game was up before he died, just like Jim Molyneaux -this is the worst thing that ever happened to us', i.e. The GFA) to resolve.
The Taoiseach and PM who finally resolves this will be swept along/or led by the initiatives of men like that rather than doing the leading themselves.
The tragic thing is that there are those who don't know the full detail of what happened, like you, who have a say in this.
That is what the IRA and SF are guarding against, if they do what you want without the other players doing the same, (full disclosure, ful information giving) then you and people like you, will never know the reasons why what happened - happened.
Listen carefully to Ian Paisley in the last months of his life, he more or less admits that it was the sectarian bigoted governance of the statelet that caused it, or was to 'blame and the government that shored it up, until it was brought to the table prepared to:

to give the minority there an active, permanent and guaranteed role in the
life and public affairs of Northern Ireland

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Only somebody who was completely unaware of what went on (and you were Billy, that is a sad fact) would attribute the phrase 'as bad as one another' to the period. It flies in the face of the tragic facts that I have often posted.

As I said, and it relates directly to the subject of this thread, EVERYONE knew what had to be done, violence/conflict/ war is always a symptom of something that has been done/or hasn't been done.

Edward Heath like Enda Kenny and Theresa May today kno what has to be done, here is Heath in 1971 peddling the solution to Jack Lynch:

Tragically it took them far to long to do that.

Kenny now pays lip service to notions about the 'truth' on behalf of 'all', but like Heath before him he doesn't really mean that, he, like the cowards we typically elect will leave it to others to achieve that while he fumbles, he will leave it to men of the calibre of Adams, Hume, Trimble and indeed Paisley (who knew with clarity that the sectarian, bigoted game was up before he died, just like Jim Molyneaux -this is the worst thing that ever happened to us', i.e. The GFA) to resolve.
The Taoiseach and PM who finally resolves this will be swept along/or led by the initiatives of men like that rather than doing the leading themselves.
The tragic thing is that there are those who don't know the full detail of what happened, like you, who have a say in this.
That is what the IRA and SF are guarding against, if they do what you want without the other players doing the same, (full disclosure, ful information giving) then you and people like you, will never know the reasons why what happened - happened.
Listen carefully to Ian Paisley in the last months of his life, he more or less admits that it was the sectarian bigoted governance of the statelet that caused it, or was to 'blame and the government that shored it up, until it was brought to the table prepared to:

Agreed, even Gerry Adams 'more or less' admitted there was bigotry and hatred in equal measures on both sides of the divide...

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Agreed, even Gerry Adams 'more or less' admitted there was bigotry and hatred in equal measures on both sides of the divide...

He didn't as far as I am aware say it was there in 'equal measure'. I am sure you, as I have done for you on a few occasions, can educate us on where and when he said it.

Yes all sides had and have hatred and bigotry, but not in equal measure and ONLY ONE side used that hatred and bigotry in governing the failed statelet, underpinned and enforced by another side, the British Government.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes all sides had and have hatred and bigotry,

Agreed, like I said earlier, it's not a competition, for every Loyalist outrage there's an equally abhorrent outrage on the Republican side. While the political aims and targeted outcomes may have been different the methods chosen to pursue them would have been broadly similar so it's fallacious to criticise one side without criticising the other.

Professor Moriarty

Andrown wrote: »

The forces in the republic tried to uphold the law of the republic that's it and they were fairly relaxed in doing so, well up until the late 80s anyway

I doubt it considering their colleagues were being murdered by the IRA, the IRA were robbing banks and assasinating people in the Republic and the IRA was sworn to overthrow the Republic.

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Agreed, like I said earlier, it's not a competition, for every Loyalist outrage there's an equally abhorrent outrage on the Republican side. While the political aims and targeted outcomes may have been different the methods chosen to pursue them would have been broadly similar so it's fallacious to criticise one side without criticising the other.

If ever we had an example of what the goal of the partitionist mind is, ^ this is it.

I'm grabbing the popcorn here as you show how the nationalists/republicans governed with hate and bigotry fo 70 years, until the lid came off the British supported failed statlet

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If ever we had an example of what the goal of the partitionist mind is, ^ this is it.

I'm grabbing the popcorn here as you show how the nationalists/republicans governed with hate and bigotry fo 70 years, until the lid came off the British supported failed statlet

Link to where I said that please...?

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Link to where I said that please...?

The conflict/war and the reasons for it does not come down to a count or even an assessment of the various tragic atrocities.
The atrocities were a symptom/result of what caused the conflict. And ANY reasonable assessment will show that it was 70 years of sectarian bigoted government that caused the conflict.
That was not equalled by nationalists and republicans...obviously. (well obvious to any one who knows the detail and history)

You are doing what partitionists always try to do, to hide their shame for ignoring it and standing by.

K-9

Mod:
Please don't comment on any re-regs and especially don't reply to them. We'll get to them within a few hours.

Also we seem to be going over the same, same old stuff about N.I. and not discussing the thread topic at all.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The atrocities were a symptom/result of what caused the conflict. And ANY reasonable assessment will show that it was 70 years of sectarian bigoted government that caused the conflict.
That was not equalled by nationalists and republicans...obviously. (well obvious to any one who knows the detail and history)

Have you a link to the stats for the atrocities in the 70 years you refer to or did you just pluck that statement out of the air...?

For the period of the troubles (1969 onwards) that we were discussing, it's widely known that the organisation that you hold so dear were responsible for more deaths than every other organisation combined but that would (obviously) have been known to you as someone who prides themselves on their knowledge of 'detail and history'...
http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Have you a link to the stats for the atrocities in the 70 years you refer to or did you just pluck that statement out of the air...?

For the period of the troubles (1969 onwards) that we were discussing, it's widely known that the organisation that you hold so dear were responsible for more deaths than every other organisation combined but that would (obviously) have been known to you as someone who prides themselves on their knowledge of 'detail and history'...
http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html

If you don't understand, what was patently obvious, that the atrocities/'period of the troubles' came as the 'result' of something, I will let someone else explain it to you.
It is what partitionists typically want to do, it is what FG FF are doing here with all these families, the attempt to stall the day the real stories come out. And those responsible for letting the lid come off are as much in the spotlight as those who committed atrocities.
Why should we know what happened to Brian Stack if we don't know what happened around Ballymurphy or Dublin/Monaghan?

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't understand, what was patently obvious, that the atrocities/'period of the troubles' came as the 'result' of something, I will let someone else explain it to you.
It is what partitionists typically want to do, it is what FG FF are doing here with all these families, the attempt to stall the day the real stories come out. And those responsible for letting the lid come off are as much in the spotlight as those who committed atrocities.
Why should we know what happened to Brian Stack if we don't know what happened around Ballymurphy or Dublin/Monaghan?

So no link...?

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

So no link...?

I never said that there were any 'atrocities' in the 70 year period, so why would I have to link to them?
Governance was 'atrocious' though and created the pressure pot. The British government underpining it was atrocious as was the Irish government ignoring it (standing by)Are you seriously going to deny that?

You keep denying the cause Billy, there has to be a reason for that. And you have neatly demonstrated what FG FF are attempting to do when they single out a family that fits certain criteria. To get the uninformed to shout and roar that it was all the fault of particular people.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said that there were any 'atrocities' in the 70 year period, so why would I have to link to them?
Governance was 'atrocious' though and created the pressure pot. The British government underpining it was atrocious as was the Irish government ignoring it (standing by)Are you seriously going to deny that?

You keep denying the cause Billy, there has to be a reason for that. And you have neatly demonstrated what FG FF are attempting to do when they single out a family that fits certain criteria. To get the uninformed to shout and roar that it was all the fault of particular people.

Try to focus, you said the 'atrocities' Committed by the other side were not equalled by those committed by the nationalists, you even qualified it by suggesting this 'fact' was based on knowledge of detail and history....

That was not equalled by nationalists and republicans...obviously. (well obvious to any one who knows the detail and history)

I challenged you to produce that 'knowledge and detail' that you refered to, you failed to do this, so it's not unreasonable to suggest your original statement is more founded in rhetoric rather than fact.

I on the other hand provided detail to confirm my original suggestion that the nationalist side were far and away the most bloodthirsty and violent element of the modern day conflict (1969 onwards) with a murder rate of more than twice the total of every other organisation including every Loyalist paramilitary force, the RUC, the UDR and the British Army COMBINED!
While that may be an uncomfortable statistic for some, and shocking for more, it is a verifiable fact which should be obvious to 'anyone who knows detail and history' wouldn't you agree...?

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Try to focus, you said the 'atrocities' Committed by the other side were not equalled by those committed by the nationalists, you even qualified it by suggesting this 'fact' was based on knowledge of detail and history....


I challenged you to produce that 'knowledge and detail' that you refered to, you failed to do this, so it's not unreasonable to suggest your original statement is more founded in rhetoric rather than fact.

I on the other hand provided detail to confirm my original suggestion that the nationalist side were far and away the most bloodthirsty and violent element of the modern day conflict (1969 onwards) with a murder rate of more than twice the total of every other organisation including every Loyalist paramilitary force, the RUC, the UDR and the British Army COMBINED!
While that may be an uncomfortable statistic for some, and shocking for more, it is a verifiable fact which should be obvious to 'anyone who knows detail and history' wouldn't you agree...?

The reason these threads get bogged down is because people like you keep lying about what is said.

I will leave it to others to assess what it is you are attempting to do. I don't understand tbh how you repeatedly get away with cherrypicking a sentence out of somebody's post and pretending that they were saying something else. You repeatedly do this.

Here is the full point I was making. You need to be able to follow a debate/point and not go full postal because you think you read/heard something :

The atrocities were a symptom/result of what caused the conflict. And ANY reasonable assessment will show that it was 70 years of sectarian bigoted government that caused the conflict.
That was not equalled by nationalists and republicans...obviously.

Re; Your point about the statistics of the conflict that resulted from 70 years of sectarian bigoted government since partition.
Statistics can be read in numerous ways. I suspect you won't read this but here it is anyway, a well argued piece on the subject.

http://thepensivequill.am/2011/11/statistics-of-conflict-and-conflict-of.html

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The reason these threads get bogged down is because people like you keep lying about what is said.

You know the drill, link to where I was "lying"..... :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

You know the drill, link to where I was "lying"..... :rolleyes:

You have lied a few times about what I said. I never said there were atrocities committed during 70 years of sectarian bigoted rule. I clearly said 'that was the a cause of the conflict.
I clearly said that 'republicans/nationalists did not equal that' = 70 years of sectarian bigoted governance....'obviously'.

Most recently you also lied about what Adams has said, he never said that, that there was an 'equal measure of hatred and bigotry'. If he did link to it.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Most recently you also lied about what Adams has said, he never said that, that there was an 'equal measure of hatred and bigotry'. If he did link to it.

No, I said he 'more or less' admitted it....