The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Never said the english?

Same same...

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

I don't equate an armed soldier being killed in a conflict to two teens blown up by the UDA/BA. You do.
If you join the British Army, IRA etc., go off into a conflict, there's a chance you'll be killed. A sad fact of conflict.
If you're going the chipper, you might get blown up by the BA/UDA.

The soldiers signed up to an organisation that murders unarmed civilians. The two teenagers didn't. That's the difference.

So you have no problem with the Gibraltar 3 getting killed? Like all is fair in love and war etc.?

You also believe in guilt by association, which is very interesting. If the teenage kids who signed up to an organisation that murders unarmed civilians are guilty, then every member of Sinn Fein is guilty of child abuse because Liam Adams was a valued member. Your post is full of self-serving nonsense.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The only poster who is trying to justify one of those is you. Normal people think both of those were horrific.

So we can say that various governments that have ignored what happened and in fact may have colluded in covering it up, are not 'normal people'?
Would 'normal people' ignore it? Have photo ops on the steps of the Dáil with selsct victims but leave other victims in the state those in the doc were?
Normal people? Do you even know what a normal person is?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

So you have no problem with the Gibraltar 3 getting killed? Like all is fair in love and war etc.?

You also believe in guilt by association, which is very interesting. If the teenage kids who signed up to an organisation that murders unarmed civilians are guilty, then every member of Sinn Fein is guilty of child abuse because Liam Adams was a valued member. Your post is full of self-serving nonsense.

Hilarious.
If the BA are acting outside the law and okay with that, you, by association must be cool with the IRA doing same.
Pedophilia isn't a SF policy I'm aware of. We know FF/FG supported the covering up of pedophilia and enslavement/baby stealing/selling and turning a blind eye in general. Does that mean all...you see how silly your 'logic' is on this?
We know the BA actively/purposefully, killed multitudes of unarmed civilians in their time. You join an army, go into a conflict, you might be killed, you might kill.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The only poster who is trying to justify one of those is you. Normal people think both of those were horrific.

I'm not justifying anything Blanch. They happened and I'm explaining why. I don't support any violence but I try to understand instead of throwing around pretend outrage. I don't believe you could care less.

maccored

(apologies didnt mean to post)

expectationlost

Brian Stanley buying ads on the Leinster Express website to remind you that he is Chair of the Dail Public Accounts committee

https://twitter.com/lostexpectation/status/1339385085083213824

Dyr

Bonniedog wrote: »

Not by calling a ceasefire which was the right thing to do, but following that by the acceptance of Partition. Republican objectives could have been pursued without that and least of all by running the place for them which has been anathema to republicans for 200 years.

The smarter provos (i.e. the older ones) were willing to accept a compromise settlement in 73, it was hardliners and the young guns like Adams that put the kibosh on it.

While they might be running the place for the brits they're sticking to their principles by making a complete balls of it.

FrancieBrady

Bambi wrote: »

The smarter provos (i.e. the older ones) were willing to accept a compromise settlement in 73, it was hardliners and the young guns like Adams that put the kibosh on it.

While they might be running the place for the brits they're sticking to their principles by making a complete balls of it.

Their 'compromise' settlement was repudiated Bambi, and weren't they all arrested and jailed for even asking?

smurgen

Condolences to loyalists at this tough time.

https://twitter.com/julianoneill/status/1339531801090547712?s=19

FrancieBrady

smurgen wrote: »

Condolences to loyalists at this tough time.

https://twitter.com/julianoneill/status/1339531801090547712?s=19

Let the token trial begin.

atticu

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let the token trial begin.

Are you against this trial taking place?

FrancieBrady

atticu wrote: »

Are you against this trial taking place?

No, let the farce continue. At least it keeps it in the minds of the public, even though some have done their level best to ignore it over the years.

atticu

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, let the farce continue. At least it keeps it in the minds of the public, even though some have done their level best to ignore it over the years.

If you are not against it, why do you call it a token trial and a farce?

I thought you were in favour of some truth process.

Well at least now I know that you are not in favour of any truth process.

FrancieBrady

atticu wrote: »

If you are not against it, why do you call it a token trial and a farce?

I thought you were in favour of some truth process.

Well at least now I know that you are not in favour of any truth process.

Russibh. It is 'token' because there were others responsible who walked away from this. Including those involved in the lying to the original whitewash inquiry.

Danzy

blanch152 wrote: »

What you mean to say is that you have a heirarchy of victims. Some victims are more important than others. The family of a 19-year old kid blown to bits by the PIRA is not important to you because he somehow deserved it. It's just nauseating.

Then you go on to blame the victim in the case of Mountbatten. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

😀

hatrickpatrick

Bonniedog wrote: »

The IRA campaign was not against Catholic discrimination.

It was for a British withdrawal and a 32 county Republic.

Therefore, it was defeated.

Depends on who you talk to and where you sit, I guess. Yes, the stated aim of the central organisation was to bring about a United Ireland, but the PIRA enjoyed its most successful recruitment drives in the immediate aftermath of incidents of Crown brutality against protesters, so I'd argue that the two goals became inexorably linked for those who took up arms.

hatrickpatrick

markodaly wrote: »

The English 'occupy' Scotland... where is the Scottish version of the IRA?

The English haven't spent decades denying one half of the Scottish population basic civil rights on the grounds of their ethnic or political identity. That's the difference. When the Scots were campaigning for a vote on an independent Scotland, for example, the police didn't kettle them and then beat the absolute f*cking sh!t out of them for literally no reason whatsoever other than sadistic bigotry.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

So you have no problem with the Gibraltar 3 getting killed? Like all is fair in love and war etc.?

Everything the British side did during the Troubles was wrong, because the very cause they were fighting for was itself wrong.

Many things the IRA did were also wrong, because their actions were wrong. But any British actions, whether those actions themselves were right or wrong in isolation, were ultimately wrong anyway, because the entire reason for the conflict's existence was based upon the British acting abhorrently to begin with.

There is only one action the British could have taken in response to The Troubles which would have been morally acceptable, and that would have been allowing civil rights marchers to march unimpeded, followed by granting their requests to be treated as equal citizens.

Instead, their actions served to shore up one side of the conflict's supremacy and dominance over the other. Regardless of any other factors, regardless of history, regardless of context, regardless of literally anything else, this makes them the villains. End of story.

Fighting to maintain one's power to oppress another who rejects the imposition of that oppression makes one a pr!ck. It's as simple as that. It is impossible to justify. There is no such thing as justified oppression. There is no such thing as justified discrimination. It is never morally acceptable to deny somebody a vote, or a job, or an allocation of a public resource, based on which demographic that individual belongs to.

The second you take up arms to defend your power to treat people like that, you are automatically the villain in the story. Period.

Brendan Bendar

Descending rapidly.................this one could end badly.


Bale out.......bale out........bale out.

FrancieBrady

The Fine Gael hypocrisy continues.

https://twitter.com/DanielCollins85/status/1339330847745466371

Brendan Bendar

FG threads >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Fine Gael hypocrisy continues.

https://twitter.com/DanielCollins85/status/1339330847745466371

They are full of ****e that's why. I'm sick of them pretending to be outraged when they couldn't give a ****. It's all about one-upmanship. Not a genuine concern in anything they go on about.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

They are full of ****e that's why. I'm sick of them pretending to be outraged when they couldn't give a ****. It's all about one-upmanship. Not a genuine concern in anything they go on about.

Any news on the sick man of Tipperary?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Fine Gael hypocrisy continues.

https://twitter.com/DanielCollins85/status/1339330847745466371

Bowie wrote: »

They are full of ****e that's why. I'm sick of them pretending to be outraged when they couldn't give a ****. It's all about one-upmanship. Not a genuine concern in anything they go on about.

The difference has been explained to you many times.

Some people on here do things for a laugh, the rest of us are serious about our concerns.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The difference has been explained to you many times.

Some people on here do things for a laugh, the rest of us are serious about our concerns.

Sorry teach, your explanations are not acceptable.

The evidence certainly shows you are serious about violence from a specific period and by specific people. Like FG.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The difference has been explained to you many times.

Some people on here do things for a laugh, the rest of us are serious about our concerns.

How can someone be a hypocrite on numerous things and serious at the same time?
It's not believable.

A shinner knocking in to another shinner around the corner to ask she delete posts is spun as 'heavies' going around.
A senior FG'er threatening a 19 year old to stand aside or else she'll show a bad taste post he did to the party is FG tackling misogyny :rolleyes:

Fann Linn

Bowie wrote: »

How can someone be a hypocrite on numerous things and serious at the same time?
It's not believable.

A shinner knocking in to another shinner around the corner to ask she delete posts is spun as 'heavies' going around.
A senior FG'er threatening a 19 year old to stand aside or else she'll show a bad taste tweet he did to the party is FG tackling misogyny :rolleyes:

Comes natural to blueshirts, take Leo for example,

'I'm against gay marriage, now I'm for gay marriage, I'm against repeal, now I'm for repeal.'

hatrickpatrick

@Blanch out of interest, is there any conflict in history in which you are happy to differentiate between the deaths of hostile combatants and innocent civilians? Does your insistence in equating the two extend to, for example, members of Al Quaeda or Isis killed in Iraq by coalition forces when the war was ongoing? How about members of Hamas killed by the IDF? Members of the Luftwaffe killed by Allied forces? Members of the confederate army killed by the union army?

Would you, for example, regard it as equally abhorrent and immoral when an innocent office worker in his or her workplace was killed in the 9/11 attacks, and when Al-Zarqawi was killed by American forces in Iraq? Do you regard both of these killings as equally morally reprehensible, or is one more immoral than the other? Would you justify either?

McMurphy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

@Blanch out of interest, is there any conflict in history in which you are happy to differentiate between the deaths of hostile combatants and innocent civilians? Does your insistence in equating the two extend to, for example, members of Al Quaeda or Isis killed in Iraq by coalition forces when the war was ongoing? How about members of Hamas killed by the IDF? Members of the Luftwaffe killed by Allied forces? Members of the confederate army killed by the union army?

Would you, for example, regard it as equally abhorrent and immoral when an innocent office worker in his or her workplace was killed in the 9/11 attacks, and when Al-Zarqawi was killed by American forces in Iraq? Do you regard both of these killings as equally morally reprehensible, or is one more immoral than the other? Would you justify either?

He's cool with Maira Cahill's membership of the same dissident group responsible for Omagh because (and I swear this is true):

Cahill was "only a member for 6 months".

And:

She "was a confused young girl who joined the dissidents because of Sinn Fein"

That's the truth you're getting from me, honest to god.