Taoiseach shocked and dismayed at Sinn Fein TDs tweet on IRA attacks

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree with all of this. The tweet was moronic. The reason I waded in was because people were comparing pro-Republican sentiment with pro-Loyalist sentiment, and I object to that on the simple basis that fundamentally, what one side fought for was morally wrong and what the other side fought for was morally right. The ways in which both sides fought for those things isn't relevant in my view to the fact that conflating one with the other is utter stupidity.

It's no different to the US civil war in my view - commemorating or celebrating one side in that conflict is rightly viewed as tacit support for racism and slavery. Similarly, commemorating or celebrating the Loyalist side in The Troubles is tacit support for discrimination. That's why there is, in my view, absolutely no comparison between the two and those coming out with "how can anyone be ok with this and not ok with pro-Crown Forces sentiment?" sh!te are being intentionally disingenuous. They are pretending the two sides in the conflict are morally equivalent when anyone with any notion of right and wrong knows that they are not.

EDIT: In simple terms, it's like comparing someone who murders for sexual gratification with someone who kills a home intruder who is about to attack their family. Obviously one can argue that killing is wrong and that neither should be celebrated for their actions, but for anyone to claim that cheering a homeowner for killing a burglar is on equal moral fotting with cheering a pervert who murders for pleasure, is batsh!t insane. And those posters know that when they try to stir the pot in this way.

What nonsense. If you follow that logic, if the IRA had planted a dirty nuclear bomb and killed 2 million people in London, that would have been ok because what they were fighting for was morally right!!!

There was nothing morally right about what the IRA fought for, and any campaign based on terrorising people is wrong. If you kid yourself that the IRA were fighting for people's rights, then I feel sorry for you.

Solutionking

tdf7187 wrote: »

There is certainly a gaping hypocrisy in the view of recent Irish history presented by the Zanu FF/FG establishment.

Anyone fighting against forces of occupation pre 1922 - freedom fighter, nationalist, founder of the state, officially designated national hero
Anyone fighting against forces of occupation post 1922- terrorist, murderer, reprobate

At least the likes of Ruth Dudley-Earnest and Eoghan Harris are not hypocrites. They hate all types of Irish nationalism, and love all types of Brit imperialism.

That's not really true is it?
Everyone should have issue with the PIRA who blew up a chip shop knowing they would kill women and children while been 100% aware the "target" was never at the location. Maybe you want to support the PIRA but I think you will find most people don't.

Let's not forget the PIRA said they wanted to protect and free the catholics. Which they didn't achieve at the end of all the killing and they actually killed more catholics than anyone else in the North

https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html


SF will try tell you that was a "great success".

tdf7187

Solutionking wrote: »

That's not really true is it?
Everyone should have issue with the PIRA who blew up a chip shop knowing they would kill women and children while been 100% aware the "target" was never at the location. Maybe you want to support the PIRA but I think you will find most people don't.

Let's not forget the PIRA said they wanted to protect and free the catholics. Which they didn't achieve at the end of all the killing and they actually killed more catholics than anyone else in the North

https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html


SF will try tell you that was a "great success".

Your post doesn't deal, in any way at all, with the points I raised. I made no comment on the PIRA's campaign. As it happens, I did not support it and view it as counterproductive. I was merely commenting on the double standards of the establishment. Incidentally, civilians also died in the 1916 rising - the key players in which are venerated by the Dublin establishment. In fact, more civilians died in the rising than the number of British troops and revolutionaries put together. This is an inconvenient truth for the establishment, and it is not surprising that they generate a lot of hot air and blow a lot of smoke around in the media to try to obscure it.

So - using your exact logic - EVERYONE should have an issue with the 1916 Easter Rising leaders. And not support them or venerate them. Correct?

Solutionking

tdf7187 wrote: »

Your post doesn't deal, in any way at all, with the points I raised. I made no comment on the PIRA's campaign. As it happens, I did not support it and view it as counterproductive. I was merely commenting on the double standards of the establishment. Incidentally, civilians also died in the 1916 rising - the key players in which are venerated by the Dublin establishment.

You are complaining about two different parts of Irish history. Seperated by a huge gap. Also you are trying to compare SInn Fein and the IRA with the Provisional IRA and Provisional SF. A big difference to a lot of people.

So not sure what your point is?

tdf7187

Solutionking wrote: »

You are complaining about two different parts of Irish history. Seperated by a huge gap. Also you are trying to compare SInn Fein and the IRA with the Provisional IRA and Provisional SF. A big difference to a lot of people.

So not sure what your point is?

The gap is largely arbitrary, and it certainly isn't huge. That's my point.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

What nonsense. If you follow that logic, if the IRA had planted a dirty nuclear bomb and killed 2 million people in London, that would have been ok because what they were fighting for was morally right!!!

I never said any of it was ok. You are once again intentionally misquoting me. I said they were the lesser evil. They were the result of cause and effect, and that cause was Loyalist / British thuggery and bigotry.

If I throw a punch at you for absolutely no reason and give you a bloody nose, and you punch me back and I die of a brain haemorrhage, it's my own fault and I'm still the bigger scumbag for throwing a punch at you for no reason. Unprovoked attacks are always less morally justified than provoked ones. Terrorising the people of London was never ok and never have I justified it, it's a dark stain on Irish history and there is no question about that. But every action committed by the Crown Forces in Northern Ireland is a thousand times worse, because they did it in order to keep an entire demographic of people subjugated.

There was nothing morally right about what the IRA fought for, and any campaign based on terrorising people is wrong. If you kid yourself that the IRA were fighting for people's rights, then I feel sorry for you.

So do you imagine they were risking getting arrested, tortured and/or killed for the craic, then? Why do you imagine the organisation formed? Why do you imagine that it experienced record recruitment in the immediate aftermath of Bloody Sunday?

Solutionking

tdf7187 wrote: »

The gap is largely arbitrary, and it certainly isn't huge. That's my point.

The original SF and IRA finished up in 1922
The PRIA and PSF started in 1969 in it's current form. 40+ years is long enough for most people

hatrickpatrick

Solutionking wrote: »

The PRIA and PSF started in 1969 in it's current form. 40+ years is long enough for most people

Are you aware of the reasons for their startup in 1969?

ShamNNspace

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I never said any of it was ok. You are once again intentionally misquoting me. I said they were the lesser evil. They were the result of cause and effect, and that cause was Loyalist / British thuggery and bigotry.

If I throw a punch at you for absolutely no reason and give you a bloody nose, and you punch me back and I die of a brain haemorrhage, it's my own fault and I'm still the bigger scumbag for throwing a punch at you for no reason. Unprovoked attacks are always less morally justified than provoked ones. Terrorising the people of London was never ok and never have I justified it, it's a dark stain on Irish history and there is no question about that. But every action committed by the Crown Forces in Northern Ireland is a thousand times worse, because they did it in order to keep an entire demographic of people subjugated.



So do you imagine they were risking getting arrested, tortured and/or killed for the craic, then? Why do you imagine the organisation formed? Why do you imagine that it experienced record recruitment in the immediate aftermath of Bloody Sunday?

You're playing handball against a haystack there mate, a futile exercise

feargale

WrenBoy wrote: »

If this "Shocked and Dismayed" him, then I don't think he's really up to running a Government in hard times, too much stress on the poor thing.

That kind of smartass remark could equally be made about the reaction of SF politicians to the British government's stated refusal to hold an enquiry into the Finucane murder. Equality of esteem for some but not for others.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I never said any of it was ok. You are once again intentionally misquoting me. I said they were the lesser evil. They were the result of cause and effect, and that cause was Loyalist / British thuggery and bigotry.

If I throw a punch at you for absolutely no reason and give you a bloody nose, and you punch me back and I die of a brain haemorrhage, it's my own fault and I'm still the bigger scumbag for throwing a punch at you for no reason. Unprovoked attacks are always less morally justified than provoked ones. Terrorising the people of London was never ok and never have I justified it, it's a dark stain on Irish history and there is no question about that. But every action committed by the Crown Forces in Northern Ireland is a thousand times worse, because they did it in order to keep an entire demographic of people subjugated.



So do you imagine they were risking getting arrested, tortured and/or killed for the craic, then? Why do you imagine the organisation formed? Why do you imagine that it experienced record recruitment in the immediate aftermath of Bloody Sunday?

That bit in bold simply isn't true. For a start, there were many actions that the Crown Forces took that were protecting people, many of them risked their lives (e.g. Warrenpoint) for the security and safety of ordinary people. Yes, there were things that they did that were wrong, and they should be rightly condemned for those, but the vast majority of their actions were in defence of law and order. Secondly, they were a legitimate democratically accepted security force. Northern Ireland is and was British by virtue of the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland. That makes them very different to the IRA who had no democratic legitimacy (unless you believe the fable of a history back to 1919).

None of that excuses Bloody Sunday or Finucane or any other wrong.

Hqrry113

feargale wrote: »

That kind of smartass remark could equally be made about the reaction of SF politicians to the British government's stated refusal to hold an enquiry into the Finucane murder. Equality of esteem for some but not for others.

Everyone in Ireland whether they be Catholic or protestant knows the government/mi5 killed finucane there's nothing wrong with wanting the people of England to know what happened to him.

Galwayguy35

Im no shinner but Martin, Coveney and the rest of them are starting to sound like west Brits, the bombing of pubs full of civilians by the IRA was wrong but British soldiers were legitimate targets well able to defend themselves.

Kermit.de.frog

We'd have a United Ireland long before today if the terror campaign never started 50 years a go.

SF need to be deleted long before there is a United Ireland.

rdwight

“We need to be able to talk about the past in a way that is honest to our beliefs, but also doesn’t deepen division or cause hurt,” added Stanley.

https://www.thejournal.ie/brian-stanley-apology-5286565-Dec2020/

He's only figured this out now? And he called the Brits the slow learners.

rdwight

[HTML][/HTML]

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We'd have a United Ireland long before today if the terror campaign never started 50 years a go.

SF need to be deleted long before there is a United Ireland.

It's likely there'll be a border poll and some form of United Ireland within the next 10 years. And it will be a result purely of demographics. SF/IRA's 100 year-old intermittent military campaign won't have hastened the outcome by even a day.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

That bit in bold simply isn't true. For a start, there were many actions that the Crown Forces took that were protecting people, many of them risked their lives (e.g. Warrenpoint) for the security and safety of ordinary people. Yes, there were things that they did that were wrong, and they should be rightly condemned for those, but the vast majority of their actions were in defence of law and order. Secondly, they were a legitimate democratically accepted security force. Northern Ireland is and was British by virtue of the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland. That makes them very different to the IRA who had no democratic legitimacy (unless you believe the fable of a history back to 1919).

None of that excuses Bloody Sunday or Finucane or any other wrong.

Bullsh!t. They were a paramilitary force of bigoted scumbags whose primary aim was to terrorise Catholics into silence and submission, using extreme violence to scare people out of protesting against electoral, housing and employment discrimination.

This ten minute clip shows precisely why the Troubles began.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1CTWv8zpPI

Any person who remained a member of any Crown Force in Northern Ireland after this incident was broadcast all over the world for people to see, was a willing accomplice in state-sponsored terrorism and oppression. From that day forward, remaining in one of these organisations was a de facto endorsement and enforcement of state-sponsored terrorism and oppression, and therefore anyone who did so was a legitimate target in the conflict which inevitably followed.

Jesus, just watch the video. Skip to six minutes in if you want the condensed version; Peaceful protesters getting the absolute sh!t kicked out of them by thugs in uniform. Every single one of these scumbags who subsequently got a bullet to the head got exactly what they deserved. They were the British equivalent of the KKK or IDF, and history should remember them as such - and nothing more. They were f*cking monsters, every single one of them. Wearing that uniform was an undisguised statement of support for what was, in essence, a British form of apartheid. F*ck the lot of them.

batman75

For his own reasons he obviously believes the contents of his tweet. Obviously Mary Lou has wrapped him on the knuckles. But isn't it better for the public that he can tweet what he did. We are supposed to be a land which offers people free speech. Let us leave them say what they want that way we know what they truly think than what they are asked to say to pander to the masses.

His tweet was idiotic but I would rather know his genuine thinking than have him read off a prepared script in a desperate attempt to diffuse the whoooha over his tweet.

golfball37

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Is it Narrowpoint, or something? Anyway I remember the day very well, shock and horror here in Dublin, great sadness & disgust with total and utter contempt for those responsible for all the loss of life on that day.

Speak for yourself. A lot of my neighbors considered it justice and wished the attacks would stay on targets like the paras.

Feisar

golfball37 wrote: »

Speak for yourself. A lot of my neighbors considered it justice and wished the attacks would stay on targets like the paras.

The problem with shooting Para’s is nobody important cares. The are comprised of people from the lower classes, from the crappiest places in the UK. Nobody important cares about dead Para’s.

14 dead but not forgotten, we got 18 and Mountbatten. It’s the Mountbatten’s of this world you need to be effecting to illicit change. But as Dad does always say, “but what about the kids on the boat?”

gourcuff

were the paratroopers not legitimate targets after their exploits on bloody sunday? surely they couldn't be that naive that they weren't aware they would be targeted after that? similar to the essex regiment in the WOI?

Feisar

gourcuff wrote: »

were the paratroopers not legitimate targets after their exploits on bloody sunday? surely they couldn't be that naive that they weren't aware they would be targeted after that? similar to the essex regiment in the WOI?

Well to be fair if we can agree that the War of Independence was legit, than any attacks on British forces on the island of Ireland must be seen as legitimate.

smurgen

gourcuff wrote: »

were the paratroopers not legitimate targets after their exploits on bloody sunday? surely they couldn't be that naive that they weren't aware they would be targeted after that? similar to the essex regiment in the WOI?

They celebrate Bloody Sunday ffs. The DUP have glorified the actions of Soldier F. Ceann Comhairle made a massive mistake in my opinion.

https://twitter.com/SMacB/status/1334169186818543616?s=19

hatrickpatrick

gourcuff wrote: »

were the paratroopers not legitimate targets after their exploits on bloody sunday? surely they couldn't be that naive that they weren't aware they would be targeted after that? similar to the essex regiment in the WOI?

No, they were respectable servicemen and women brought in to put down a rowdy uprising by Catholics who should have been delighted to live in a country in which they were refused from employment, refused for housing, denied the meaningful right to vote through corrupt manipulation of electoral boundaries, and violently attacked or even murdered whenever they had the temerity to be publicly upset about any of this. Didn't you get the memo?

The Loyalist apologia in this thread is staggering. There was a very, very, very black and white moral issue underpinning The Troubles, with a very clear aggressor-victim relationship. Those who are trying to whitewash this aspect out of history are the worst kind of revisionists.

Fact: There would never have been any large scale violent conflict in Northern Ireland if the Loyalist majority hadn't committed any of the aforementioned acts of discrimination. It's as simple as that. Do the loyalist apologists here think status issues would have trumped everyday realities in such a context?

If the Catholic population had been on equal footing in terms of jobs, public housing, zoning, and electoral representation, do people think there would even have been a civil rights movement for the RUC to brutalise in the first place?

The moral equivalence argument people are going on with in this thread is mind bogglingly pathetic. The loyalists were the the instigators, the antagonists, the villains, the "baddies" in this era of this island's historical story. It's as simple as that. They were a bunch of demographic supremacists who believed themselves to be superior to the human beings on the other side of the demographic divide, and for that, those who supported and enforced their coercive power through state-backed violence deserved every single shot taken at them in response.

doublejobbing 2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the Catholic population had been on equal footing in terms of, public housing, .... and electoral representation,

Sinn Fein in 2020 are actively supporting schemes that are discriminatory in the priority allocation of social housing (Syrian refugee resettlement) and support a scheme to offer immediate subsidised housing to newly arrived asylum seekers (they support ending direct provision, seemingly by all means necessary as they didnt come out opposing the Catherine Day report). These two schemes intend to offer housing at monthly personal costs unimaginable to a majority of working class Irish renters / mortgage payers.

Regarding electoral corruption, although SF haven't nailed their colours to the mast as strongly as Labour and the PBP a betting man would guess they are very likely to row in behind the plot to overturn the decision of the citizenship referendum of 2004 without putting the question back to the public.

Is this sort of thing only bad when the Prods do it, or am I missing something here?


Again, SF are a banter party. It is staggering the childlike faith so many people have in them.

FrancieBrady

batman75 wrote: »

For his own reasons he obviously believes the contents of his tweet. Obviously Mary Lou has wrapped him on the knuckles. But isn't it better for the public that he can tweet what he did. We are supposed to be a land which offers people free speech. Let us leave them say what they want that way we know what they truly think than what they are asked to say to pander to the masses.

His tweet was idiotic but I would rather know his genuine thinking than have him read off a prepared script in a desperate attempt to diffuse the whoooha over his tweet.

I agree.

The conversation has to be had. These things will keep happening, sure as the sun sets every evening.

The fact is, some people on this island think what the British did was right and regret our independence, some think that what the loyalists did was right and some think that what republicans did was right.
Sub divide that with the people who think what was done a 100 years ago was right but what was done in the last 50 was wrong.

We need to have a conversation about how we remember and how we commemorate and celebrate a divided part.

Censoring, silencing and banning is not the answer.

Jinglejangle69

What did Alan Kelly say?

Getting a lot of praise today for his remarks criticising SF.

FrancieBrady

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

What did Alan Kelly say?

Getting a lot of praise today for his remarks criticising SF.

Searched Twitter and nothing stands out.

https://twitter.com/search?q=alan%20kelly%20labour&src=typed_query

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What nonsense. If you follow that logic, if the IRA had planted a dirty nuclear bomb and killed 2 million people in London, that would have been ok because what they were fighting for was morally right!!!

There was nothing morally right about what the IRA fought for, and any campaign based on terrorising people is wrong. If you kid yourself that the IRA were fighting for people's rights, then I feel sorry for you.

So was it morally right for the U.S. to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or is it maybe more complex?
Every single military campaign there ever was is based on terrorising people if not killing them.
You have to be playing naïve to sell your agenda surely?

People needed the IRA, people supported the IRA. If that wasn't true, they wouldn't have existed. They are all some people had in their corner.
Your politics or allegiances doesn't make them wrong beyond your opinion. Which is as valid as any other but not conclusive. If you can't see things from the perspective of others you'll never fully understand any conflict.

Feisar

blanch152 wrote: »

What nonsense. If you follow that logic, if the IRA had planted a dirty nuclear bomb and killed 2 million people in London, that would have been ok because what they were fighting for was morally right!!!

There was nothing morally right about what the IRA fought for, and any campaign based on terrorising people is wrong. If you kid yourself that the IRA were fighting for people's rights, then I feel sorry for you.

Yer attaching right/wrong to the human condition, I feel sorry for you.
Them cùnts are fùcking us up so let’s go fùck them up is more how it works.