Sinn Fein cancels bomber commemoration

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Gaurds have time for recording set-dancing videos,seems obvious to me,theyve nothing else to do


What charity was that?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you lost the bet. For the record you still haven't answered them but I like to see some good come from this crap, so I'll tell you what. I'll donate to yours, if you prove that you have donated to mine:

https://www.britishlegion.org.uk/get-involved/ways-to-give/donate

This one

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

What questions have you asked me? Link please.


FYI, the old term for ''castle loyalist'' would have been ''castle catholic'' or ''West Brit''. In brief, catholics whose loyalty was to ''Dublin Castle'' (which was the centre of the British establishment in Ireland).

A few with the same mentality around. Would mostly be FG voters I would imagine. John Bruton types. A few on here too.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yous are happy for their not to be a garda investigation into this so??


Looks to me,yous want something covered up.tbh,prefering to label the.media liers and not wanted truth of issue,got to by the gaurds?

Something fishy here

An investigation into what? The made up scenario that you conjured out of thin air, where members of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil were abusing the father online? You've literally invented this situation. It didn't happen. Or, if it did, neither you nor anyone else have provided sufficient evidence that it did.

You're deluded if you think the guards should be going around investigating every bullsh1t conspiracy theory invented by terrorist sympathisers. The fact that you think there's some sort of cover up, or there's something fishy going on, speaks volumes.

You avoided answering questions earlier in the thread about Sinn Féins confirmed, documented abuse of others online.

Do you think there should be an investigation of this by the guards? Do you think there's some sort of fishy cover up going on? Do you think everyone in SF who was in power at the time should resign?

Because if you answer no to any of those questions you are a fraud, a charlatan and a hypocrite.

maccored

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah I gathered as much, doesn't really hold much relevance these days, though, does it?

Edit:sentence withdrawn cos I'm an idiot



The questions you missed, or the simplified versions at least, are:

Why are you still asking those questions when we already know that those things happen in conflicts and no-one in their right minds would prefer a conflict to peace?

It baffles me what point you are trying to prove here.

maccored

maccored wrote: »

Why are you still asking those questions when we already know that those things happen in conflicts and no-one in their right minds would prefer a conflict to peace?

It baffles me what point you are trying to prove here.

Because I'm not talking about conflicts. I'm talking about terrorism and deliberate attempts to terrorise people. That's it. We weren't in the middle of a conflict when this dope blew himself up. We were slap bang in the middle of a ceasefire, and this was an attempt to bring us right back into the middle of it. The last thing we should be doing is commemorating him, he should be lampooned for the impressionable sap that he was.

Blaaz (and JM08) were being deliberately vague in their posts up to that point, so I wanted to see how far down the rabbit hole they were willing to admit they had gone. Blaaz has confirmed that they find those who are tasked with protecting the citizens are equally as guilty as those who plant bombs. I'd like to see if he's alone and, if not, what his peers think of his support of terrorism.

Edit: please tell me you at least see the irony in claiming that nobody prefers conflict over peace, in a thread where people want to lionise someone who tried to force us back into a conflict during the first period of peace in over a quarter of a century, yeah?

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Because I'm not talking about conflicts. I'm talking about terrorism and deliberate attempts to terrorise people. That's it. We weren't in the middle of a conflict when this dope blew himself up. We were slap bang in the middle of a ceasefire, and this was an attempt to bring us right back into the middle of it. The last thing we should be doing is commemorating him, he should be lampooned for the impressionable sap that he was.

Blaaz (and JM08) were being deliberately vague in their posts up to that point, so I wanted to see how far down the rabbit hole they were willing to admit they had gone. Blaaz has confirmed that they find those who are tasked with protecting the citizens are equally as guilty as those who plant bombs. I'd like to see if he's alone and, if not, what his peers think of his support of terrorism.

So would it be ok to lampoon dead soldiers in a war you thought was unwarranted?

*By the way it is called a 'ceasefire' because it is temporary.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So would it be ok to lampoon dead soldiers in a war you thought was unwarranted?

*By the way it is called a 'ceasefire' because it is temporary.

It's okay to lampoon just about anything, in my book, depending on context.

By the way, that ceasefire has now lasted longer than the period of war which preceded it. Bar a couple of notable incidents, I'd call that a rousing success, wouldn't you? Or would you rather go back to the good old days?

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

It's okay to lampoon just about anything, in my book, depending on context.

By the way, that ceasefire has now lasted longer than the period of war which preceded it. Bar a couple of notable incidents, I'd call that a rousing success, wouldn't you? Or would you rather go back to the good old days?

You are factually wrong there, 1998 is the year the GFA was signed. The IRA came off 'ceasefire' in 96.

And no, I wouldn't lampoon dead soldiers or civilians on either side or in any war.

That is ignorant and crass.

maccored

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because I'm not talking about conflicts. I'm talking about terrorism and deliberate attempts to terrorise people. That's it. We weren't in the middle of a conflict when this dope blew himself up. We were slap bang in the middle of a ceasefire, and this was an attempt to bring us right back into the middle of it. The last thing we should be doing is commemorating him, he should be lampooned for the impressionable sap that he was.

Blaaz (and JM08) were being deliberately vague in their posts up to that point, so I wanted to see how far down the rabbit hole they were willing to admit they had gone. Blaaz has confirmed that they find those who are tasked with protecting the citizens are equally as guilty as those who plant bombs. I'd like to see if he's alone and, if not, what his peers think of his support of terrorism.

Edit: please tell me you at least see the irony in claiming that nobody prefers conflict over peace, in a thread where people want to lionise someone who tried to force us back into a conflict during the first period of peace in over a quarter of a century, yeah?

I’d repeat my claim no-one chooses conflict over peace. Are you saying people on this thread are saying any different?

You though are choosing to ignore there was a conflict in the first place. You are ignoring the reality and asking people to answer questions outside that reality.

I still don't understand the logic of that. You are just wasting everyone’s time.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are factually wrong there, 1998 is the year the GFA was signed. The IRA came off 'ceasefire' in 96.

And no, I wouldn't lampoon dead soldiers or civilians on either side or in any war.

That is ignorant and crass.

The ceasefire commenced in 1994, the day before I began secondary school.
That paved the way for the GFA in 1998
There were two bombings in 1996, both deliberate attempts to sabotage the peace process begun by people who preferred conflict over peace
The bloke who is the subject of this thread is one of them.

If you're going to be an armchair Republican, at least get your facts correct.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

The ceasefire commenced in 1994, the day before I began secondary school.
That paved the way for the GFA in 1998
There were two bombings in 1996, both deliberate attempts to sabotage the peace process begun by people who preferred conflict over peace
The bloke who is the subject of this thread is one of them.

If you're going to be an armchair Republican, at least get your facts correct.

Ceasefires are temporary until a peace deal is reached. The IRA came off ceasefire, not this lad.

Stop talking nonsense

maccored

maccored wrote: »

I’d repeat my claim no-one chooses conflict over peace. Are you saying people on this thread are saying any different?

People in this thread, including your good self, want to commemorate this chap for doing exactly that, choosing conflict over peace. How is that in any way conducive to fomenting peace?

Blaaz has said also that further conflict is necessary TODAY, pending the outcome of a border poll, or some other schoolyard Republican ****e. Its hard to keep track, given the nature of his posting style.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ceasefires are temporary until a peace deal is reached. The IRA came off ceasefire, not this lad.

Stop talking nonsense

Are you on drugs?
This lad WAS IN THE IRA AND TRIED TO BLOW UP CENTRAL LONDON.

maccored

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People in this thread, including your good self, want to commemorate this chap for doing exactly that, choosing conflict over peace. How is that in any way conducive to fomenting peace?

Blaaz has said also that further conflict is necessary TODAY, pending the outcome of a border poll, or some other schoolyard Republican ****e. Its hard to keep track, given the nature of his posting style.

Toddle off there and tell me i mentioned commemorating ‘this chap’ ...

I’ll wait

What i have learned is you insist on complaining about deaths on one side and ignoring its something that has happened in every war and conflict the world over. Sometimes i suspect you just want to wind people up. As i say - wasting peoples time

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you on drugs?
This lad WAS IN THE IRA AND TRIED TO BLOW UP CENTRAL LONDON.

Yes. We know. The IRA came off ceasefire.

The 'Peace' had not been achieved at that point.

maccored

maccored wrote: »

Toddle off there and tell me i mentioned commemorating ‘this chap’ ...

I’ll wait

What i have learned is you insist on complaining about deaths on one side and ignoring its something that has happened in every war and conflict the world over. Sometimes i suspect you just want to wind people up. As i say - wasting peoples time

You may not have said it out straight, but that is 100%the impression you're giving. You've spent this entire thread basically saying "but what about the Brits!" whenever anyone says anything derogatory about the IRA. This is exactly what I mean about people dancing around topics and refusing to show their true colours. Plausible deniability. "I never said he should be commemorated, I just said that what he did is no worse than what happens everywhere there's conflict, implying support for his actions"

Do you think this commemoration should have went ahead, and why / why not?

Forget about wars and British army and who did what. Does this guy deserve to be treated like a hero?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. We know. The IRA came off ceasefire.

The 'Peace' had not been achieved at that point.

More examples of people speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You said the IRA broke the ceasefire, not this guy. This guy WAS the IRA and he tried to break it, unsuccessfully. Bar those two incidents in 1996 by warmongers trying to get back to fighting, we've essentially been at peace for the guts of 27 years.

Grow up and acknowledge that we've been at peace since 1994, instead of trying to get bogged down in semantics to gloss over the fact that you thought it all began with the GFA

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

More examples of people speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You said the IRA broke the ceasefire, not this guy. This guy WAS the IRA and he tried to break it, unsuccessfully. Bar those two incidents in 1996 by warmongers trying to get back to fighting, we've essentially been at peace for the guts of 27 years.

Grow up and acknowledge that we've been at peace since 1994, instead of trying to get bogged down in semantics to gloss over the fact that you thought it all began with the GFA

Absolute nonsense. Away and do some research. Lord help us, I've heard it all now.

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch96.htm

Natterjack from Kerry

Deleted User wrote: »

You may not have said it out straight, but that is 100%the impression you're giving. You've spent this entire thread basically saying "but what about the Brits!" whenever anyone says anything derogatory about the IRA. Forget about wars and British army and who did what. Does this guy deserve to be treated like a hero?

All they are doing there is avoiding your question, as you say. Where does that line of deflection end - "no I wont forget about wars and the British army and who did what" - "oh yeh, well then, the Irish top the table for who killed more native Americans, so you arent any one to speak". It goes nowhere. They should answer your specific question.

Hamsterchops

When you think about it now, the whole concept of making a bomb, then taking it on the bus with you to plant somewhere in London is totally mad, and always was mad, and Sinn Fein will forever find themselves defending this madness, cus that's their baby, that's their baggage, that was their thing. With the armalite in one hand & the ballot box in the other (+ a bomb in the boot) they must own it as it's their past and they're proud of it.

Mary Lou never shys aways from their "glorious" past.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

The ceasefire commenced in 1994, the day before I began secondary school.
That paved the way for the GFA in 1998
There were two bombings in 1996, both deliberate attempts to sabotage the peace process begun by people who preferred conflict over peace
The bloke who is the subject of this thread is one of them.

If you're going to be an armchair Republican, at least get your facts correct.

First of all, the bloke who is the subject of this thread was carrying a bomb that went off accidentally, killing him. I don't think that was a deliberate plan of the PIRA.


Now the Manchester bombing and Canary Wharf bombings were a response to the British Government who were dragging their feet in the peace negotiations. Its pretty much accepted by most commentators that those two bombings brought John Major to the negotiating table.


There were plenty of warnings given and thats why there were very few deaths (2 for the Canary Wharf where they were told leave their shop and they stayed to lock up).


The bombing in Manchester sparked the beginning of a complete regeneration of the city.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah I gathered as much, doesn't really hold much relevance these days, though, does it?

Edit:sentence withdrawn cos I'm an idiot

The questions you missed, or the simplified versions at least, are:

Question 1 (a simple yes or no will suffice):

Do you find it acceptable for someone to set off a bomb in a public place?
No.

Question 2 (another yes / no question):

Do you find it acceptable for that same someone to set off a bomb in a public place, if they warn the authorities about it first?
Not when the authorities deliberately ignore the warnings and fail to evacuate people.

Question 3 (more of a free form answer this time around:

Do you think it's acceptable for the person in question 2 to turn around and say "well, I warned the authorities, so if anyone gets killed by my bomb then that's their fault for not acting on the warning and not my fault for setting off the bomb in the first place"?
It takes two to tango on this one. Fault/blame lies with both equally.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you on drugs?
This lad WAS IN THE IRA AND TRIED TO BLOW UP CENTRAL LONDON.

And about 2,000 of the good people of Wexford turned up to this bomber's funeral despite the possibilities that paramilitaries would be there in uniform - they weren't).


Should they all be ashamed of themselves?

Whatisthisnow

This has taking over from the funeral thread

Tokyo

Mod: $hifty - wind it in a bit. The commentary is steering towards the personal.

James Brown

Whatisthisnow wrote: »

This has taking over from the funeral thread

Both showing disrespect for the families. Attacking a family for wanting to remember their son.
Being dead isn't enough for some obviously, they need go after the family.
Be interesting when they use Paul Quinn's family again next election.

Scratchly

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Looks to me,yous are wanting something covered up here....by demanding there be no garda investigation

Something off here....if yous honestly held your position,you would support inquiries into finding the truth.....unless of course,you dont want truth exposed?

Maybe there should be a gardai investigation into statements made in this thread claiming terrorism is acceptable, being part of a terrorist organisation is not a crime, planting and detonating bombs resulting in the deaths of innocent people in public is acceptable if there's a warning and that violance and terrorist attacks will be not only be inevitable but necessary again if there's no border poll?

Sounds a lot like dangerous promotion of terrorist attacks against innocent people to me. Perhaps even threats of terrorist attacks given those saying these things may be members of a terrorist organisation and prepared to murder innocent people if they don't get what they want in the north. Worth investigating. Unless you think there should be a cover up...

Scratchly

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree british army membership should be a crime and those whom support should face full rigours of the law and perhaps we should imprison those,who wanted black and tans commerated too??


Investigate away mate,looks to me...yous are happy to investigate anyone who dare disagree with yous,to shut down dissent,while dreaming up spurious excuses so as gaurds wont investigate high profile incidents,such as this event and who arranged it,and the associated accusations of abuse to force it cancelled??


Looks to me a stalinist style of responce to silence all differing viewpoints tbh

The main reason not to investigate the high profile incident is a complete lack of evidence to the fact it actually happened. If you or anyone has any evidence of people committing crimes, planning to commit crimes or encouraging people to commit crimes then by all means share it with the Gardai and they can decide if there's grounds for an investigation.

But we have printed statements from individuals in this thread which imo do exactly that. By claiming terrorism is not a crime, by claiming planting bombs in public with warnings is not a crime but a legitimate and necessary response to the north being occupied, by claiming that not only will terrorist attacks be inevitable but necessary if there's no border poll because the North is still occupied.

Well that to me looks like incitement to violence. Give us a border poll or the bombing starts again from people who do not consider blowing up innocent people with homemade explosives a criminal offence if its done in the name of Ireland. Seriously disturbing stuff.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

It takes two to tango on this one. Fault/blame lies with both equally.

You're as much of a terrorist sympathiser as the other chap. Your moral compass is so out of whack. I'm done, before I get banned.

Slán

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

You're as much of a terrorist sympathiser as the other chap. Your moral compass is so out of whack. I'm done, before I get banned.

Slán

In fairness, you are very badly informed. Anyone who thinks 1994 or 1996 was a time of 'Peace' is suspect in a debate TBH.