IT only takes 8 years to say sorry...

mike65

..if its a politicaly timed appology.

The Provos who murdered Garda Jerry McCabe and injured Ben O'Sullivan issued a statement today which includes the following

'we deeply regret and apologise for this and the hurt and grief we have caused to their families. There was never any intent to attack any members of the Garda Síochána'.

Yep thats right we turned up to rob an security van with police protection carrying loaded automatic rifles which unacountably went off discharging 8 rounds of AK47 Kalasnikov ammunition into the head and chest of McCabe who would have avoided injury had he not been there.

**** happens...

totally committed to the peace process', and say they will not allow themselves to be used as 'political pawns or hostages to undermine this process'.

Why do they think they are even on the radar of the process now? They'll be released when thier sentences are served not before.

This missive feels like it was timed to distract some attention from the ongoing post-McCartney fall out while purhaps seeking to soften up public opinion.

Mike.

seamus

mike65 wrote:

This missive feels like it was timed to distract some attention from the ongoing post-McCartney fall out while purhaps seeking to soften up public opinion.

Agreed. Public support for the IRA seems to be falling down around them, while the aims/opinions/goals of the leadership (Sinn Fein) and the membership (IRA) seem to be drifting further apart each day.
Recent statements seem to be making a grab at sympathy and trying to revive the "Friendly neighbourhood terrorist" image that the IRA enjoyed in the past.

Seth Brundle

mike65 wrote:

Yep thats right we turned up to rob an security van with police protection carrying loaded automatic rifles which unacountably went off discharging 8 rounds of AK47 Kalasnikov ammunition into the head and chest of McCabe who would have avoided injury had he not been there.

**** happens...

Aah Mike - you are neglecting to take into account how there was a war on and this was therefore justified and not a crime. Anyway, this is all British propaganda and spin and lies.
Oh and it was Jerry McCabes fault for being there!

flogen

seamus wrote:

Agreed. Public support for the IRA seems to be falling down around them, while the aims/opinions/goals of the leadership (Sinn Fein) and the membership (IRA) seem to be drifting further apart each day.
Recent statements seem to be making a grab at sympathy and trying to revive the "Friendly neighbourhood terrorist" image that the IRA enjoyed in the past.

yeah, the "we'll kill the fella's who did it" was a sure attempt at being the good bad-guys again, but it failed miserably.
This is certainly nothing more than a PR stunt to try and save the IRA's image, because public support in the North is the only thing that keeps them going with the whole "freedom fighter" facade.

I did enjoy the statement from the government, though, basically saying "it's awful nice of you to ask to be taken out of the bargaining process, but you seem to be overlooking the fact that you wern't part of it for a long time".

flogen

BuffyBot

Very conveniently timed, if I do say so myself. They really are pulling out all the PR stops!

Johnny_the_fox

at least they appologised...

many people are waiting 30 years, an Inquiry and £155 million tax payers money... for a recognition of 'wrong doing'.

mycroft

seamus wrote:

Agreed. Public support for the IRA seems to be falling down around them, while the aims/opinions/goals of the leadership (Sinn Fein) and the membership (IRA) seem to be drifting further apart each day.
Recent statements seem to be making a grab at sympathy and trying to revive the "Friendly neighbourhood terrorist" image that the IRA enjoyed in the past.

And the fact that is just a scant few hours before St Paddys day while Adams is roaming the US looking for support well thats just serendipity

Do the IRA/SF honestly expect us to believe that the Mc Cabe killers, were visted by the Ghosts of St Patrick/Pearse/and Mary Lou and understood the true meaning of republicism?

I swear; after the indo report about the report about the living conditions of the Mc Cabe killers with free range birds et all, I have a vision;


Scene; a wintery St Paddys day morning;

The Mc Cabe killers popping over their windows and turning to a tiny child and saying;

"I say boy, boy?"

Little boy "Yes Mister republician terrorist?"

Mc Cabe killer "What day is it?"

Little boy "Why sir, it's St Patricks day"

Mc Cabe killer "Then it's true, thank you ghosts, it was true it was true!!"

Of course when I wander into the vision of IRA terrorists volunteering the money from the NIB robbery to cure a multitude of tiny tims crippled by punishment beatings and shootings, to healing their broken knees hands ankles and arms, while they cook the pheasant from the Mc Cabe killers farm, and then they all speak with chirpy voices "God bless us everyone" I push back the vomit and rising bile

monument

It’s very hard to know if there is sincerity at all, but yes, at least they did apologise.

As for Bertie taking the release off the cards, remind me how many times it has been taken off and on ‘the cards’?

And some apologies take more then eight years, but it doesn’t matter we should expect more from the IRA then a state. :rolleyes:

I’m equally cynical and welcoming of both apologise.

AmenToThat

kbannon wrote:

Aah Mike - you are neglecting to take into account how there was a war on and this was therefore justified and not a crime. Anyway, this is all British propaganda and spin and lies.
Oh and it was Jerry McCabes fault for being there!

I agree with the above apart from it being Jerry McCabes faylt for being there.

Seth Brundle

AmenToThat wrote:

I agree with the above apart from it being Jerry McCabes faylt for being there.

Are you serious? :eek:
I was taking the pi$s!

Hobbes

monument wrote:

And some apologies take more then eight years, but it doesn’t matter we should expect more from the IRA then a state. :rolleyes:

I’m equally cynical and welcoming of both apologise.

Blairs was hardly an apology though. Sure didn't they actually charge them a bill for having them in prison for all those years.

bonkey

monument wrote:

but it doesn’t matter we should expect more from the IRA then a state. :rolleyes:

We should expect more from a terrorist organisation than from a democratically-elected government?

How do you make that out?

jc

Phil_321

This "apology" is just a decoy to divert attention from the emerging facts that a number of Sinn Féin members were in McGennis's pub the night McCartney was murdered.

It just reaffirms my belief that Sinn Féin and the IRA are the same organisation.

Pal

AmenToThat wrote:

I agree with the above apart from it being Jerry McCabes faylt for being there.

unbelievable

monument

bonkey wrote:

We should expect more from a terrorist organisation than from a democratically-elected government?

How do you make that out?

jc

I didn’t think the sarcasm tags were needed there, I thought the sarcasm smilie would do - it’s not a view I hold, but a reference to people in other threads expecting more from the IRA then a state, and using the IRA’s actions to justify a state’s actions.

uberwolf

I agree with his McCabes Widow. They shot, stopped shooting and then reopened fire according to her. That's considered intent in my book.

bonkey

Was McCabes' widow present when he was shot?
jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Was McCabes' widow present when he was shot?
jc

She was interviewed on RTÉ last night Bonkey and thats what she said.I presume there were witnesses to coroborate that or she wouldnt have said it, not least probably the other detective who survived.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

She was interviewed on RTÉ last night Bonkey and thats what she said.I presume there were witnesses to coroborate that or she wouldnt have said it, not least probably the other detective who survived.

I highly doubt she was a witness so i'd take her words with buckets of salt.
My own thoughts on the matter are that McCabe was an idiot trying to be some sort of hero for the banking industry and that the perpetrators, if IRA should have been court martialed per violation of Standing Order number 8.

Fascinating insight into your thinking there jman0

Jerrry McCabe according to you was an idiot

Speaks volumes

He was there to ensure law and order - most people would regard him as a hero.

Seth Brundle

jman0 wrote:

My own thoughts on the matter are that McCabe was an idiot trying to be some sort of hero for the banking industry and that the perpetrators, if IRA should have been court martialed per violation of Standing Order number 8.

Jerry McCabe was sitting in his car when he was shot so I don't think he was trying to be a hero!
Furthermore, it was his job to protect the public and to prevent crime!


Also - why would the criminals/murderers involved be court martialled?
And what standing order? What part of our constitution or law is it from?

uberwolf

jman0 wrote:

My own thoughts on the matter are that McCabe was an idiot trying to be some sort of hero

this description wouldn't seem to corroborate your slant.
I've had difficulty finding a good description of the circumstances. Certainly at no point have I seen the suggestion that either Garda fired their weapons nor were given a chance to surrender.

jman0 wrote:

the perpetrators, if IRA

are you questioning whether the perpetrators were IRA members on an IRA mission?


bonkey - pause beteen shots

jman0

kbannon wrote:

Also - why would the criminals/murderers involved be court martialled?
And what standing order? What part of our constitution or law is it from?

Because that's the proceedings the IRA Army Council take in such matters and that is something the volunteers would have been informed of and agreed to.
It's not from the Free State constitution.

Edit: from The Green Book The volunteer is told under Standing Order No.8' that the Southern forces are not to be regarded as targets.

seamus

jman0 wrote:

Because that's the proceedings the IRA Army Council take in such matters and that is something the volunteers would have been informed of and agreed to.
It's not from the Free State constitution.

Edit: from The Green Book The volunteer is told under Standing Order No.8' that the Southern forces are not to be regarded as targets.

Does it not make more sense that they were tried and convicted as the criminals they are instead of leaving the punishment up to a criminal organisation?

jman0

seamus wrote:

Does it not make more sense that they were tried and convicted as the criminals they are instead of leaving the punishment up to a criminal organisation?

Perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone elses'. I have not argued that they shouldn't have been prosecuted by RoI.
I have said that they should have been court martialed by the IRA.
This would mean they cannot qualify for early release under the terms of the GFA.

seamus

jman0 wrote:

Perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone elses'. I have not argued that they shouldn't have been prosecuted by RoI.
I have said that they should have been court martialed by the IRA.
This would mean they cannot qualify for early release under the terms of the GFA.

Ah, misunderstood.

Seth Brundle

jman0 wrote:

I have said that they should have been court martialed by the IRA.
This would mean they cannot qualify for early release under the terms of the GFA.

And under what authority does an illegal organisation have to court martial criminals?

The IRA does not reflect the views of the people of Ireland.
It does not have any legal standing in Ireland (apart from being illegal).
It condicts itself by means of intimidation, violence, criminality and murder.
There may be some who can sympathise with some of the views of the IRA but that does not make the organisation right!

By the logic of the IRA members, I could set up a phoney war with someone, kill their people and claim that it is all ok purely because I believe in it?
There may have been a need over the years of the struggle to find a mechanism of protecting the people from the RUC and other British armed forces but that does not apply now (if it does, then how many people were killed using PSNI collusion in the last 12 months?).

jbkenn

jman0 wrote:

I highly doubt she was a witness so i'd take her words with buckets of salt.
My own thoughts on the matter are that McCabe was an idiot trying to be some sort of hero for the banking industry and that the perpetrators, if IRA should have been court martialed per violation of Standing Order number 8.

jman0, to introduce some clarity to your thoughts, Det Gda McCabe was no idiot, he was an ordinary joe, a family man, and a policeman, he, nor Det Gda O'Sullivan, had any chance to draw their firearms to defend themselves, there were witnesses to the murder, not Mrs McCabe, there was evidence given at the trial, there were 17 rounds discharged, if you know anything about firearms it is very difficult to "accidentally" discharge 17 rounds, you might discharge 3 or 4 but 8?, and then "accidently" discharge 9 more.
The members of the gang, would in police parlance, have been known to them, hell, they were known to most people in Limerick,and, a more accomplished shower of wasters, God never put in shoe leather, it was'nt their first robbery, and, it is highly unlikely it would have been their last.
What the RA would or should have done to them, is of no consequence to law abiding democrats.

jbkenn

MT

AmenToThat wrote:

I agree with the above apart from it being Jerry McCabes faylt for being there.

unbelievable

Can we really expect anything else from an apologist?

Can we assume from this that AmenToThat thinks that it was also the fault of every other victim of the IRA for being present when they were beaten or murdered?

I mean just think, if Robert McCartney had had the good sense to have avoided lying on the pavement outside Magennis' bar his stomach might never have grabbed the knife of those good freedom fighting fellows from the local justice and human rights association.

I think some apologists are in need of a reality check.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Slutmonkey57b

Let me see if I've got this right - jman0 thinks that Mrs McCabe's opinion should be taken with "buckets of salt" because she wasn't there.
His opinion, that Gda McCabe behaved like an "idiot" and was "trying to be a hero", based on.... ummmm... not being at the scene of the crime perhaps, should be taken as ummm...

On the other hand, as he's quoting from the green book maybe he does have some first hand experience of the case. Do they have net access in those bungalows?

jman0

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Let me see if I've got this right - jman0 thinks that Mrs McCabe's opinion should be taken with "buckets of salt" because she wasn't there.
His opinion, that Gda McCabe behaved like an "idiot" and was "trying to be a hero", based on.... ummmm... not being at the scene of the crime perhaps, should be taken as ummm...

Something I got from those dogs in the street you folk are so inclined toward

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

On the other hand, as he's quoting from the green book maybe he does have some first hand experience of the case. Do they have net access in those bungalows?

Some sort of personal attack it sounds like.
Of course, you could try googling "ira green book", if you are able to figure out how to do that..
EDIT: nice work board moderators, if I or any other poster from a republican viewpoint posted a similar attack on another poster we'd probably get banned. It just shows what a joke this board is and that "moderators" allow their personal political bias to influence how they dispense their duties, nice one lads.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

EDIT: nice work board moderators, if I or any other poster from a republican viewpoint posted a similar attack on another poster we'd probably get banned. It just shows what a joke this board is and that "moderators" allow their personal political bias to influence how they dispense their duties, nice one lads.

You could always report the post... Lord knows we get enough reported posts around here and deal with them all, feel free to join the queue.
Then we decide if it merits action as you may or may not know we aren't sitting in front of our pc's 24:7 pressing refresh :rolleyes:

He seems to be insinuating that the McCabe killers are emailing you?
Is that an insult given that you are a republican and supportive of these lads?

billy the squid

what I would like to know is why Jonn0 thinks that Gda McCabe was trying to be some sort of a hero, he didnt even get a chance to get out of his car ffs. the picture of his dead body still in the car seat were plastered all over the front page of the Sunday World for all in sundry to see.

he didnt pick this operation because he expected an IRA bank job to take place. guarding a security van was part of the routine of his job.

oh and "the dogs on the street" is not a valid source. might be good enough for Martin McGuiness and your good self, but not for me.

and the IRA green book (which the IRA chose to ignore in this instance) is not a legal document.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

He seems to be insinuating that the McCabe killers are emailing you?
Is that an insult given that you are a republican and supportive of these lads?

You didn't get it i guess,
Here's what he said:

"On the other hand, as he's quoting from the green book maybe he does have some first hand experience of the case. Do they have net access in those bungalows?"

The poster is insinuating that since i can quote from the Green Book, I may have first hand experince in IRA issues regarding the McCabe killing, or first hand experience in IRA matters regarding the Green Book.
His next sentence about bungalows is either insinuating that i am in gaol, or that i'm in council housing or something. Either way it's a personal attack.
Are you defending a poster making a personal attack on me?
Maybe pretending that you don't understand the nature of the post?

billy the squid

actually i believe the reference to the bungalows is a reference to castlerea and the accomodations of the attempted bank robbers / manslaughterers of gerry mccabe.

so unless you are one of the four i cant see how it was a personal attack on you

why would a staunch republican find the fact that he is believed to have had first hand experience with his heroes in the IRA, insulting. If I knew personally a member of the Garda Siochana, I would be proud of the fact.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Are you defending a poster making a personal attack on me?
Maybe pretending that you don't understand the nature of the post?

I took the same reading of it as Billy the Squid.

Maybe we should ask the poster what exactly he is insinuating or to clarify same
If it's that he thinks you are receiving emails from the McCabe killers, then all thats needed here is for you to deny that, if thats what you want.
Slutmonkey can take that denial and believe it if he wants or not, thats his perogative.
In my view he may not continue to accuse you of consulting the McCabe killers on your posts, if you are denying same, he can say he disbelieves you without accusing you of lying though and leave it at that.
I *will* take a dim view of his postings if they continously accuse you of lying.

It's not for me to make a call on a personal insult if I dont see one.

jman0

billy the squid wrote:

why would a staunch republican find the fact that he is believed to have had first hand experience with his heroes in the IRA, insulting. If I knew personally a member of the Garda Siochana, I would be proud of the fact.

Because:
1) the IRA are not my heroes and i have never expressed that they were. So you are attributing a false position to me. Niether am i a "staunch republican" as i find my personal views are not all in league with SF, or Republican SF (what is a "staunch republican"?)
2) the poster (like many on this board) think of the IRA and SF in highly negative terms and use negative and derogatory remarks about republicans generally. Therefore the poster's insinuations are intending offence, they are not intending to compliment.
3) As an upstanding member of tax paying society, having no criminal record, no criminal past, i find the inference of my possibly being in gaol offensive; as well as the insinuation that i may be in contact with convicted killers.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

3) As an upstanding member of tax paying society, having no criminal record, no criminal past, i find the inference of my possibly being in gaol offensive; as well as the insinuation that i may be in contact with convicted killers.

Yet you feel that a garda who's salary you pay, is an idiot for doing his job, and that an unelected unoffical organisation should have the right to carry out summary justice.

Oh and you don't support SF or the IRA.

Where is that bucket of salt you put down just a minute ago?

billy the squid

His next sentence about bungalows is either insinuating that i am in gaol, or that i'm in council housing or something. Either way it's a personal attack.

are ou saying that there is something wrong with people that came from council housing, if so then you are insulting me personally.

not to worry though

getting back to your other points

how was jerry mccabe acting the idiot?
how was he trying to be a hero?

1) the IRA are not my heroes and i have never expressed that they were. So you are attributing a false position to me. Niether am i a "staunch republican" as i find my personal views are not all in league with SF, or Republican SF (what is a "staunch republican"?)

I have only heard staunch republicans call the republic of Ireland the free state

2) the poster (like many on this board) think of the IRA and SF in highly negative terms and use negative and derogatory remarks about republicans generally. Therefore the poster's insinuations are intending offence, they are not intending to compliment.

and he could equally take offence to your statment that a member of the police force in his country, who was killed in the line of duty, being called an idiot.

which you still havent answered.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Because:
1) the IRA are not my heroes and i have never expressed that they were. So you are attributing a false position to me. Niether am i a "staunch republican" as i find my personal views are not all in league with SF, or Republican SF (what is a "staunch republican"?)

Really? forgive me but am I wrong in thinking that every single post that you make in threads involving SF or the IRA are from a republican standpoint?
You've even gone as far as accusing this board and its moderators of being biased towards anti Republicans in their moderating.

And what about this ? while we are at it... Remember that? comments like that don't go un noticed by people who oppose the IRA and they would be in a very significant majority in this country, thats something you must deal with rather than crying fowl of.

There is nothing wrong with being a Republican and there is nothing wrong with being proud of being a Republican.
However when you wear your views on your sleeve like you do and they are contentious, you must also expect that they will be challenged by those that disagree with you when they are posted here.
Thats called discussion.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

Really? forgive me but am I wrong in thinking that every single post that you make in threads involving SF or the IRA are from a republican standpoint?
You've even gone as far as accusing this board and its moderators of being biased towards anti Republicans in their moderating

Yes i never denied i am repubican minded, but that wasn't the charge.
The charge was that the IRA are my heroes, which they aren't, and also that i am a "staunch republican" and i asked what is a staunch republican, being the case that i don't agree with everything SF nor Republican SF do..
But you didn't answer that question Earthman.

Earthman wrote:

And what about this ? while we are at it... Remember that?.

Of course i remember that, and i stand by it still. The Brighton bomb was absolutely spectacular, there's no point in questioning that. Ronald Reagon bombs the home of Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi (kills an infant) and HMG is supportive of that so i don't see why when the IRA do something similar, that it's anything but spectacular, considering the massive resources HMG has at their disposal to guard against such a thing, absolutely amazing.

Earthman wrote:

comments like that don't go un noticed by people who oppose the IRA and they would be in a very significant majority in this country, thats something you must deal with rather than crying fowl of.

Great, and they can be handled via dialogue and discussion, not name-calling and snide little insinuations.

billy the squid

and your remark in quoted post wasnt snide?

is there any chance one could get an explanation as to why jerry McCabe was an idiot trying to be a hero, or am i pissing against the wind on this one.

jman0

billy the squid wrote:

and your remark in quoted post wasnt snide?

is there any chance one could get an explanation as to why jerry McCabe was an idiot trying to be a hero, or am i pissing against the wind on this one.

I already answered that question, next.

Edit:
snide "Derogatory in a malicious, superior way"
from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snide
I think you're incorrect, my comment was not snide.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Yes i never denied i am repubican minded, but that wasn't the charge.
The charge was that the IRA are my heroes, which they aren't, and also that i am a "staunch republican" and i asked what is a staunch republican, being the case that i don't agree with everything SF nor Republican SF do..

I see so you take offence if you are called a staunch republican, its an insult to you?
Simply denying that the IRA are your heroes is fine,but dont ask me to call someone on their view if it is their view that based on their posts they believe that you think the IRA are heroes.
They like you are entitled to their beliefs and that need only be clarified.

If you regard someone believing that you regard the IRA as heroes as a slur on your character, theres little I can do for you here in terms of redress as its their belief to which they are entitled if thats what they clarify it as... and indeed those present at the árd fheis that the balcome st gang came home to certainly gave them a heroes welcome.

Of course i remember that, and i stand by it still. The Brighton bomb was absolutely spectacular, there's no point in questioning that.

Ah but was it approvingly spectactular? You havent clarified that.
If you believe it is, then be prepared for the onslaught of opinion by people who would be disgusted by that and again they form a very significant majority.
Expressing views isnt a simple matter here you know, you are expected to justify them or at least discuss them and in the case of emotive issues like bombing shooting and killing expect emotive responses as people are human after all.
The rules of this board are here if you need them , so if you are personally attacked in a post, by all means report it and a moderator will deal with it.

billy the squid

jman0 wrote:

I already answered that question, next.

Edit:
snide "Derogatory in a malicious, superior way"
from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snide
I think you're incorrect, my comment was not snide.

no you didnt.

and dont give me that "dogs on the street" post as your explaination as it in no way proves that he acted like someone trying to be a hero.

as for other points raised which you ignored, try post 40 of this thread.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

I see so you take offence if you are called a staunch republican, its an insult to you?.

No, i didn't say that. I don't recognise the phrase, since the poster brought it up, maybe they could define it. I am assuming a "staunch repbulican" would either agree entirely with SF or agree entirely with Republican SF.

Earthman wrote:

Simply denying that the IRA are your heroes is fine,but dont ask me to call someone on their view if it is their view that based on their posts they believe that you think the IRA are heroes.
They like you are entitled to their beliefs and that need only be clarified.
If you regard someone believing that you regard the IRA as heroes as a slur on your character, theres little I can do for you here in terms of redress as its their belief to which they are entitled if thats what they clarify it as... and indeed those present at the árd fheis that the balcome st gang came home to certainly gave them a heroes welcome.

I think you're getting confused now between the orginal poster : Slutmonkey and his snide insinuations against my character, and the ensuing interjection by Billy the Squid (of which i haven't taken any offense by and have not argued that Billy meant to offend)

Earthman wrote:

Ah but was it approvingly spectactular? You havent clarified that.
If you believe it is, then be prepared for the onslaught of opinion by people who would be disgusted by that and again they form a very significant majority.

Ah, nobody has asked the question til now.
Sometimes yes, i do, why not? USA tried bombing Saddam while allegedly at a dinner in a residential part of Bagdad, UK is a staunch supporter of that war and Bush.. i already brought up Libya.
In quieter moments, i think no, I wish it didn't happen. But it doesn't matter at the end of the day which way i lean.

Capt'n Midnight

mike65 wrote:

IT only takes 8 years to say sorry...

8 years, you are missing the point completely. The only reason for the apology is that public opinion down here means that no govt can now do an early release deal.

But as to a LASTING apology , I doubt it, can almost guarantee that this issue will be dragged up again as a example of how killers were "wrongfully" convicted.

Just more Manslaughter <---> Man's laughter

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Sometimes yes, i do, why not?......

Well as I say when you express that publically here, expect vigorous opposition from a lot of quarters who view IRA or any terrorism as unacceptable and who vote for governments that through the legislation they enact declare it unlawfull.It's safe to say that includes 160+ td's ie the very vast amount of majority public opinion.

No, i didn't say that. I don't recognise the phrase, since the poster brought it up, maybe they could define it. I am assuming a "staunch repbulican" would either agree entirely with SF or agree entirely with Republican SF.

well if you dont recognise it , you seem to be able to use it in your post fairly well when you mention the UK...
Staunch Republican to me would mean someone with fervent Republican views.

I think you're getting confused now between the orginal poster : Slutmonkey and his snide insinuations against my character, and the ensuing interjection by Billy the Squid (of which i haven't taken any offense by and have not argued that Billy meant to offend)

Uhm... you complained about it,I answered your post both specifically about Slutmonkey and generally with regard to how easily you are taking offence.
With regard to the latter,I can only repeat that,even sometimes agreeing with bombing and shooting by an unlawfull organisation as you say you do, is going to come up against vigorous opposition from the majority and you should both understand this and expect this, as that majority are all around you.

Slutmonkey57b

Ok, to clarify at earthman's request, I am not "attacking your character".

You posted that Gda McCabe's widow should not be taken seriously when talking about the case as she was not at the scene.
You then posted that Gda McCabe was "an idiot" who "was trying to be the hero".

So, either
a) We should ignore your opinion because you weren't at the scene
b) We should accept your opinion because you were at the scene.
c) We should accept your opinion because you have been in contact with someone who was at the scene.

In case a) we could probably also draw the conclusion that you are being deliberatly offensive for no good reason, as you are disparaging the memory of an innocent man who was murdered by criminals while doing his job.

In case b) we can draw the conclusion that you are either
i) A witness who did not provide evidence at the trial (since no evidence like this came to light afaik)
ii) One of the victims
iii) One of the killers

In case c) we can conclude that you are in contact with someone at the scene which means
i) You know one of the victims
ii) You know a witness
iii) You know the killers.

My post summed all that up in a one-sentence joke. Only you can clarify which one of the many options it is.

Slutmonkey57b

One could argue that by making disparaging comments about Gda McCabe and describing him as "an idiot", you are in fact attacking your own character.

Having read through the thread again, you claim to have answered the question of why you think he was "an idiot". I see no such explaination. Perhaps you can point it out to me? A cynic might suggest that by beating your breast about a non-existant attack on your character, you are attempting to divert attention away from the extremely distateful and offensive original comment that you made in the hope you won't be pulled up on it. But of course I'm not a cynic.

Also, as you're a fan of dictionaries, you should be aware that "spectacular" indicates approval of the incident. If you approve of the Brighton Bombing, then again, you may be attacking your own character.