Another Sinn Fein blunder?

cycle4fun wrote: »

I think we have a social duty to respect the democratic wishes of our neighbours, and not to justify the actions of those who saw themselves as soldiers but instead shot census workers, bombed shops, hotels, restaurants etc.

Oh great, another round of 'Use The Victims Of A Conflict/War' to score points on a thread about a parking offence.
What a lovely person you surely are. :rolleyes:

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Elections and referendums aren't won by appealing to the altruism of the people.

And I didn't say they were.

Then why appeal to altruistic attributes to convince the Irish population to vote for a UI?

Red_Wake wrote: »

Then why appeal to altruistic attributes to convince the Irish population to vote for a UI?

I wasn't.

I work for and want a UI for those reasons set out above.

I don't believe there are any huge obstacles other than 'I'm alright Jack' selfishness to it.

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Then why appeal to altruistic attributes to convince the Irish population to vote for a UI?

I wasn't.

I work for and want a UI for those reasons set out above.

I don't believe there are any huge obstacles other than 'I'm alright Jack' selfishness to it.

But you don't know of any benefits to the average Irish person.

Red_Wake wrote: »

But you don't know of any benefits to the average Irish person.

I do.

Proceed to a thread on this topic and you will see them.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because we are not selfish? Because we have a social duty?

Well off you go with your social duty.......I see my duty as first and foremost to my kids, my nieces and nephews and the children of my friends and neighbours......not saddling them with even more debt than we already have nevermind a toxic legacy that NI, in its current state, would visit on them.

But well done you on your ideas of social duty, if more Shinners had previously thought like that then maybe people like Liam Adams would've been dealt with much sooner than was actually the case.

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

But you don't know of any benefits to the average Irish person.

I do.

Proceed to a thread on this topic and you will see them.

Any excuse not to address the point.

Jawgap wrote: »

Well off you go with your social duty.......I see my duty as first and foremost to my kids, my nieces and nephews and the children of my friends and neighbours......not saddling them with even more debt than we already have nevermind a toxic legacy that NI, in its current state, would visit on them.

But well done you on your ideas of social duty, if more Shinners had previously thought like that then maybe people like Liam Adams would've been dealt with much sooner than was actually the case.

You did brilliantly in the last 20 years on the 'not saddling' them bit.

What did you do? Re-elect one of the two parties that caused the crash in the first place.

Red_Wake wrote: »

Any excuse not to address the point.

No. More than willing to discuss relevant points. There are a few threads already on a UI.
I am sure 'somebody' will have a post count of how much I contributed to those discussions.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You did brilliantly in the last 20 years on the 'not saddling' them bit.

What did you do? Re-elect one of the two parties that caused the crash in the first place.

Yes, that is why I said.....

.....not saddling them with even more debt than we already have......

.....and better the devil you know and all that.

I mean, a shinner talking about 'social solidarity' would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.....the party that are apologists for an organisation that killed over 1,700 people including over 500 civilians, at least 140 of their own along with 8 Garda and DF soldiers really has no credibility when it comes to talking about social value, social solidarity or anything to do with either of those concepts.....

......not much social value/solidarity here.....

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, that is why I said.....

.....and better the devil you know and all that.

I mean, a shinner talking about 'social solidarity' would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.....the party that are apologists for an organisation that killed over 1,700 people including over 500 civilians, at least 140 of their own along with 8 Garda and DF soldiers really has no credibility when it comes to talking about social value, social solidarity or anything to do with either of those concepts.....

......not much social value/solidarity here.....

...and off we go on another tangent.

the sheriff is HERE

cycle4fun wrote: »

Yes Sherriff, to answer your question, I support peace in the North and always have. Do you? Do you think Gerry was right to shoot a prison officer in the head, or to get those leaflets printed etc?

Good I'm delighted to hear that from a hardcore anti Sinn Féin activist.

I also support peace in the north, its was 1983 and you'll need to explain the leaflets to me, I won't drag up past indiscretions to point score on boards.

At least we both agree and support peace in the north.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...and off we go on another tangent.

It's like a retrosepctive on all their greatest blunders.....it really needs a poll to decide which was their most distasteful disregard for society......

......personally, I'd go with MaryLou speaking at a Russell commemoration with McGuinness' refusal to condemn proxy bombing a very close second - ymmv

Jawgap wrote: »

It's like a retrosepctive on all their greatest blunders.....it really needs a poll to decide which was their most distasteful disregard for society......

......personally, I'd go with MaryLou speaking at a Russell commemoration with McGuinness' refusal to condemn proxy bombing a very close second - ymmv

And parking offences, don't forget that! All you need now is one of them caught littering and you have the full sweep!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And parking offences, don't forget that! All you need now is one of them caught littering and you have the full sweep!

Well no - as I said earlier a storm in a thimble really. If he wasn't giong to resign over the sectarian leaflets, he's hardly going to be bothered by a few quids' worth of damage to a padlock.

Plus, did anybody really think that someone who shot another person in the head while breaking out from a prison was going to be bothered by a pesky little chain?

Jawgap wrote: »

Well no - as I said earlier a storm in a thimble really. If he wasn't giong to resign over the sectarian leaflets, he's hardly going to be bothered by a few quids' worth of damage to a padlock.

Plus, did anybody really think that someone who shot another person in the head while breaking out from a prison was going to be bothered by a pesky little chain?

You really did think this was a resigning matter...oh dear, the disappointment!

And there is centuries of data and evidence of soldiers returning to normal and worthwhile life after doing some awful things, like dropping bombs on cities full of innocents etc etc.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You really did think this was a resigning matter...oh dear, the disappointment!

And there is centuries of data and evidence of soldiers returning to normal and worthwhile life after doing some awful things, like dropping bombs on cities full of innocents etc etc.

Nope - wrong again - I never saw it as a resigning matter, I was merely offering a commentary on those that did. To be clear, the kind of petty vandalism he engaged in is not a resigning matter in my book and certainly not for a shinner. It was a bit of light comedy.

Soldier?

You reckon he was a member of Oglaigh na hEireann?

......and their in a nutshell is why the shinners are not fit to hold constitutional office - their recognition of a force, one of whose objectives, was the subversion of the Republic's democratically enacted consitution. Ridiculous to think that any of the muppets that populate that party could hold ministerial office in Justice or Defence, or occupy the office of the Taoiseach - they don't even recognise the state's defence forces!

Jawgap wrote: »

......personally, I'd go with MaryLou speaking at a Russell commemoration

Surprised you'd go along with this populist nonsense re Russell Jawgap. Have you read any of what Lahousen said, plus British Intelligence' own opinions on him?

Brendan Bendar

ML needs to remove the whiff of the whins and heather off herself.

Otherwise she will have a disasterous tenure

Deleted User wrote: »

Surprised you'd go along with this populist nonsense re Russell Jawgap. Have you read any of what Lahousen said, plus British Intelligence' own opinions on him?

I don't doubt he was a fantasist - it still doesn't change what his intent was. The fact Canaris et al saw through him (and Ryan) doesn't change what he was trying to do.....

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't doubt he was a fantasist - it still doesn't change what his intent was. The fact Canaris et al saw through him (and Ryan) doesn't change what he was trying to do.....

The enemy of my enemy and all that. He was dead by August 1940 anyway. The hysterical rubbish in that piece you linked to would make one believe he had a part in designing the death camps or something.........

Deleted User wrote: »

The enemy of my enemy and all that. He was dead by August 1940 anyway. The hysterical rubbish in that piece you linked to would make one believe he had a part in designing the death camps or something.........

the enemy of our enemy was no friend to us.....as they proved conclusively in just about every country they took an interest in. We'd likely have got the same "protection" Denmark got if Russell and Ryan had got their way - the fact he was a bit of a Walter Mitty and that he died were our good fortune.

But for that, and the Wehrmacht's inability to prosecute amphibious warfare, it would have been a lot different for a few thousand of our fellow citizens - that's who the shinners think is a hero, a Nazi collaborator.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

ML needs to remove the whiff of the whins and heather off herself.

Ah Bee, I think its beautiful meself. Tis out the back of the folk's homestead down the country.

Jawgap wrote: »

the enemy of our enemy was no friend to us.....as they proved conclusively in just about every country they took an interest in. We'd likely have got the same "protection" Denmark got if Russell and Ryan had got their way - the fact he was a bit of a Walter Mitty and that he died were our good fortune.

But for that, and the Wehrmacht's inability to prosecute amphibious warfare, it would have been a lot different for a few thousand of our fellow citizens - that's who the shinners think is a hero, a Nazi collaborator.

Guilty of hindsight bias there I'm afraid. As I said, he died in August 1940 (well before Wannsee and all that). What exactly did he 'collaborate' with the Nazis about?

Junkyard Tom

Jawgap wrote: »

that's who the shinners think is a hero, a Nazi collaborator.

A collaborator is someone who works for an enemy and usually an enemy who occupies his own country. Sean Russell was not French or Polish. Ireland was not occupied by the Germans. Ireland was not at war with Germany.

You've been reading British war comics and watching The Dam Busters again, haven't you?

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

ML needs to remove the whiff of the whins and heather off herself.

Otherwise she will have a disasterous tenure

Inferring she has a whiff is a bit unkind to her.

[IMG]https://www.independent.ie/incoming/article35719548.ece/ALTERNATES/h342/II PRINCE 79 Read-Only.JPG[/IMG]

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Uhhhhmmmm this is more what I had in mind Pee

I had a fair idea of what you were on about Bee. Bit of a poser isn't he?

Jawgap wrote: »

Nope - wrong again - I never saw it as a resigning matter, I was merely offering a commentary on those that did. To be clear, the kind of petty vandalism he engaged in is not a resigning matter in my book and certainly not for a shinner. It was a bit of light comedy.

You said you weighed up the possibility and decided he wouldn't.

Soldier?

You reckon he was a member of Oglaigh na hEireann?

......and their in a nutshell is why the shinners are not fit to hold constitutional office - their recognition of a force, one of whose objectives, was the subversion of the Republic's democratically enacted consitution. Ridiculous to think that any of the muppets that populate that party could hold ministerial office in Justice or Defence, or occupy the office of the Taoiseach - they don't even recognise the state's defence forces!

Like I said to your co-debater Cycle, I don't really care how you see it. And you don't get, thankfully, get to decide who is fit or unfit for public office.

Many former soldiers go on to ministerial office and utilise their leadership skills.
Some unfortunately don't and cannot cope with civillian life or the terrible things they had to do as soldiers, including shooting people.