downcow wrote: » I think all other posters know you were asked a deadly simple question which you refuse to answer but I will take your offer at face value and name one and see what your answer is. Do you believe Raymond mcriesh should not be remembered publicly in the name of a play park, irrespective of what unionists/brits/etc do. And that it is extremely hurtful to his victims?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Jesus. How much clearer do you need than ALL OF THEM. Any name you care to come up with in your silly game. Go on try it...name somebody....see what my answer is. It will be a big fat emphatic NO. Stop playing dense and answer what you were asked...this silly tangent is your tried and tested strawman to avoid answering something. I can read you like a book at this stage.
downcow wrote: » Yes. It would be much clearer if you answered the question I am asking.
FrancieBrady wrote: » NONE OF THEM SHOULD. Seriously...what is unclear or unequivocal about this. I am not getting into a stupid name game with you. Can I be any clearer.
downcow wrote: » Francie. You needed get angry. I am asking something very different to what you are replying. Let’s be really clear. I can name you people from my community who were responsible for murdering catholics. I can say unequivocally and unilaterally that they should not be remembered publicly, have memorial stones, statues or playparks. Simply because I care about the feelings of my catholic neighbours. I oppose memorials to these guys no matter what memorials the ira etc have. You seem unable to do this. It’s all whataboutery. Can you not just give us a few examples from your community and say categorically that you oppose any public remembering of them no matter what the brits or the prods do. It is really enlightening for me that not one republican on here can name one single person from their own community that they believe should not get a public memorial. I do think it gets right to the phycology of republicans. And you are clearly not on your own Francie.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's answered...any NAME YOU COME UP WITH...if they were involved in the conflict = no memorial. WTF is wrong with you?
downcow wrote: » More deflection. It was a simple question and very telling that no one will even attempt to answer it.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Yeah the one that was caught murdering innocent Catholics, you have no problem venerating the RUC/UDR that turned a blind eye to these murderers. I'd say an awful of lot of your Catholic neighbours who were around at the time of the Glenanne Gang see little difference in you guys glorifying the RUC/UDR and unionist paramilitaries.
downcow wrote: » In my view it would be obscene if my community publicly remembered billy Mcgaughey (RUC) as it would retraumitise his catholic victims.
downcow wrote: » Deflection. I never avoid a question but you need to answer the one you are avoiding first.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The question was answered. You fill in the names in your silly and pointless games yourself. And answer the question you are avoiding...are you in favour of taking down all memorials to those involved in or who caused the conflict/war or just some?
downcow wrote: » Classic Francie deflection when the question is too hard
FrancieBrady wrote: » Again, what is wrong with you? I will go further than you ALL of those in your community involved in the conflict should not be memorialised and likewise mine. Along with those who ran the sectarian bigoted state. Why cant you say that?
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Unionists condemn unionist paramilitaries but defend the RUC/UDR who colluded with them. What you want is supremacy, to be free to venerate the forces of the rotten sectarian statelet while demanding Republicans stop commemorating their dead. You'll never learn.
downcow wrote: » All this waffle from you and Francie is meaningless. I have named a few examples from my community for whom I think it would be obscene to remember publicly giveN relatives of their victims would be retraumatised. You can’t do likewise. You won’t give us examples of people in you community who should not be remembered publicly as it would be obscene and retraumatise their victims. Seems you don’t care about the feelings of my community. It is very telling that you can’t do it and keep focusing back on what you see as the unionist perpetrators
downcow wrote: » It's quite interesting because I think there is no Unionist will have any difficulty answering it about their own community
downcow wrote: » So Francie is afraid to answer this question. Is there anyone on the nationalist/republican viewpoint who would have the courage to answer it. It's quite interesting because I think there is no Unionist will have any difficulty answering it about their own community. So here's the question again.Let’s try this! How about we try to name examples of people from our own community who participated in the ‘conflict’ and who we think it would be inappropriate to remember by putting up a statue, memorial stone or naming a play park after. Unless of course you think no one is beyond the pale with regard to publicly remembering? I will start the ball rolling. Michael Stone, Johnny Adair, Billy Hutchinson, And remember I fully respect their families right to remember them quietly and privately in whatever way they wish, but it should absolutely not be done publicly because of the many victims out there still alive.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Pariahs? SF are really struggling to get votes all over Ireland.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There is no contradiction. No prevarication. NOBODY involved in the conflict or the sectarian statelet should get a memorial. IF you wish to remove one...they should all be removed. Very simple and clear.
downcow wrote: » You seem to be struggling with this Francie. It is a very very simple request. .... And your statement above does not ground it for me because it is in complete contradiction to what you seem to be implying about the playpark in Newry. So let's try again Francie and friends. Just have the balls to do what I have done, and give a few actual examples of people from your community, who participated conflict, who you think it would be inappropriate to publicly remember? As Capt Jones would have said - you don't like it up you
FrancieBrady wrote: » . Here's a wee tip for you downcow...think of the name of anyone involved in the conflict or the running of the sectarian bigoted state and you can ground my thinking.
downcow wrote: » Come on Francie. Have the balls to name a few names (just examples so as I can ground your thinking) that you think would not be appropriate to have them remembered publicly?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Very simple from me. I don't think anyone involved in the creation and maintenance of the sectarian bigoted statelet that caused the conflict or those involved in the conflict should be publicly commemorated.
RobMc59 wrote: » Agreed,and until SF North and South of the border and all the rest of the disgruntled extremist republicans cop on they'll remain shunned as pariahs as we've seen in the Dail today and by the decent moderate minded majority.
downcow wrote: » There is a lot of ducking and diving going on as usual. The tried and tested method of ‘let’s throw up a few grey areas as red herrings’. It’s a great way of avoiding the issues. Let’s try this! How about we try to name examples of people from our own community who participated in the ‘conflict’ and who we think it would be inappropriate to remember by putting up a statue, memorial stone or naming a play park after. Unless of course you think no one is beyond the pale with regard to publicly remembering? I will start the ball rolling. Michael Stone, Johnny Adair, Billy Hutchinson, And remember I fully respect their families right to remember them quietly and privately in whatever way they wish, but it should absolutely not be done publicly because of the many victims out there still alive. Over to you guys
jm08 wrote: » When you say innocent people, do you regard the British military, RUC, UDR etc. as fair game? Carson & Craig created the Ulster Volunteers, who supported armed insurrection against the British State. They have blood on their hands.
