nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Pkiernan

I haven't seen or heard anything from Mary Lou, Slab Murphy and other good Republicans in ages.

What's going on?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

You justified the Provo campaign by stating that they were 'defending' the Nationalist community. You like to paint the picture of brave volunteers standing at the end of the road, protecting it against loyalist mobs
.. yet I then ask how did the Warrington bombing protect Nationalists on that same road... and the simple answer is that its doesn't, and never did.

The bombing campaign was purely trying to force the British government to the table to try and force a withdrawal. This is on record from senior SF and PIRA leaders.
The Provo campaign had next to nothing to do with protecting their community and more to do with the old narrative of fighting for Ireland's freedom and a United Ireland, something they ultimately failed to do.

I have never 'justified' any of the violence Mark. It was all wrong and should never have happened.
I also never ever done this: You like to paint the picture of brave volunteers standing at the end of the road, protecting it against loyalist mobs

This is the great myth that has arrisen over the last few years. The Provo campaign was really about civil rights and equality, not about a United Ireland or British withdrawal from the North, yet we have 25 years of senior IRA and SF leaders stating that the campaign of violence was to achieve that British withdrawl.

Now we have people here trying to spin that yarn.

So again.... how exactly did killing two boys in Warrington protect that nationalist living in Northern Ireland?

I told you how it evolved to that, you don't want to deal with that. That's your problem with myopia and not mine.

The reason Harold Wilson was so nervous about not radicalising people north and south was because he knew and anyone with the slightest knowledge of world history knows, how these things evolve.

Why did Churchill carpet bomb Dresden and Colonge, what had that to do with protecting somebody in the Yorkshire Dales or London for that matter?

Get of the high moral ground perch, accept that we had a 4o year long bloody and tragic conflict/war that had many many casualties on all sides and could have been avoided.
You cannot blame one side and expect to be taken seriously...everyone bears some responsibility even those living in the south who ignored it. From those who allowed the conditions to fester to the point where it started, to those who knowingly tried to maintain those conditions and the players involved in the violence.

You can do all of that without using selective victims or being a supporter of the various players

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

You justified the Provo campaign by stating that they were 'defending' the Nationalist community. You like to paint the picture of brave volunteers standing at the end of the road, protecting it against loyalist mobs
.. yet I then ask how did the Warrington bombing protect Nationalists on that same road... and the simple answer is that its doesn't, and never did.

The bombing campaign was purely trying to force the British government to the table to try and force a withdrawal. This is on record from senior SF and PIRA leaders.
The Provo campaign had next to nothing to do with protecting their community and more to do with the old narrative of fighting for Ireland's freedom and a United Ireland, something they ultimately failed to do.

This is the great myth that has arrisen over the last few years. The Provo campaign was really about civil rights and equality, not about a United Ireland or British withdrawal from the North, yet we have 25 years of senior IRA and SF leaders stating that the campaign of violence was to achieve that British withdrawl.

Now we have people here trying to spin that yarn.

So again.... how exactly did killing two boys in Warrington protect that nationalist living in Northern Ireland?

What the Provisional IRA bombing campaign showed was that the British Government didn't give two ****s about bombs exploding and British people being killed in the UK. What got them to the negotiating table was the bombing of the London Stock Exchange and other bombings in the City of London.

The two boys in Warrington were a mistake and the Provos apologised for them.

Now, have you any sympathy for the children shot dead by the British Army in Northern Ireland (one child playing in his sitting room)? There was not even an apology from the British Army for his murder.

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

go away with that.

I asked you a question which you blithely didnt answer, and instead asked me questions on unrelated subjects. Do you forget other people can read your posts too?

You asked me a hypothetical question. We can all play that game. Go away is right, don't like my answer then stop asking me similar questions, or at least engage.

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

rights and equality WAS the brits out of the north.

Then why did SF sign up to the GFA that cemented British authority there?
Are you saying 20 plus years after the GFA that nationalists are still downtrodden and an abused minority? Then what was all the killing about?

This is the SF/Provo paradox.

The 'war' was about getting the British out of the north.
Yet, the Provos didn't surrender, even though the British are still in the North and armed.

Cant have it both ways.

Tokyo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were asked a question about the origins of the conflict/war and what led people to do what I will call yet again, the wrong thing and instead of answering you climbed up on to the lecturing higher moral ground again to try and demean people. How typical of the lazy.

Truthvader wrote: »

Poor poor Francie so morally disorientated he views not murdering as high moral ground. Its not Francie it is sea level basic humanity for anyone not spiritually infected

Mod: @Truthvader, @FrancieBrady - can both of you quit it with the píssing contest please? Final warning - next time will be a threadban.

Truthvader

cyllyn28 wrote: »

Mark is a Fine Gael voting West Brit....He supports the British class warfare in Northern Ireland...He'd love the Garda to go around randomly executing working class children, in the same acts of terror.

I do not support the shinners...They are not willing to do to Mark's kind what is needed to be done...and many are conservatives, equally as degenerate. Our nation can only truly be free, when it rids itself of the conservative tapeworms the British left behind. The are not the Irish people...they are the worms who feed on the Irish people...

Well that's an illuminating post.

As regards mental illness, I was referring to the fact that I clearly said that the killers of McElwaine should have been prosecuted but the Sinn Fein fanboys actually managed to interpret that as a preference to tuning a blind eye to his murder. This exhibits a collapse of the normal mental processing facility

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

You asked me a hypothetical question. We can all play that game. Go away is right, don't like my answer then stop asking me similar questions, or at least engage.

i asked you a real question - as in how would you know what people felt in the north. you never answered that. dont bother playing your whataboutery games with me as they dont work

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Then why did SF sign up to the GFA that cemented British authority there?
Are you saying 20 plus years after the GFA that nationalists are still downtrodden and an abused minority? Then what was all the killing about?

This is the SF/Provo paradox.

The 'war' was about getting the British out of the north.
Yet, the Provos didn't surrender, even though the British are still in the North and armed.

Cant have it both ways.

hang on here - are you telling me that the nationalist people in the north wanted the brits to stay? really - cop on with yourself and learn a bit of the history before high horsing it on here.

you are making up bull****. the only way for equality in the north was to get the british out. this ended up with an agreement - you know what 'agreement' means, yes? - between all sides. it didnt cement british rule.

come back whenever you know wtf you are talking about. might help because Im not going to bother trying to educate you..

tikkahunter

Well at least we didn’t spend the Apple money like The SF rats wanted us to . Imagine we could be a further 13 billion in debt now if that was spent.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Then why did SF sign up to the GFA that cemented British authority there?
Are you saying 20 plus years after the GFA that nationalists are still downtrodden and an abused minority? Then what was all the killing about?

This is the SF/Provo paradox.

The 'war' was about getting the British out of the north.
Yet, the Provos didn't surrender, even though the British are still in the North and armed.

Cant have it both ways.

Perfect example of somebody having to find a win.

Your entire version of what happened lacks nuance, not because of lack of knowledge or ignorance but because it is in the nuance where you lose the argument and might (heaven help us all) just might have to give those boogeymen and women some credit.

That is why you indulge in this taunting game. You diverge from the factual history to do it too. The factual history that shows the British had accepted that they would never win...the IRA thankfully accepted it was a stalemate as well and both sides sat down and negotiated a deal they could live with.

But you use normal post conflict/war agreements and truces to taunt. well done.

RandomViewer

SouthWesterly wrote: »

How was planting 2 bombs are either end of a town with a delay on one an accident?

I look forward to seeing your answer!!

One bomb in the wine Cavalier, where is this second bomb revisism coming from?

maccored

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Perfect example of somebody having to find a win.

Your entire version of what happened lacks nuance, not because of lack of knowledge or ignorance but because it is in the nuance where you lose the argument and might (heaven help us all) just might have to give those boogeymen and women some credit.

That is why you indulge in this taunting game. You diverge from the factual history to do it too. The factual history that shows the British had accepted that they would never win...the IRA thankfully accepted it was a stalemate as well and both sides sat down and negotiated a deal they could live with.

But you use normal post conflict/war agreements and truces to taunt. well done.

thats because markodaly hasnt the slightest notion what it was like to live through

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where have I said any of it was 'justified ark.

When I asked how did murdering a 3-year-old toddler and a 12-year-old boy in Warrington protect Nationalists in Northern Ireland, you went off a nice ramble about defence becoming offence and that the ultimate enemy is the British establishment in NI.

THAT is trying to justify murder Francie.

And seriously...a person who professes to be knoledgeable of history has never heard of the concept of 'defence turning into attack' - 'attack is the best form of defence'...really Mark?

Exhibit A
Planting bombs in English market towns on a Saturday afternoon was really trying to protect Nationalists on the Short Strand.... or something.

Getting the British to relinquish their occupation of a part of this island was the only way people could see to defend themselves...not a hard concept to grasp.

Exhibit B
The Provos were fighting for a UI and was happy to bomb, murder and kill whomever they want to try and achieve that goal

Are Ameican and British troops 'sociopaths' when they kill children? The British killed 18 of them here in the early days of the conflict/war...that's 18 children Mark.

Exhibit C
Whatabout...

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

The two boys in Warrington were a mistake and the Provos apologised for them.

So you admit that the murder of two boys in Warrington did nothing to protect Nationalists in the North?

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

hang on here - are you telling me that the nationalist people in the north wanted the brits to stay? really - cop on with yourself and learn a bit of the history before high horsing it on here.

I see you ignore my pointed questions about the SF/PIRA paradox.
The war was about getting the Brits out of NI, but the PIRA didn't surrender...even though the Brits are still in NI.
Oh, the war was really about equality and civil rights all along Ted.

you are making up bull****. the only way for equality in the north was to get the british out.

Since the British are still there, is NI still an unequal society for Nationalists?
Simple question.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

I see you ignore my pointed questions about the SF/PIRA paradox.
The war was about getting the Brits out of NI, but the PIRA didn't surrender...even though the Brits are still in NI.
Oh, the war was really about equality and civil rights all Ted.

Since the British are still there, is NI still an unequal society for Nationalists?
Simple question.

i didnt ignore anything. your 'paradox' makes no sense whatsoever.

Google what 'agreement' means. you dont seem to understand what that word means - as well as not understanding almost everything else about what was going on in the north.

you seem to be a bit of an attention seeker going by your wildly inaccurate posts. You wont be getting any more attention off me until you start actually making sense.

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

i didnt ignore anything. your 'paradox' makes no sense whatsoever.

Google what 'agreement' means. you dont seem to understand what that word means - as well as not understanding almost everything else about what was going on in the north.

you seem to be a bit of an attention seeker going by your wildly inaccurate posts. You wont be getting any more attention off me until you start actually making sense.

Why are you avoiding my question?
Is the North still an unequal society for Nationalists?

Your non-answers speaks more loudly to everyone.

facehugger99

When will the Shinnerbots be receiving their focus-points from head office on the Apple tax case one wonders.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

It is unequal society for nationlist....though its division between rich and poor is even more glaring than in the free state now

So why did SF/PIRA agree to the GFA to prop up and perpetuate this unequal society? SF are in power in the North, what are they doing to close those class divisions?

[Deleted User]

markodaly wrote: »

So why did SF/PIRA agree to the GFA to prop up and perpetuate this unequal society? SF are in power in the North, what are they doing to close those class divisions?

Nothing.....though working class nationlist have thrived while loyalists have gone deeper into mire of poverty since the gfa

Make of that,what you want

Either way,its been a failure the gfa....only thing has change is killing stopped.....stormont never gonna work,a toddler can see that,pull plug and reunify is only thing,hasnt been tried

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Why are you avoiding my question?
Is the North still an unequal society for Nationalists?

Your non-answers speaks more loudly to everyone.

If you mean have things got any better, then I'd say the answer is no, not really. whats your point exactly, or do you have one?

maccored

facehugger99 wrote: »

When will the Shinnerbots be receiving their focus-points from head office on the Apple tax case one wonders.

shinnerbots - what are they exactly? Did you read that in the indo or something? more tired attempts at bullying SF voters.

Yeah_Right

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing.....though working class nationlist have thrived while loyalists have gone deeper into mire of poverty since the gfa

Make of that,what you want

Either way,its been a failure the gfa....only thing has change is killing stopped.....stormont never gonna work,a toddler can see that,pull plug and reunify is only thing,hasnt been tried

The GFA is a failure. The only thing that has changed is that the killing has stopped. But its a failure. Lets just think about those words for a minute.

maccored

Yeah_Right wrote: »

The GFA is a failure. The only thing that has changed is that the killing has stopped. But its a failure. Lets just think about those words for a minute.

what would your solution have been?

Yeah_Right

maccored wrote: »

what would your solution have been?

I'm not sure what you are asking? My solution to what?

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

If you mean have things got any better, then I'd say the answer is no, not really. whats your point exactly, or do you have one?

So, in your opinion, nothing has really changed in NI from the 60's or 70's.... OK, then why have the Provos's downed arms?

maccored

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are asking? My solution to what?

as an alternative to the GFA? Might have worked had the brits kept their side of the bargain and transferred all powers to Stormont - but they didnt (one of the reasons why its failing)

Though as you're telling people to think about the fact the GFA isnt working - what would your solution have been? Any better ideas?

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

So, in your opinion, nothing has really changed in NI from the 60's or 70's.... OK, then why have the Provos's downed arms?

the who? the PIRA who have been gone for ages at this stage? What are you on about?

And stop trying to tell me what my opinion is - you havent the faintest idea. Its like debating with a 5 year old that just doesnt get things.

Im a polite person,. so dont bother posing any more silly questions to me unless you start making sense.

[Deleted User]

markodaly wrote: »

So, in your opinion, nothing has really changed in NI from the 60's or 70's.... OK, then why have the Provos's downed arms?

Tbh lad.....kinda reads like you wish the troubles were still going on

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh lad.....kinda reads like you wish the troubles were still going on

I think there is a strong argument that Northern Ireland would be a much better place to live and a united Ireland much closer if the PIRA had never existed.