Is it just me or have SF vanished?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You hate when you are caught out and now you invent again. How mnany times Mark does it have to be said - NONE of it was justified.

The difference between you and me is that I go to the root of what wasn't justified and what the cause of the entire problem is.

You won't go there, you prefer the selective blame approach.

But this is the thing, not every act of violence occurs in the same circumstances. The level of justification or explanation for each individual act will depend on the circumstances. The concept of justifiable homicide is a real one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

For example, a woman killing her rapist in self-defence could be justifiable homicide. Similarly, a democratically elected government fighting a totalitarian regime, maintaining security within its borders, fighting unelected insurgents etc. can engage in justifiable homicide. Sometimes these acts cannot.

In most of the cases that you have raised as whataboutery, there is some level of arguable justification under widely accepted notions of justifiable homicide. In the case of the actions of the PIRA, there are none.

You call it "the selective blame approach", to the rest of us, it is the "justifiable homicide" approach. So, to go back to the question I asked another poster earlier.....

Of all the people killed, maimed, injured, abused and terrified by the PIRA, which, if any of them, deserved it and which of them furthered the aims of the PIRA?

blanch152 wrote: »

Let me put the question to you in a different way. Of all the people killed, maimed, injured, abused and terrified by the PIRA, which, if any of them, deserved it and which of them furthered the aims of the PIRA?

Of the at least 1,009 (about 59%) were members or former members of the British security forces, while at least 508 (about 29%) were civilians.

The at least 1,000 members of the security forces and out of the 500 civilian figure only the politicians, informers etc.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Doesn't warrant an answer.

You mean, you cannot answer it.
That is fine. Your silence on the matter is more of an answer for the rest of us.

You hate when you are caught out and now you invent again. How mnany times Mark does it have to be said - NONE of it was justified.

So, how did the murder of two young boys defend the nationalist community?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

I dont need to invent anything, your words are more than enough source material for me.
You always try and justify murder by Irish Republicans. Sure you also blamed the murder of Lyra McKee on partition, not the Irish Republican who shot the gun.

The Provo's can cook up whatever make-believe rationale the want. The New IRA also believe the same thing, hence the accidental murder of Lyra McKee was a mistake but hey, **** happens!

Doesn't warrant an answer.

You are the guy closest in spirit to dissidents. Not more than a few hours ago you were slagging off and taunting a side that was instrumental in agreeing a peace deal.

OMG, you are a ticket!

What about is right, in a thread about SF and the PIRA actions, you want to drag it off-topic and discuss WWII and Iraq, because you know deep in your heart of hearts that you lack the conviction to defend PIRA actions on their own merit, so you try and drag it off topic.

Exhibit D.
Translation: The PIRA was an army thus they were justified in planting a bomb in Warrington that killed two young boys.
Extra Translation: The New IRA is also an army thus the murder of Lyra McKee was justified in the whole to get that UI.

You hate when you are caught out and now you invent again. How mnany times Mark does it have to be said - NONE of it was justified.

The difference between you and me is that I go to the root of what wasn't justified and what the cause of the entire problem is.

You won't go there, you prefer the selective blame approach.

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly, and when Sinn Fein were supporting the PIRA in their killings and bombings, they didn't get a large share of the nationalist vote.

It is true to say that none of the terrorist groups in the North that acted on behalf of nationalists ever had any reasonable semblance of support from the nationalist community. In fact, they had very little support, and most of that was intimidated.

While the SDLP already had an established vote, in the first election Sinn Fein stood for in 1983 the vote was

SDLP-137,012
Sinn Féin-102,701

Not really a massive difference like the one you claim, also there were obviously different levels of support for the IRA at different times of the 30 year conflict their support was highest in the early 70s so at some points of the troubles the IRA probably would have had the support of most Catholics.

Also in terms of it's support in the Republic in a study by the Economic and Social Research Institute in 1979, the largest study into IRA support in the Republic of Ireland during the troubles the survey was conducted in the Republic of Ireland. Of those surveyed 72% were in favour of unilateral British withdrawal from Northern Ireland, and 21% supported IRA activities.

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

Theyve really brain washed you

Stating the simple facts of the history of conflict and war worldwide since the beginning of time is evidence I have been brainwashed?
Stating that all armies, armed groups, militia's, guerrilla's, etc etc are in the business of 'terror' whether by actions or the threat of action (what do you think an aircraft carrier arriving off your main sea port is mean't to instill?) is evidence of brain washing?

How's about you debate the point and stop with the trite oneliners that mean very little.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are inventing stuff

I dont need to invent anything, your words are more than enough source material for me.
You always try and justify murder by Irish Republicans. Sure you also blamed the murder of Lyra McKee on partition, not the Irish Republican who shot the gun.

And that is what happening they took the attack to Britain itself in order to create pressure that they believed would remove the state that was (whether you like it or not) deemed a threat to or was attacking nationalist people.

The Provo's can cook up whatever make-believe rationale the want. The New IRA also believe the same thing, hence the accidental murder of Lyra McKee was a mistake but hey, **** happens!

Exactly, whatabout.

So...what about Dresden, Colonge, Iraqi residential areas and civilians.

OMG, you are a ticket!

What about is right, in a thread about SF and the PIRA actions, you want to drag it off-topic and discuss WWII and Iraq, because you know deep in your heart of hearts that you lack the conviction to defend PIRA actions on their own merit, so you try and drag it off topic.

Armies are IN THE BUSINESS of terror to achieve aims...very simple fact of life. Don't allow the conditions to fester and remain that cause conflict and war.

Exhibit D.
Translation: The PIRA was an army thus they were justified in planting a bomb in Warrington that killed two young boys.
Extra Translation: The New IRA is also an army thus the murder of Lyra McKee was justified in the whole to get that UI.

Adam9213 wrote: »

Just because someone supported the IRA doesn't mean they support the killing of an innocent person killed by them, just like anyone who supports the US army or UK army or any other guerilla army through history doesn't mean they support the killings of innocent people by them why do you think this is different for the IRA?

Let me put the question to you in a different way. Of all the people killed, maimed, injured, abused and terrified by the PIRA, which, if any of them, deserved it and which of them furthered the aims of the PIRA?

Edgware wrote: »

Theyve really brain washed you

Seeing as though during the troubles the media was under tight control North and South to not make the IRA look good in any way at all it seems the brainwashing would have been the other way around.

It was also alleged in the Barron report an inquiry into the Dublin Monaghan bombings that the Fine Gael/Labour government caused or allowed the Garda investigation to end prematurely, for fear that the findings would play into the hands of republicans.

This was routine throughout the troubles North and South to never put in anything in the media that could look good for republicans, the IRA were even shooting down helicopters which the British were denying ever happened so one day the IRA actually recorded the shooting down of a helicopter which forced them to admit it happened.

markodaly wrote: »

So in essence, the Warrington bombing along with most of the Provo campaign had nothing to do with defending Nationalists. It was a terrorist campaign based on the whims of a minority based on trying to force a military and politician withdrawal from the North, something the Provos had no mandate for at all?

In your world, killing a 3-year-old toddler was justified, and then you give out to others who call the Provos sociopaths?

Just because someone supported the IRA doesn't mean they support the killing of an innocent person killed by them, just like anyone who supports the US army or UK army or any other guerilla army through history doesn't mean they support the killings of innocent people by them why do you think this is different for the IRA?

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are inventing stuff now because you cannot refute.

Saying that the campaign or conflict/war developed is not justifying a single act.

And that is what happening they took the attack to Britain itself in order to create pressure that they believed would remove the state that was (whether you like it or not) deemed a threat to or was attacking nationalist people.

Exactly, whatabout.

There is no answer to that high moral ground stance that ignores the world history of how change is achieved.

So...what about Dresden, Colonge, Iraqi residential areas and civilians.

Armies are IN THE BUSINESS of terror to achieve aims...very simple fact of life. Don't allow the conditions to fester and remain that cause conflict and war.

Theyve really brain washed you

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

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.

You are inventing stuff now because you cannot refute.

Saying that the campaign or conflict/war developed is not justifying a single act.

And that is what happening they took the attack to Britain itself in order to create pressure that they believed would remove the state that was (whether you like it or not) deemed a threat to or was attacking nationalist people.

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

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

Exhibit C
Whatabout...

Exactly, whatabout.

There is no answer to that high moral ground stance that ignores the world history of how change is achieved.

So...what about Dresden, Colonge, Iraqi residential areas and civilians.

Armies are IN THE BUSINESS of terror to achieve aims...very simple fact of life. Don't allow the conditions to fester and remain that cause conflict and war.

jm08 wrote: »

Process of elimination. Sinn Fein (who are hated by dissident republicans) are getting a large share of the nationalist vote.

I think pretty much everyone condemned that bombing. Bear in mind that more catholics (18) were killed in that bombing than protestants (11).

Exactly, and when Sinn Fein were supporting the PIRA in their killings and bombings, they didn't get a large share of the nationalist vote.

It is true to say that none of the terrorist groups in the North that acted on behalf of nationalists ever had any reasonable semblance of support from the nationalist community. In fact, they had very little support, and most of that was intimidated.

maccored wrote: »

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

So, why did they surrender their arms when Nationalists are still downtrodden and an unequal minority, in your words. Why did they kill over 2,000 people?

And stop trying to tell me what my opinion is - you havent the faintest idea.

Your opinion is the one you offered, so I am going with that.

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.

[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

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.

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 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?

Yeah_Right

maccored wrote: »

what would your solution have been?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

[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

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?

facehugger99

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

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.

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.