Is it just me or have SF vanished?

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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: »

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?

Adam9213 wrote: »

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.

So you are saying that the 1,000 members of the security forces killed by the PIRA deserved that fate and helped the nationalist cause? Really?

RandomViewer

blanch152 wrote: »

So you are saying that the 1,000 members of the security forces killed by the PIRA deserved that fate and helped the nationalist cause? Really?

NI security forces coluded in the murders of hundreds of people, just terrorists in uniform.

RandomViewer

blanch152 wrote: »

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?

Lenny Murphy definately deserved it, his own set him up, RUC stayed back

blanch152 wrote: »

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?

How would you not know my answer to that?

NOBODY deserved to die and NONE of it was justified.

ALL of the players were wrong.

Can we accept that to begin with?

You either begin there or you are biased from the get go.

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

So you are saying that the 1,000 members of the security forces killed by the PIRA deserved that fate and helped the nationalist cause? Really?

These being same security forces who colluded and fed info to loyalists to kill innocent nationlists??

Iirc it was 150 out of 151 killed by glennane gang,(joint sec force and uvf team) were 100% innocent and had no connection to republican activities??

markodaly wrote: »

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

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

Your question is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense you said how did the murder of two young boys defend the nationalist community?

How did the killing of A 4 year old boy named Fitzpatrick by the old IRA who was walking by his mothers side further Irish independence? Or the killing of the pregnant wife of a district inspector further Irish independence?

These questions your making are ridiculous and you could make them about any side in any conflict around the world in all of history.

markodaly wrote: »

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

Because they believed that turning defence into attack represented the best way forward in an intractable conflict/war were the main player - Britain had still not accepted what it could quite easily have done in 1968/69.

Yeah_Right

maccored wrote: »

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?

Apologies, I didn't make it clear I was mocking the post that said the GFA was a failure and that all it achieved was stopping the killing.

I don't have a different solution to the GFA because I think it was a success. It stopped the killing (mostly) and I think that is what the vast majority of people wanted. I would be quite happy for the status quo to continue. My only hope is that the few remaining dissident republicans (whatever name the RA are going by these days) would stop trying to start the violence again.

blanch152 wrote: »

So you are saying that the 1,000 members of the security forces killed by the PIRA deserved that fate and helped the nationalist cause? Really?

Yes, heavily armed men and women walking around in disputed territory in (at the time the 6 counties were claimed by both British and Irish governments) so they were whatever way you think about literally occupying Ireland yes they deserved their fate or even if they were off duty they still deserved their fate.

There's no such thing as an off duty IRA man why should the Brits get a free pass when they clock off for the day.

Deleted User wrote: »

These being same security forces who colluded and fed info to loyalists to kill innocent nationlists??

Iirc it was 150 out of 151 killed by glennane gang,(joint sec force and uvf team) were 100% innocent and had no connection to republican activities??

And where have I defended the actions of the glennane gang?

Were the members of the security forces killed by the PIRA directly involved in feeding information to loyalists? If not, why did they deserve to be killed, as you and several other posters are making clear?

dundalkfc10

The IRA card hasn't been used in a while. Ever since the FFG merger and the shambles since day 1 of the Govt, the IRA card is well and truely back

blanch152 wrote: »

And where have I defended the actions of the glennane gang?

Were the members of the security forces killed by the PIRA directly involved in feeding information to loyalists? If not, why did they deserve to be killed, as you and several other posters are making clear?

I don't think you have a clue what the war was about, The IRAs whole war was against the British state so obviously anyone who supported the IRA would support the killings of members of the security forces.

I can tell by that idiotic statement you just made you don't have any idea what you're talking about, is that what you believe? The IRAs goal was to fight loyalists? They probably spent less than one percent of their time and resources on worrying about loyalists.

blanch152 wrote: »

And where have I defended the actions of the glennane gang?

Were the members of the security forces killed by the PIRA directly involved in feeding information to loyalists? If not, why did they deserve to be killed, as you and several other posters are making clear?

You should just leave this thread, you just showed from that statement you have no clue what you're talking about.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

NOBODY deserved to die and NONE of it was justified.

And literally the next post, trying to justify the murder of two boys.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because they believed that turning defence into attack represented the best way forward in an intractable conflict/war were the main player - Britain had still not accepted what it could quite easily have done in 1968/69.

If you just said something in the following that the murder of two young boys in Warrington did nothing to defend Nationalists in the North then we would agree, but you again appear to defend murder and violence because some sociopaths in the IRA had a particular point of view.

See, I am not asking why you think the PIRA did it, I am asking YOU the question and seeing that you continuously fail to stop justifying the murder, then I am of the opinion that you agree with it, as part of the overall war effort.

[Deleted User]

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

The IRA card hasn't been used in a while. Ever since the FFG merger and the shambles since day 1 of the Govt, the IRA card is well and truely back

Its almost as if the government is in crisis and needs a distraction??

Expecting paul quinn(who ffg excluded getting justice for,from.the programme for government) to be wheeled out about 5 or 6pm :rolleyes: