Is it just me or have SF vanished?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you know?

Almost every organisation on the island has had issues with this stuff.
The current CC was embroiled in controversy about supporting an abuser in court...Michael Martin, keen to be photographed on the steps of the Dáil with another alleged abused person, said diddly squat about it.

Is it fair to say all members of FF are abusers of alcohol given the problems alcohol has caused a number of their senior TD's and ministers?

Of course it isn't.

There’s only one instance on here I’ve seen of a poster going to bat for someone convicted of raping a child - and that poster was an avowed SF cultist.

No other party has had their leader found to have covered up for a paedo.

No other party has, or would, allowed a leader remain in place when he’d lied to party members (never mind the public) about sending a paedo out to canvas alongside them


I can take it from your strawmanning about “all members are xyz” that you’ll just ignore the actual point - because defending the cult is, as always, the most important thing :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

No, I don’t necessarily accept that.



I have put forward the concept of justifiable homicide, which needs to be applied individually to each case and each circumstance and a judgment made. Like it or not, there is a hierarchy of heinous acts.

For example, even drink driving offences have different levels of seriousness under the law. For me, protecting child abusers personally known to you is far worse than a drink-driving charge resulting in a three-month ban.

In the Sinn Fein lexicon, all actions are equal, in real life, that isn’t true.

blackwhite wrote: »

There’s only one instance on here I’ve seen of a poster going to bat for someone convicted of raping a child - and that poster was an avowed SF cultist.

No other party has had their leader found to have covered up for a paedo.

No other party has, or would, allowed a leader remain in place when he’d lied to party members (never mind the public) about sending a paedo out to canvas alongside them


I can take it from your strawmanning about “all members are xyz” that you’ll just ignore the actual point - because defending the cult is, as always, the most important thing :rolleyes:

I said at the time that I thought Adams should have resigned. He didn't, he gave an apology and the party decided to accept it.

I also said at the time about the few issues SF had with this issue - you have to decide would the same thing happen again...looking at Adams statement, looking at the fact that SF put procedures on handling this stuff in place before other parties did, I genuinely don't think it would happen again.

I have also decided to accept the bona fides of the Church, Swim Ireland, Scouting Ireland, etc about the same issues.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said at the time that I thought Adams should have resigned. He didn't, he gave an apology and the party decided to accept it.

I also said at the time about the few issues SF had with this issue - you have to decide would the same thing happen again...looking at Adams statement, looking at the fact that SF put procedures on handling this stuff in place before other parties did, I genuinely don't think it would happen again.

I have also decided to accept the bona fides of the Church, Swim Ireland, Scouting Ireland, etc about the same issues.

Sinn Fein claimed to put those procedures in place. However, as we saw with Mairia Cahill and Paudie McGahon, those procedures were completely ignored and the accusers brought before SF/IRA kangaroo courts when the State should have been involved.

maccored wrote: »

you are at it again. its a sf thread so that means you have to demand people say sorry for deaths - when its clear to anyone but a lunatic that no-one in their right minds loves the idea of people dying.

Ah but they try and justify acts of violence. Sure we had one poster blame the PSNI for the death of Lyra McKee. It was their fault sure, not the New IRA.
This is the type of thinking that is quite prevalent among Irish Republican supporting types who SF love to look up to.

The question, I have asked was quite simple. The defence to Provo violence was that it protected the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. I asked a very very simple question as to how killing a 3-year-old toddler in Warrington helped Nationalists or defend them....
..
and Tumbleweed..
...

And no one, yes no one has directly answered the question.
I get some 'oh it was all wrong' or, 'oh the Provo's this' or 'oh bringing the Brits to heel'... yet no one has answered that question directly.

Its a highly illuminating experience that grown adults cannot say unquestionably that killing a 3-year-old boy did nothing to help their cause, or defend anyone in the North. Instead its a master class of 'whatabouism'.

markodaly wrote: »

Ah but they try and justify acts of violence. Sure we had one poster blame the PSNI for the death of Lyra McKee. It was their fault sure, not the New IRA.
This is the type of thinking that is quite prevalent among Irish Republican supporting types who SF love to look up to.

The question, I have asked was quite simple. The defence to Provo violence was that it protected the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. I asked a very very simple question as to how killing a 3-year-old toddler in Warrington helped Nationalists or defend them....
..
and Tumbleweed..
...

And no one, yes no one has directly answered the question.
I get some 'oh it was all wrong' or, 'oh the Provo's this' or 'oh bringing the Brits to heel'... yet no one has answered that question directly.

Its a highly illuminating experience that grown adults cannot say unquestionably that killing a 3-year-old boy did nothing to help their cause, or defend anyone in the North. Instead its a master class of 'whatabouism'.

This was one of the first major operations of the PIRA if not the first.

As the situation worsened, Catholic residents feared that the gathering crowds of loyalists would attempt to invade the Short Strand and burn them from their homes. Local IRA members retrieved weapons from arms dumps. A young resident, Jim Gibney, recalled: "I saw neighbours, people I knew, coming down the street carrying rifles. I was just dumbstruck by this experience. I'd never seen such a thing before".

The battle began at about 10pm and would continue for the next five hours A small group of IRA members and members of the Citizens' Defence Committee took up positions in the church grounds and in adjoining streets. The IRA members were armed with M1 carbines.

Shortly after the shooting began, Stormont SDLP MP Paddy Kennedy went with Short Strand residents to the local RUC base and demanded and begged for protection for their homes which never came.

On one hand you had the peaceful SDLP begging for protection for their community and on the other hand you had the PIRA actually risking their lives to protect the people.

If you ask the families in the area at the time who were shaking and terrified in their homes do they see the IRA men who were shot or killed as terrorists I doubt they'll say they were.

Battle of St Matthews, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St_Matthew%27s

markodaly wrote: »

Motivations into killing a 3 year old Toddler? The motivation being that it will 'help' nationalists in the North somehow? That is the logic at play here.

What is your opinion on the matter? Did killing those two boys help Nationalists, if so how?

I never supported the IRA campaign of terror. A campaign again, designed to put pressure on what they saw as an occupying force. Also designed to terrorise the Unionist population into relinguishing the sectarian and bigoted control of the state.

From the IRA's point of view and those nationalists that supported them, that campaign of terror did produce results, the British negotiated and the Unionists were forced to relinguish their veto and their control of the state.
The GFA 'protects' nationalists and has delivered to them rights they didn't have prior to it.
That is why the most moderate Unionist party don't like the GFA and tried to reject it and why the most popular Unionist party hate it to it's core.

So the answer to your question is again - yes, sadly. The campaign of terror did protect the interests of nationalists.

I know I'll be accused of whataboutery, but there is nothing unique about the above when war/conflict breaks out. The bombing of Colonge and Dresden were designed to do the exact same thing...sap the resolve and strength of the opposition by terror. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the same thing on a grander scale.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Have to find myself agreeing with you somewhat.
There was terror and atrocity in the IRA campaign, many lost their lives and were maimed.
But I feel this was brought about by unbearable conditions and lack of rights of the nationalist, or more especially Catholic community in Northern Ireland.
The two govts were largely responsible for allowing this to develop to a stage where anybody needed to rely on the likes of the IRA to come into existence.
And its easy to understand that a community virtually pissed on for 50 years plus would support any action taken to get them out of that situation and be quite willing to look at the terror campaign and feel it was justifiable.

The British tried to shore up the Unionist sectarian state at the end of the 60's. That is indisputable IMO.
I can never forgive the Dublin government of the time either (or subsequent ones either for a different reason)

The Dublin government allowed a vacuum to develop by dithering and in effect, 'standing idly by' and the IRA were forced to step into it.

The British knew...(read Harold Wilson's thoughts on radicalising the local Nationalist population on bothe sides of the border) and Dublin knew IMO what was going to happen if they did nothing. The turned their face away. Unforgiveable IMO.

blanch152 wrote: »

I see we are in blame the victim territory again.

Just like Lyra McKee stepped into “crossfire”, Mairia Cahill asked for it, probably wanted it, in your opinion.

No depths too low to defend them, is there?

Wow...that the best you can come up with blanch?

You are the man who 'convicts' on foot of allegations alone. You have done it time and again when it comes to the party that dominates your headspace.

Mairia Cahill made allegations against a man who was prepared to defend himself in a court of law. She also made allegations against 5 other members of SF who were very anxious to defend themselves and what they did, hence the release of correspondence with her which counters the claims Mairia made.

I never mentioned anything about Lyra McKee or how she died.

blackwhite wrote: »

There’s only one instance on here I’ve seen of a poster going to bat for someone convicted of raping a child - and that poster was an avowed SF cultist.

No other party has had their leader found to have covered up for a paedo.

No other party has, or would, allowed a leader remain in place when he’d lied to party members (never mind the public) about sending a paedo out to canvas alongside them


I can take it from your strawmanning about “all members are xyz” that you’ll just ignore the actual point - because defending the cult is, as always, the most important thing :rolleyes:

cult - hahahahaha

maccored wrote: »

theres no such thing as 'justifiable homicide'. either murder is murder or people get killed in conflicts - its one or the other. you cant call one death caused by a soldier 'justiifable' yet a soldiers death as 'murder'.

This is silly propaganda that ignores international law and conventions.

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

"Article 2 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention On Human Rights provides that that death resulted from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary":"

Even the European Convention on Human Rights - remember that, Sinn Fein support it - allows for justifiable homicide. Some of the actions (only some) carried out by the security forces in Northern Ireland would be covered by those articles, none of the actions carried out by the IRA are.

So yes, in line with the ECHR, I can call one death caused by a soldier justifiable, yet condemn utterly as murder the death of a soldier.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mairia Cahill who was anti the police at the time, requested the IRA to get involved.

Those members of SF who were accused were prepared to defend themselves in a court but never got the chance. But correspondence was produced in the media that showed SF members writing to her and advising her to go to the police about her allegations.

Mairia Cahill has certainly alleged loads of stuff and has gone on to make a media career out of it, but it is all allegation.
Despite the likes of Regina Doherty and Michael Martin claiming the organisation was riddled with paedo's and rapist, there seems to have been no higher an incidence of these issues than there has been in other organisations of the same size.

Again I stress, I do believe they got a lot wrong about handiling these things.

We are now at "the man down the road is beating his wife, so it is ok to beat mine" defence.


Sinn Fein had procedures. Mairia Cahill was a child. Sinn Fein ignored their procedures. Somehow, Mairia Cahill is to blame, so yes, you are engaged in victim-blaming.

It is interesting that you ignored the Paudie McGahon one. Apart from the fact that it occured in the South, thus removing the RUC/PSNI defence (they were agin us), the procedures were definitively in place, and definitively ignored. The hypocrisy of Sinn Fein, proclaiming loudly to the world that they had the most advanced procedures on handling child sexual abuse, while at the same time subjecting them to kangaroo courts is profoundly disgusting.

blanch152 wrote: »

We are now at "the man down the road is beating his wife, so it is ok to beat mine" defence.


Sinn Fein had procedures. Mairia Cahill was a child. Sinn Fein ignored their procedures. Somehow, Mairia Cahill is to blame, so yes, you are engaged in victim-blaming.

It is interesting that you ignored the Paudie McGahon one. Apart from the fact that it occured in the South, thus removing the RUC/PSNI defence (they were agin us), the procedures were definitively in place, and definitively ignored. The hypocrisy of Sinn Fein, proclaiming loudly to the world that they had the most advanced procedures on handling child sexual abuse, while at the same time subjecting them to kangaroo courts is profoundly disgusting.

Thought Cahill had an affair with her aunts husband and cried wolf when the aunt found out?

blanch152 wrote: »

We are now at "the man down the road is beating his wife, so it is ok to beat mine" defence.


Sinn Fein had procedures. Mairia Cahill was a child. Sinn Fein ignored their procedures. Somehow, Mairia Cahill is to blame, so yes, you are engaged in victim-blaming.

Where have I 'blamed' Mairia Cahill? This is lame blanch and totally dishonest debating.

It is interesting that you ignored the Paudie McGahon one. Apart from the fact that it occured in the South, thus removing the RUC/PSNI defence (they were agin us), the procedures were definitively in place, and definitively ignored. The hypocrisy of Sinn Fein, proclaiming loudly to the world that they had the most advanced procedures on handling child sexual abuse, while at the same time subjecting them to kangaroo courts is profoundly disgusting.

Ignored because frankly I don't know a lot about it bar the hyperbole and allegations surrounding it.

Regina Doherty and Michael Martin so abused that case to scream and shout and to try and make political gain that a lot of stuff got lost.