Is it just me or have SF vanished?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't lecturing you.

I was explaining something that you misunderstood in my post.

I note you totally ignored that point when you diverted to lecture me on something I already know. 'Democracy' is always the first victim in a conflict or war.

So would you agree that it dangerous and foolish to believe something that comes out of the mouths of 'selective democrats'?

*I have already said clearly, I don't believe either the British version or the IRA version of 'who robbed the NI Bank'. I simply don't know who did it.

More nonsense. “Democracy” hasn’t been the first victim in most wars in history because “democracy” wasn’t present to begin with. Truth as the first victim of war is the cliche you were looking for.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it is a cliche. Because I believe that most wars/conflicts have been started by governments without the approval of the 'people'. Democracy is the will of the people of any given state.

So I hold by what I said...democracy is generally the first victim.

So any chance you can quit diverting and get back to the point... selectively believing the word of a government proven to have lied before? All around the parts of the world that they colonised and policed they have done this stuff.

If you are asking me if I believe politicians, democratically elected or otherwise then we are in agreement.

When you say you don’t believe the IRA in what they say about the Northern Bank Robbery, they say they didn’t do it. So you don’t believe they didn’t do it?

Truthvader wrote: »

By "without the approval of the people" Francie of course means whatever people Gerry Adams and his merry men decide they represent from time to time. Not a majority in Northern Ireland. Not a majority in the Republic (the Free State which they want to break).

Plus wars are started by eveil people who want to kill other people. Ie parachute regiment thugs, Shankill Butcher thugs and Sinn Fein IRA thugs. All of the same kind

Wars and conflict start because of the absence of democracy invariably and sometimes because democracy is intolerable to some people.


The war/conflict here started indisputably because of the absence of democracy.

PS. I don't believe in the concept of 'evil'. It is a quaint little ruse promoted by religious organisations. As history shows us, when you allow war/conflict to break out anybody is capable of carrying out horrible crimes against others.

As a true democrats your duty is to stop war/conflict breaking out in the first place by holding those vested with power responsible if they behave as sectarian, bigoted governors.
I never supported the IRA and I am glad they are gone, but they stopped the violence when they negotiated an agreement. As an aside but wholly relevant, the government responsible for the absence of democracy here and who attempted to shore up and maintain the bigoted sectarian state have not stopped killing/covering up/lying for what they want to achieve though...have a look around the world.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rogue-sas-afghanistan-execution-squad-exposed-by-email-trail-7pg3dkdww

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I don't believe anybody on face value.

Show me evidence, until then my stance is 'I don't know'.

Clearly nonsense. The second world war was largely fought between democratically elected governments (bar Japan)

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wars and conflict start because of the absence of democracy invariably and sometimes because democracy is intolerable to some people.


The war/conflict here started indisputably because of the absence of democracy.

PS. I don't believe in the concept of 'evil'. It is a quaint little ruse promoted by religious organisations. As history shows us, when you allow war/conflict to break out anybody is capable of carrying out horrible crimes against others.

As a true democrats your duty is to stop war/conflict breaking out in the first place by holding those vested with power responsible if they behave as sectarian, bigoted governors.
I never supported the IRA and I am glad they are gone, but they stopped the violence when they negotiated an agreement. As an aside but wholly relevant, the government responsible for the absence of democracy here and who attempted to shore up and maintain the bigoted sectarian state have not stopped killing/covering up/lying for what they want to achieve though...have a look around the world.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rogue-sas-afghanistan-execution-squad-exposed-by-email-trail-7pg3dkdww

Firstly I think it is simplistic to say that wars start because of the absence of democracy. Indeed, Athens, the “first democracy” fought many wars, some of which, were only ended following the abandonment of democracy, not due to its absence.

The duty of a democrat is not to stop war/conflict from breaking out in the first place as you say rather it is to peacefully accept the decision of the majority when those decisions are taken democratically.

Your euphemistic “holding those vested with power responsible”, for a democrat does not mean shooting, bombing etc, etc.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said it did. I have said again and again here that the violence was wrong from the start.

The war/conflict happened here because those in power abdicated their responsibilities- it was inevitable and if you properly inform yourself you will see that those ib power in Britain and indeed Ireland knew what was likely to happen.
Just as those in power abdicated their responsiblities to the Treaty of Versailles during the 30's have some responsibility for what inevitably happened.

So you are saying that the conflict happened because those Democratically elected to Power abdicated their responsibilities and also saying that conflict inevitably happens in the absence of democracy. Let me guess, you are now going to qualify what you mean by democracy.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said it did. I have said again and again here that the violence was wrong from the start.

The war/conflict happened here because those in power abdicated their responsibilities- it was inevitable and if you properly inform yourself you will see that those ib power in Britain and indeed Ireland knew what was likely to happen.
Just as those in power abdicated their responsiblities to the Treaty of Versailles during the 30's have some responsibility for what inevitably happened.

Yeap, yet you are on record time and again defending the murder of a 3 year old boy as collateral damage and the consequences of 'war' and some how helped Nationalists in the north.

Critism of people in power is one thing. Perpetual bad faith arguments and 'whatbaoutism' is another.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lies again Mark.

You asked a question 'Did the bombing of Warrington help the nationalist cause'.
The answer I gave was not a defense of Warrington but a fairly widely accepted view that the bombing campaign in Britain did bring the British to the table. The GFA, which did most certainly help the nationalist cause, followed.

You can hold that appraisal of the history without defending either side.
Just as you can see that Hiroshama and Nagasakai brought the Japanese to surrender without defending the bombing itself.

But you know this anyway, just another of your many cheap shots in the absence of anything substantial to offer.

No, the question I actually asked was, how did the murder of a 3-year-old toddler and 12-year-old boy help Nationalists in the North.

All I got was world-class 'Whataboutism' and some long-winded defence of that bombing.
As per this post, going on about atomic bombs in WWII Japan.

his eyes are dancing in his head due to waffle like above. Pavolv's dog? What in the hell are you on about?

markodaly wrote: »

No, the question I actually asked was, how did the murder of a 3-year-old toddler and 12-year-old boy help Nationalists in the North.

All I got was world-class 'Whataboutism' and some long-winded defence of that bombing.
As per this post, going on about atomic bombs in WWII Japan.

And you got told how it helped 'nationalism' but you are in denial about it so you keep asking the question. Sad stuff really.

The IRA brought the campaign to the British and they got results...look at the timeline...look at the commentary.
You don't have to be a fan of the IRA to see that it worked.

No chance of Sinn Fein vanishing, that's for sure, not with all the SF threads running on boards.ie...

markodaly wrote: »

Killing toddlers and young boys got 'results'.

Lovely stuff Francie.
Your sycophantic defence for child-killers is disappointing.

Desperate today Mark?

I didn't defend anything...you asked a question. I answered it.

Did the bombing campaign bring results...nobody denies that...the timeline underlines the fact the British attitude changed and the GFA got signed. Is the GFA a help to nationalists...most certainly.

Join the dots.
The killing of anyone was abhorrent, the killing of innocent children despicable.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The Fenians were bombing England since 1867, the IRA since 1939 and the provisionals since 1974. Yeah they got results alright. Just like the Luftwaffe in the blitz.

Another in denial of what is historical fact.
You cannot handwave away or snide meaningless comment away the fact that the British when bombed in their retail and financial heart lands negotiated with a still fully armed group to reach an agreement.

You don't have to defend or praise to properly assess the facts.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think you so want to believe that the IRA campaign achieved something which could not have been achieved by negotiation that you are blinded to the reality.

The British establishment had negotiated with a still armed IRA, as they have done with many other groups, for 30 years, under 5 prime ministers, both Conservatives and Labour. To claim that the IRA bombing campaign in England suddenly brought the British government to the negotiating table is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

SS the British had been insisting the IRA disarm before they would talk. John Major quietly dropped that demand and the deal got done.
Fact.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They were already talking and had been talking for sometime. How you jump the conclusion that the bombing campaign in England won the IRA the little victory of dumping their arms after, rather than before their capitulation is telling.

You are trenchantly ignoring what it meant for the British government to negotiate with an armed group.
Quite simply they could see the deal evaporating and it was they who climbed off the high horse and quietly dropped their demand.

Keep talking the Brits up...I never supported the IRA but the facts are the facts.