jm08 wrote: » They were not the targets. They would be termed by the PIRA as collatoral damage, just like what the British Security Forces say. The PIRA would usually apologise for instances like this, but the British Government tend to pretend it didn't happen. Edit: From what I know, Bobby Sands was not involved in any attacks like Warrington. (I was asked why Bobby Sands wasn't a terrorist).
RobMc59 wrote: » So how do three and twelve year old children count as legitimate state security forces in Warrington?
jm08 wrote: » Bobby Sands didn't actually commit any acts of terrorism, so I'm not sure you can call him a terrorist. I'd refer to him as a paramilitary. You can't just forget their motives or principles when deciding whether they were a terrorist or not. For example, the PIRA's targets were State Security Forces and were considered as legitimate targets by them.
timthumbni wrote: » You first. I ask again would you consider sands to be a terrorist or is that term only used by you to describe loyalists? It’s a very simple question. I don’t need to be side tracked into discussing his supposed “principles”
jm08 wrote: » Willie Frazer was travelling the roads of NI for 30 years distributing assault guns and rocket launchers to loyalists terrorists who killed 70 people. Somehow the British security forces didn't know this and if they did, they did nothing about it. Frazer didn't spend a day in prison unlike Bobby Sands who got 14 years for possession of a revolver and died in prison. At least he had principles. How is anyone surprised that the PIRA got nationalist support when the British Security Forces acted the way they did? Thats a question to you Timthumb? Can you answer it?
timthumbni wrote: » Lots of republican terrorists got off Scot free too as you put it. Would you consider sands as a terrorist btw or would that just be for the loyalists?
jm08 wrote: » Bobby Sands got 14 years imprisonment for possession of a revolver! Willie Frazer got off scott free. Even though it was known what he was up to by the security forces, we had to let that terrorist march down our main street. Lots of republican terrorists got off Scot free too as you put it. Would you consider sands as a terrorist btw or would that just be for the loyalists?
downcow wrote: » I fully and unequivocally condemn any crimes Willie Frazer carried out in the name of loyalism and in particular sectarian crimes against his catholic fellow countrymen. Is that clear enough for you? Could you now do the same with regard to bobby sands?
As for the horrific killing of the Quinn boys. Will you confirm that they were being raised as Protestants, going to an exclusively Protestant school, attending an exclusively Protestant youth club, helped every year to collect wood for the bonfire, were at the bonfire a few hours before their house was attacked, were intending to go to the 12th parade next day. .(....and we’ll not even go into the drug dealing and convictions of those close to them) A strange ‘sectarian’ killing if so-called prods done it. Wouldn’t you think?
timthumbni wrote: » I though sf weren’t into the politics of condemnation. They certainly weren’t into condemning any of the cowardly murders by the totally unconnected IRA. Odd that.
DUP councillor George Dorrian said the decision not to remove the bonfire was sensible given that no contractors were available to remove it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sinn Fein condemn these bonfires unequivocally....
downcow wrote: » Talking about Francie. He tries to label my whole community and their 12th festival with the actions at a tiny minority of 11th bonfires. I wouldn’t dare make that link with the behaviour at republican bonfires. We now see it year after year, taunting victims, threatening neighbours, burning flags - and here’s the latest from last night https://mobile.twitter.com/Gary_Middleton/status/1294393736181559296
downcow wrote: » So Francie, if you are not talking nonsense again then this is very helpful - so where is the link to the statement from the ira saying they were sectarian killers? That would be a gamechanger- or maybe you are just making it up????
jm08 wrote: » I can't wait to hear you condemn Willie Frazer and not make excuses that he was bullied in his youth (which is a complete fabrication), or making excuses that the Quinn boys murder wasn't sectarian, but all the fault of their supposedly drug dealing uncle and mother's protestant boyfriend.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You don't need to tell me that many Unionists accept that terrible things were done. Every Unionist I know and have worked with accepts that, they are moderate decent Unionists. If the IRA killed for sectarian reasons (and they did) I accepted that long ago, as they did. Read any of their statements since the GFA dealing with it. Despicable use of a genuine post by a victims group to try and earn kudos downcow.
Fionn1952 wrote: » It's the state forces atrocities that many of your community have trouble condemning. The whole Soldier F fiasco is perfect evidence of this, Downcow. The man is accused of murder, there is significant evidence of this.....but rather than acknowledging the absolute injustice that is the protection the likes of this man received, the whataboutery starts, the claims of a witch hunt start, the pseudo-sympathetic, 'old man' talk starts, the, 'just following orders' (where have we heard that before?) starts. ANYTHING to deflect and acknowledge that STATE FORCES carried out actions that were just as bad as either of the paramilitary groups on either side. Ignoring the Nationalist/Unionist question for a second.....don't you think the state should be held to a higher standard than terrorists? You tend to jab at Francie for this regularly, but I've seen him unequivocally condemn ALL violence.....yours always seems to be tinged with the view that the British troops and RUC were always, 'the good guys'. I have no issue whatsoever with calling out the likes of the Enniskillen bombing as completely wrong - I use this as an example because of how close to home it was, not to portray any other specific incidents as right. I don't accept that a significant amount of IRA violence was specifically because the victims were Protestants - I would absolutely accept that a significant amount of IRA violence was because the victims were from a Unionist background, and those from a Unionist background were indeed largely Protestant. By and large, I don't believe their Protestantism was a significant motivating factor, but rather their political leanings. To be clear, this is an analysis, not a justification, and should not be taken as a statement of support, as I'm aware you're occasionally fond of doing so.
RobMc59 wrote: » Her family moved here in the 60s,she was about eight which perhaps explains it..The only thing that used to rile her mother was any talk of Cromwell! I'd never heard it although I had heard 'fenian'. Despite my hopes that the UK remains united I have no issues with anyone's religious beliefs.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I wouldn't be depending on her for information Rob in fairness. If someone in Drogheda doesn't know what a 'taig' is they have no interest in the north or Irish history I would wager.
Fionn1952 wrote: » My mistake, I thought you had said that she was from the North, no idea why I had that in my head. That's an odd one though; very few in Drogheda who wouldn't have at least heard the term....a fair few people who went on the run across the border ended up settling in Dundalk and Drogheda. Being a border county, generally the people there would be a bit more exposed to events in the North than people further South too. What sort of age was herself when she moved across to the UK? I could understand if she moved as a child, but genuinely it's perplexing to think someone could grow to adulthood along the border during the Troubles and never once hear the term Taig. It would be used in Scotland as well, particularly Glasgow (as I'm sure you could've guessed!).
RobMc59 wrote: » She's from Drogheda,so didn't know what it meant
Fionn1952 wrote: » Your missus is from a Catholic/Irish Nationalist background, Rob? If that's the case, you won't need to, 'let her know' - she will have been called it more than once, and have seen plenty of graffiti emblazoned with KAT or ATAT when she lived back in the North.
RobMc59 wrote: » I didn't know what 'taig' was until either you,francie or Tom said it some time ago,I'll have to let the missus know that apparently she's a 'taig'.
BonnieSituation wrote: » What oath? Do you know anything about the Assembly? EDIT: Seems it was answered in good faith and we'll leave it there despite my doubts of it being questioned in good faith. --- As an aside I'm sure you were aghast at the taigy Claire Hanna and Colum Eastwood's affirmations' to your fair Queen:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eastwood-swears-true-allegiance-to-derry-in-house-of-commons-1.4121471https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2019/sdlps-claire-hanna-lodges-respectful-protest-over-pledge-to-queen-in-commons-38796681.html
downcow wrote: » Who is seeking a medal. I suppose I am showing again that many unionists accept that terrible things were done in their name. They accept that the paramilitaries/ freedom fighters on their side tortured and murdered people simply because of their religion. It would be really helpful if republicans accepted that that the Ira done likewise on many many occasions. Maybe a start would be you accepting that a significant amount of ira activity was torture and murder of Protestants simply because they were Protestants ?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Fair play, but why would you use an horrific death and a victim to seek some kind of medal?
