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!).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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????
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
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sinn Fein condemn these bonfires unequivocally....
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.
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?
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?
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: » 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: » 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: » 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.
RobMc59 wrote: » So how do three and twelve year old children count as legitimate state security forces in Warrington?
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).
timthumbni wrote: » 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? A very good question Tim. We'll see now whether Francie is a hypocrite or not
FrancieBrady wrote: » The 'security forces' of which one part - the British Army - killed 18 children and many many innocents ?
RobMc59 wrote: » As the Warrington bombs were left outside argos and boots in a shopping area,in steel bins to cause maximum injuries,who or what would have been the 'legitimate' targets?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bombings#Second_attack
An IRA spokesman, in an interview in Belfast, said two clear warnings of the bombs had been given, but on this and other occasions police had carried out a policy of not acting in time. Asked what he felt about the death of three-year-old Johnathan Ball, he said: 'Horror. Exactly the same emotion as went through the minds of the volunteers who planted the bombs. I am furious that there are those within the British authorities who have played this cynical game for almost 12 months.'
jm08 wrote: » https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ira-insists-warrington-bomb-alerts-were-given-terrorists-fear-loss-of-support-1499306.html Its not the first time that the British Security Forces have ignored warnings like these or planned attacks on civilians to help their greater good - i.e., Dublin-Monaghan bombings!
downcow wrote: » Shock. Jm08 believes the ira propaganda. Even that sectarian killer and torturer Martin McG has said that bomb was totally wrong.
downcow wrote: » JM08 this is where all your arguments fall flat on her face. To suggest PIRA's targets were State Security Forces - well I think we all know the nonsense that that is. Do you want me to make me list the endless atrocities carried out against people and businesses which were purely sectarian, not to mention the IRA campaign to drive protestant from areas they dominated. I view you with sad dismay you if really believe what you are saying
