The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

LuasSimon wrote: »

Whoever dreamt up the idea of dividing up the Island a hundred years ago is the person who I’d blame for all the deaths since . There was thousands killed in the civil war and thousands more killed in the troubles .
Who thought Tyrone or South Armagh were going to stay quietly under British rule ffs? We should have all remained under British rule as part of the United Kingdom or we should have had a United Ireland not the fudge we still have that has caused so much death and misery to this day.

I'm no expert, but wasn't it the case that one million Unionists wished to remain within the UK, hence either we had a Proper WAR on the island Orange Vs Green, North Vs South, or a border was erected to keep the North within the UK as per the wishes of its inhabitants, while we decided to break away from the rest of these islands and do a solo run ......

The border had to be erected or it would have been all out proper war with the North, scary thought. Correct me if I'm wrong <

twinytwo

LuasSimon wrote: »

Whoever dreamt up the idea of dividing up the Island a hundred years ago is the person who I’d blame for all the deaths since . There was thousands killed in the civil war and thousands more killed in the troubles .
Who thought Tyrone or South Armagh were going to stay quietly under British rule ffs? We should have all remained under British rule as part of the United Kingdom or we should have had a United Ireland not the fudge we still have that has caused so much death and misery to this day.

That situation lies entirely at the feet of de valera.

blanch152

Odhinn wrote: »

.............yet you contradict yourself here.

Two separate statements, taken out of context, do not make a contradiction.

nigeldaniel

SF policy on everything that the IRA did and do is to make excuses and more excuses and then deny and bustle. I half expect they receive training in how to deal with tricky questions. Not very good training at that!

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/kbc-fine-for-states-worst-robbery-will-be-passed-onto-customers-say-sinn-fein-39559985.html

I see that Pearse has found a way to put his comrades' robbery of the Northern Bank into second place with his claims in the Dail.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

But my question is, what would the alternative have been if the army hadn't been deployed?

It should’ve been a UN peacekeeping mission not the British army. The UN should’ve been in at the start of the civil rights protests prior to the burning out of catholic homes and Bloody Sunday. There was a chance to stop the spiral and it wasn’t taken.

StackSteevens

maccored wrote: »

so instead its sinn feins fault there was a street party?

Well done - that's an outstanding attempt to be illogical! Pat yourself gently on the back with a large baseball bat.

The logical thing for any public representative to have done - even an honours graduate of the SF School of Advanced Blame Deflection - would have been to have criticised the organisers behind the illegal event.

But that's not how Sinn Fein public reps play the blame game.

jm08 wrote: »

You don't seem to realise that the British Army were brought in to protect the catholics from the RUC/B Specials. The British Gov. were reluctant to deploy them, but the Protestant Stormont Gov. insisted.

But my question is, what would the alternative have been if the army hadn't been deployed?

jm08

Hamsterchops wrote: »

...so, question for the Sinn Fein/IRA people on here, what would have happened in Northern Ireland if the Army hadn't been brought in to restore control.
Just imagine if the RUC had been left to try and keep a lid on the spiraling trouble? What would have happened if Westminster had just ignored the Troubles?
Personally I think some kind of "buffer" had to be deployed to keep the two sides apart, hence the army was deployed.
What say you, let it explode or deploy the army?

You don't seem to realise that the British Army were brought in to protect the catholics from the RUC/B Specials. The British Gov. were reluctant to deploy them, but the Protestant Stormont Gov. insisted.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

What difference did it make to a nationalist in the North exactly?

It lead to the GFA.

It shocked people alright, but not for the reasons you think. People were reviled by the murderers and the refusal of SF at the time to condem them. Indeed, they tried to pass the buck to the police, something that some here do.

So all that peace work of Susan McHugh and Tim Parry's father didn't achieve anything? You do know that there is a centre for reconciliation in Warrington to promote understanding between GB & Ireland?

At the time, the public were getting very very wise to the blatent murderous campaign of the PIRA and SF/PIRA knew themselves that there was very little road left for them, hence why they sued for peace soon after the bombings.

Yet, Claire Fox, who defended the PIRA for that bombing, topped the poll in the elections?

Omagh, who the PIRA should share a responsibility with was the final nail in the coffin.

How do the PIRA share a responsibility for Omagh?

9/11 was the concrete that was poured over the coffin as the Americans, who would have had a soft spot for an old rebel song, would not be sympathetic and indeed would have actually hunted down and killed, like the SAS did, PIRA operates in the US.
In this respect, the PIRA got very lucky.

Are you sure about that? Its not as if the US is anyway cringey about their own efforts at terrorism! They just don't like it when its against themselves.

Oh, it was the idea of a pop-song, so I guess killing a toddler was worth it? :rolleyes:

Who said it was worth the death of two kids? You wanted to know if any good came out of their deaths and I've listed some of the positives things that came out of their deaths.

The arragoance on display here is outstanding, as if the whole world revolves around the Irish Republican way of thinking.

I think that maybe you are out of step here in what people think.

You should actually listen to that song by the way, as it is an excouriation of the brainwashed mindset of some here, the brainwashed mindset that excuses childmurders.

I suggest you watch the official video. I don't think the IRA had any tanks.

Its was a critque on the same ol tired hyper-nationalist nonsense swallowed whole by young niave impressionable people since 1916, that is still alive in 2020. There is a reason why the word 'In your head' is used often in that song, because people try and justify all types of wicked, evil behaviour, including the murder of children, to fulfil some broader mythical goal.

It takes two to make war. And as you well know, their were plenty of nationalist kids murdered by the British Army/RUC. It was not all one sided as you like to pretend.

Of course, this is all lost on you, but one day, you may realise how lost some are and were.

Mark, I actually think you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

tikkahunter

So what’s the excuse for down south of the border . Drug dealing , punishment beatings ie. Someone Dealing on their patch, Protection rackets , Armed robberies . Throw in intimidation. Growing up in a working class Dublin area you get to see what the real SF are like. Taking the same people seriously now as TD’s really is farcical.

...so, question for the Sinn Fein/IRA people on here, what would have happened in Northern Ireland if the Army hadn't been brought in to restore control.

Just imagine if the RUC had been left to try and keep a lid on the spiraling trouble? What would have happened if Westminster had just ignored the Troubles?

Personally I think some kind of "buffer" had to be deployed to keep the two sides apart, hence the army was deployed.

What say you, let it explode or deploy the army?

Odhinn

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Combating terrorism funny, yeah whatever :rolleyes:

Defusing bombs, or picking up bits of people in the aftermath of bombs, stopping post office heists, Knee cappings, murders galore, and you think it funny. Well you need to grow up laddie as terrorism is certainly not funny for those who are trying to stop it. The British army was a blunt tool brought in because the RUC lost control....

They did their best as did our own Defense Forces.

The RUC were part of the problem, not some well meaning police force.

markodaly wrote: »

Glourious!

Exhibit A:

A poster talks rightfully of the moral and ethical use of bombs being used as a way to negotiate and achieve 'results', bombs that were used to kill and murder women and children... where the results may have been the same, regardless.

And here we have France 'I never support violence' Brady straight in there with the 'blame partition' narrative......

Oh, it wasn't the bombs really, it was partition....

Rinse and repeat 10,000 times as per the post count.
It is the 'I am not racist.. But...' argument of violent Irish Republicanism.

Calm down mark and read what has been written. Banish those boogeymen from your head

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Combating terrorism funny, yeah whatever :rolleyes:

Defusing bombs, or picking up bits of people in the aftermath of bombs, stopping post office heists, Knee cappings, murders galore, and you think it funny. Well you need to grow up laddie as terrorism is certainly not funny for those who are trying to stop it.

Or maybe running loyalist murder squads who were serving members of the state forces - the Brits.

Or maybe the FRU who knowingly let people like Jackson and Haddock commit mass murder - the Brits.

Or maybe simple things like denial of basic human rights to a large section of the community based solely on the fact of religion - the Brits.

Or maybe helping loyalists burn people out of their home because they were of a different religion - the Brits.

Or maybe trying to cover the whole thing up and destroying evidence to stop families getting justice - the Brits yet again.

The biggest terror organisation this island has even seen was the British state....

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Combating terrorism funny, yeah whatever :rolleyes:

Defusing bombs, or picking up bits of people in the aftermath of bombs, stopping post office heists, Knee cappings, murders galore, and you think it funny. Well you need to grow up laddie as terrorism is certainly not funny for those who are trying to stop it. The British army was a blunt tool brought in because the RUC lost control....

They did their best as did our own Defense Forces.

Ha ha 'The RUC lost control'...could you bow and scrape any more close to the ground to make them not look as bad as they were. You make it sound like they were absent minded and had a wee episode.

Yourself and mark will never be allowed to get away wirh the narrative without the context.

What war/conflict was ever analysed withour review of the context in which it happened?

grayzer75 wrote: »

The funniest thing I've seen on here in a long long time lol.

Combating terrorism funny, yeah whatever :rolleyes:

Defusing bombs, or picking up bits of people in the aftermath of bombs, stopping post office heists, Knee cappings, murders galore, and you think it funny. Well you need to grow up laddie as terrorism is certainly not funny for those who are trying to stop it. The British army was a blunt tool brought in because the RUC lost control....

They did their best as did our own Defense Forces.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Partitioning a country and turning a blind eye as the majority change the voting system and gerrymander to maintain a sectarian bigoted oppressive statre ain't a great idea either Hamster.
There are very few places, if any, in the world where that didn't eventually result in bombs going off and conflict/war.

P.S. That is neither 'support' for bombs going off or for allowing a sectarian bigoted state to exist.
That needs to be pointed out for those in difficulty with what analytical reviews of history are.

Glourious!

Exhibit A:

A poster talks rightfully of the moral and ethical use of bombs being used as a way to negotiate and achieve 'results', bombs that were used to kill and murder women and children... where the results may have been the same, regardless.

And here we have France 'I never support violence' Brady straight in there with the 'blame partition' narrative......

Oh, it wasn't the bombs really, it was partition....

Rinse and repeat 10,000 times as per the post count.
It is the 'I am not racist.. But...' argument of violent Irish Republicanism.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not here to defend the bombing or the killing of two boys,

Ah, but you are.
You always defend these murders, since they were a means to an end, or that they brought results, even though you admit, the PIRA themselves knew, since the 80's that they could not win the war... so why the hell did they have to kill children years later?

The benchmark for me, is this. What tangible thing was achieved by the murders of these children, and if the children were not murdered, would live for Nationalists in the North be different?

The GFA is here thankfully and so far the result is that it is protecting nationalist interests in NI and the voters there have been rewarding who they think are responsible since it was signed.

The GFA that cemented British rule in the North, which is run by Westminister and where the British Army held sway. Tell me exactly what concessions did the murder of these children get SF in all this? Did they get an extra minister out of it, or something for the Irish Language? Anything tangible?

Too early to say but for the perps, so far it has been an entirely negative one, thankfully.

So why was the killing of Lyra McKee a negative for the New IRA but the killing of 3 year old Jonathan Bell a positive for SF/PIRA?

And as long as there is a campaign for a UI, partition was NOT inevitable.

You can campaign for something all you want, but Parition was inevitable on this Island. The mere fact that some still refuse to acknowledge this basic point, is the reason why more than 3000 people had to die.

How many more years than a 100 of them do you need to view it as wrong and a failure and a complete and abject kicking of a problem down a long and tragic road for everybody?

Oh, were are back to the revisioinist talk now, where you said, Collins and Dev and Co. should have done 'Whatever it took' to avoid partition,
(which also means war...) yet you sing the praises of SF to accept the GFA, which accepts and surrenders to the idea of legitimate British/Westminister rule in Ireland.

You simply cannot square that circle, EVER!!

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Of course not, the British & Irish authorities/ Security forces were not and are not terrorists, but they certainly had their hands full on both sides of the border combating terrorism during the Troubles.

The funniest thing I've seen on here in a long long time lol.

grayzer75 wrote: »

How would you define the British role in the conflict, would you deem them terrorists?

Of course not, the British & Irish authorities/ Security forces were not and are not terrorists, but they certainly had their hands full on both sides of the border combating terrorism during the Troubles.

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

You are still talking about the death of that 3 year old, so it did make a difference.

What difference did it make to a nationalist in the North exactly?

It shocked people into facing the reality that there were huge problems in Northern Ireland and they needed to be sorted.

It shocked people alright, but not for the reasons you think. People were reviled by the murderers and the refusal of SF at the time to condem them. Indeed, they tried to pass the buck to the police, something that some here do.

At the time, the public were getting very very wise to the blatent murderous campaign of the PIRA and SF/PIRA knew themselves that there was very little road left for them, hence why they sued for peace soon after the bombings.
Omagh, who the PIRA should share a responsibility with was the final nail in the coffin.
9/11 was the concrete that was poured over the coffin as the Americans, who would have had a soft spot for an old rebel song, would not be sympathetic and indeed would have actually hunted down and killed, like the SAS did, PIRA operates in the US.
In this respect, the PIRA got very lucky.

People started listening to nationalists like John Hume when up to now he was just ignored.

Nonesense. Absolutely nonesense.

It brought the Troubles in NI into popular culture (Cranberries for example). So yes, I think something good came out of the Warrington bombing for nationalists.

Oh, it was the idea of a pop-song, so I guess killing a toddler was worth it? :rolleyes:

The arragoance on display here is outstanding, as if the whole world revolves around the Irish Republican way of thinking.

You should actually listen to that song by the way, as it is an excouriation of the brainwashed mindset of some here, the brainwashed mindset that excuses childmurders.

It's the same old theme, since 1916
In your head, in your head, they're still fightin'
With their tanks and their bombs and their bombs and their guns
In your head, in your head, they are dyin'

Its was a critque on the same ol tired hyper-nationalist nonsense swallowed whole by young niave impressionable people since 1916, that is still alive in 2020. There is a reason why the word 'In your head' is used often in that song, because people try and justify all types of wicked, evil behaviour, including the murder of children, to fulfil some broader mythical goal.

Of course, this is all lost on you, but one day, you may realise how lost some are and were.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody around here is arguing that any of the killings you mention brought results.

That is the real sickening notion - killing people for results. That is what you support, the idea that killing people achieves something. It doesn't,.

.............yet you contradict yourself here.

blanch152 wrote: »

i...............t only adds to the total of misery, but you support it, you welcome it, you acknowledge it, you support the organisation that celebrates it, because it achieves results.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

That's a very wishy washy reply :cool:

Terrorism is not a good way to behave, neither is it a good way to Unite with the other tradition, cuz that's what it was all about wasn't it?

A united Ireland, British & Irish, Green and Orange United as one ..... ?

But then you plant another bomb, just to make sure!

I agree, terrorising any community or another country ('immediate and terrible war) is a wholly wrong way to behave.
That is why I am off the opinion that it was all wrong from the start. 'Terrorism' is in the eye of the reciever of violence after all.

mynamejeff wrote: »

case in point

although Im sure you'll squirm or smear your way to another irrelevant point

So you cannot point to someone 'shouting' and just try and insult.
Fair enough, don't let me interrupt you.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

That's a very wishy washy reply :cool:

Terrorism is not a good way to behave, neither is it a good way to Unite with the other tradition, cuz that's what it was all about wasn't it?

A united Ireland, British & Irish, Green and Orange United as one ..... ?

But then you plant another bomb, just to make sure!

How would you define the British role in the conflict, would you deem them terrorists?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are very few places, if any, in the world where that didn't eventually result in bombs going off and conflict/war.

P.S. That is neither 'support' for bombs going off or for allowing a sectarian bigoted state to exist.
That needs to be pointed out for those in difficulty with what analytical reviews of history are.

That's a very wishy washy reply :cool:

Terrorism is not a good way to behave, neither is it a good way to Unite with the other tradition, cuz that's what it was all about wasn't it?

A united Ireland, British & Irish, Green and Orange United as one ..... ?

But then you plant another bomb, just to make sure!

mynamejeff

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Shout?

Who is shouting?

Deal with the point jeff.

*I think you missed a bit of irony in your own censoring and scolding post.

case in point

although Im sure you'll squirm or smear your way to another irrelevant point

mynamejeff

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where is the lack of respect and tolerance?

You routinely lie and misrepresent posters when it suits you, that is disrespectful.

something you are also very guilty of Francie

also putting words in other posters mouths and misrepresenting others point of view