Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

1111112114116117334

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Yet you staunchly defend Sinn Fein and the Provos. I mean every second post on here is you defending them and supporting them!

    I never supported the IRA nor defended what they did. I believe the violence was wrong from the beginning and that violence begat violence.

    Understanding why they did what they did and why others did what they did, is not the same as defending it.

    I defend what I see as an attack on republicanism not particularly SF, who are just another political party. Who get some things wrong and some things right, just like any other political party I have voted for.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I never supported the IRA nor defended what they did. I believe the violence was wrong from the beginning and that violence begat violence.

    Understanding why they did what they did and why others did what they did, is not the same as defending it.

    So you consider violence by loyalist terrorist as equivalent to republican terrorism?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    Well Francie, you're tredding a very fine line there between supporting terrorism and understanding terrorism :cool:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Well Francie, you're tredding a very fine line there between supporting terrorism and understanding terrorism :cool:

    As long as I understand myself, I can't help what others think.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jh79 wrote: »
    So you consider violence by loyalist terrorist as equivalent to republican terrorism?

    Why is it so hard to understand a simple position...I think it was all wrong. That's all of it...not this bit or that bit, not 'look over there at that bit' not let's ignore that bit, look at this bit' it was ALL wrong and it happened for a reason and was prolonged for a reason and came to an end for a reason.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Why is it so hard to understand a simple position...I think it was all wrong. That's all of it...not this bit or that bit, not 'look over there at that bit' not let's ignore that bit, look at this bit' it was ALL wrong and it happened for a reason and was prolonged for a reason and came to an end for a reason.

    So you wouldn't use a different tone in your posts when describing loyalist killers as opposed to IRA killers?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jh79 wrote: »
    So you wouldn't use a different tone in your posts when describing loyalist killers as opposed to IRA killers?

    I think within the confllct/war some people killed for different reasons. Some killed for pure sectarian jollies and hate, some killed for political/strategic reasons, some killed to stoke the flames. I certainly would have differing tones in addressing those killings while still believing they were all wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I think within the confllct/war some people killed for different reasons. Some killed for pure sectarian jollies and hate, some killed for political/strategic reasons, some killed to stoke the flames. I certainly would have differing tones in addressing those killings while still believing they were all wrong.

    So there are degrees of wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Truthvader


    I never supported the IRA nor defended what they did. I believe the violence was wrong from the beginning and that violence begat violence.

    Understanding why they did what they did and why others did what they did, is not the same as defending it.

    I defend what I see as an attack on republicanism not particularly SF, who are just another political party. Who get some things wrong and some things right, just like any other political party I have voted for.

    Ah the old Gerry Adams trope for violence and thuggery "I don't condone it but I understand it"

    And Francie is not a member of Sinn Fein. And sure why not; Gerry was never in the IRA and I expect the Sinn Fein membership can be massaged to purpose as it suits


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Truthvader


    I never supported the IRA nor defended what they did. I believe the violence was wrong from the beginning and that violence begat violence.

    Understanding why they did what they did and why others did what they did, is not the same as defending it.

    I defend what I see as an attack on republicanism not particularly SF, who are just another political party. Who get some things wrong and some things right, just like any other political party I have voted for.

    For many (a majority) North and South "Republicanism" is a synonym for Criminality - entirely thanks to the party you are not a member of


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Truthvader wrote: »
    For many (a majority) North and South "Republicanism" is a synonym for Criminality - entirely thanks to the party you are not a member of

    No, that would be for 'some' Truth, just as some would think that 'capitalism' is about private greed or a particular party is corrupt or in the hands of private business interests.

    'Some' is the word you are looking for, unless you can of course back up the 'majority' claim.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    No, that would be for 'some' Truth, just as some would think that 'capitalism' is about private greed or a particular party is corrupt or in the hands of private business interests.

    'Some' is the word you are looking for, unless you can of course back up the 'majority' claim.

    TruthVader is correct in that during the TROUBLES, Irish Republicanism was indeed a synonym for Terrorism and criminality, and that would have been on both sides of the border.
    Republicans also stole/ Hijacked the Tricolour to use as their unofficial flag, which they used to glorify & to drape over the coffins of dead IRA terrorists.

    This was during the Troubles Francie, that's right, the Northern Ireland Troubles < I repeat this seeing as you will not accept the term :cool:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    TruthVader is correct in that during the TROUBLES, Irish Republicanism was indeed a synonym for Terrorism, as was Loyalism, and that would have been on both sides of the border.
    Republicans also stole/ Hijacked the Tricolour to use as their unofficial flag, which they used to glorify & to drape over the coffins of dead IRA terrorists.

    This was during the Troubles Francie, that's right, the Northern Ireland Troubles < I repeat this seeing as you will not accept the term :cool:

    I explained before why I won't use the term The Troubles, because it trivialises what happened to people.
    No objection to you calling it whatever you want to.

    Some people saw them as terrorists, some people saw them as freedom fighters and soldiers.

    Again, define it as terrorism if you wish, I tend to see that word as utterly meaningless as everyone used terror, i.e. were 'terrorists' depending who wason the receiving end.
    Knowing what we know now, it would be utterly hypocritical not to refer to the British as terrorists here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,255 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    No, that would be for 'some' Truth, just as some would think that 'capitalism' is about private greed or a particular party is corrupt or in the hands of private business interests.

    'Some' is the word you are looking for, unless you can of course back up the 'majority' claim.

    You had a lot of trouble accepting the word "some" on another thread on a, different matter yesterday.
    But if it suits your argument its very important.
    You're a divil Francie. :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You had a lot of trouble accepting the word "some" on another thread on a, different matter yesterday.
    But if it suits your argument its very important.
    You're a divil Francie. :D

    Absolutely wrong BoH. You created that difficulty.

    Niall Collins very specifically referred to a repulsive campaign on social media while ignoring the erudite, serious and compassionate comment that has now forced them to u-turn


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I explained before why I won't use the term The Troubles, because it trivialises what happened to people.
    No objection to you calling it whatever you want to.

    Some people saw them as terrorists, some people saw them as freedom fighters and soldiers.

    Again, define it as terrorism if you wish, I tend to see that word as utterly meaningless as everyone used terror, i.e. were 'terrorists' depending who wason the receiving end.
    Knowing what we know now, it would be utterly hypocritical not to refer to the British as terrorists here.

    Francie won't accept the term the "Troubles"

    99.9% of people won't accept the term "War" for the same thing.

    I wonder who is out of step.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Francie won't accept the term the "Troubles"

    99.9% of people won't accept the term "War" for the same thing.

    I wonder who is out of step.

    I give a choice each and every time.

    'conflict/war'

    P.S. '99.9%??? any point asking for back up for that? Obviously another 'fact' from Blanch's Book Of Assumptions and Allegations' :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,050 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    It's finally got down to two bald men fighting over a comb.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Truthvader


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Francie won't accept the term the "Troubles"

    99.9% of people won't accept the term "War" for the same thing.

    I wonder who is out of step.

    Dont think Sinn Fein/ IRA will be too concerned. They murderered and mutilated all round them for thirty years without needing to be in step with anyone - bar their own agenda


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Truthvader wrote: »
    Dont think Sinn Fein/ IRA will be too concerned. They murderered and mutilated all round them for thirty years without needing to be in step with anyone - bar their own agenda

    They all did Truth...that is why it is called a conflict or a war.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    .... or by most people 'The Troubles'.
    And you cannot compare the security forces on both sides of the border with the terrorist threat they were trying to thwart. Terrorist wakes up in the morning and sets off to plant bomb in pub, etc ...security personnel try to diffuse said bomb before many people are blown to bits!

    No comparison Francie.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    .... or by most people 'The Troubles'.
    And you cannot compare the security forces on both sides of the border with the terrorist threat they were trying to thwart. Terrorist wakes up in the morning and sets off to plant bomb in pub, etc ...

    A terrorist is one who uses terror to achieve an aim.
    Did the IRA = Check
    Did Loyalists = Check
    Did the British = Check


    It's a redundant term and can be applied to all, depending which side you were on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,607 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    A terrorist is one who uses terror to achieve an aim.
    Did the IRA = Check
    Did Loyalists = Check
    Did the British = Check

    It's a redundant term and can be applied to all, depending which side you were on.

    No, you are wrong Francie, and you really need to question yourself on that, you really do.

    There is a big difference between the person who plants the bomb and those who try to prevent it.

    Now we could be going round in circles all night, but to most people a terrorist is not the same as a member of the security services.

    You have been brainwashed by your Republican heroes Francie, and I only hope that you never live to witness a terrorist atrocity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    No, you are wrong Francie, and you really need to question yourself on that, you really do.

    There is a big difference between the person who plants the bomb and those who try to prevent it.

    Now we could be going round in circles all night, but to most people a terrorist is not the same as a member of the security services.

    You have been brainwashed by your Republican heroes.

    The term is redundant as far as I am concerned. You will just have to get over that.

    Use away at it, like you chose to use 'The Troubles'. I have met too many people terrorised by all sides in my time and too many who were much more than 'troubled' by what happened.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    There is no conflict/war for over 20 years now mark.

    Correct, yet the legacy of SF/IRA controlling and policing communities remains, as per the case of Robert McCartney.

    This is not exactly new. Loyalists operated the same way in their own communities.

    Im sure you are going to tell us how all this is wrong and the sky is really red instead of blue. :D:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    Correct, yet the legacy of SF/IRA controlling and policing communities remains, as per the case of Robert McCartney.

    This is not exactly new. Loyalists operated the same way in their own communities.

    Im sure you are going to tell us how all this is wrong and the sky is really red instead of blue. :D:D

    The community that gave evidence? The CCTV that wasn't cleared from the whole area?

    You failed to demonstrate communities being controlled. You did demonstrate something everybody knows - criminals will control and intimidate those in their employ and associating with them. That is a feature of anywhere there is crime.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    No, you are wrong Francie, and you really need to question yourself on that, you really do.

    There is a big difference between the person who plants the bomb and those who try to prevent it.

    Now we could be going round in circles all night, but to most people a terrorist is not the same as a member of the security services.

    You have been brainwashed by your Republican heroes Francie, and I only hope that you never live to witness a terrorist atrocity.

    There were always loads of armchair republicans like Francie in counties like Cavan and Monaghan, the hold me back types.

    All brave men who would cheer atrocities from afar, singing up the Ra and Chucky ar la. None of them ever have a clue about the misery the people they support inflict, they fundraiser, they contribute but they always stay a long distance away. Takes a certain mentality.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,589 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    There were always loads of armchair republicans like Francie in counties like Cavan and Monaghan, the hold me back types.

    All brave men who would cheer atrocities from afar, singing up the Ra and Chucky ar la. None of them ever have a clue about the misery the people they support inflict, they fundraiser, they contribute but they always stay a long distance away. Takes a certain mentality.

    Plenty of barstool versions of every political ideology blanch.

    I can assure you I never supported the IRA or any of the violence. And misery was inflicted on my own direct family members...so get lost with your flaming.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    The community that gave evidence? The CCTV that wasn't cleared from the whole area?

    Ah still arguing semantics. There were very few witnesses at the trial. You know that. They failed to convict because of it.
    Afaik, none of the 71 people who were in the pub actually gave evidence.

    They cleaned the area forensically, threatened bar staff, stopped people calling for help or an ambulance and took the CCTV footage from the bar.
    Do agree with this sentence?

    That is the view of Robert McCartney's sisters who have fought for justice on this issue, yet here you are fighting the good fight for your IRA friends.
    You failed to demonstrate communities being controlled.

    What horse**** is this?
    You self admitted that the communities policed themselves. Who was doing the 'policing' in nationalists areas? The boy Scouts?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Plenty of barstool versions of every political ideology blanch.

    I can assure you I never supported the IRA or any of the violence. And misery was inflicted on my own direct family members...so get lost with your flaming.

    Why do you lie so much about what you are actually doing?

    You 'never' supported the IRA even though you defend their legacy and murderous atrocities to the hilt, with your famous catchphrase, 'it was all wrong', before going down the what about the route of justifying the murder of children.

    You continuously argue in bad faith. No one believes a word you are saying.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement