nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Ten of Swords

Part 1 here

All mod warnings from part 1 remain in effect

All thread bans from part 1 remain in effect

Threadbans Thread 2

Hqrry113

Carry on...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

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.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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?

Hamsterchops

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

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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?

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.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

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.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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:

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

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.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

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.

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

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

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'

Fann Linn

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

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

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.

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.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

.... 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.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

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.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

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

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.

blanch152

Hamsterchops wrote: »

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.

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.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.