Bowie wrote: » Do you write in a vacuum?
Solutionking wrote: » They resigned. She didn't fire them. Plus how long did Mary Lou know they had stole the money without doing anything? Hardly a glowing recommendation when someone broke the law for 6 months, nothing was said till they got found out by external body and then she accepts the resignation. Still waiting for Mary Lou to say legal proceedings should be brought against these people for stealing money.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where are the strong rumours coming from Brendi? Catherine Murphy just wants an apology to the committee and thinks anything else is a matter for SF. Labour PAC members have no issue nor does Mark McSharry.
smurgen wrote: » Bigger than the DUP?
Brendan Bendar wrote: » MacSharry has no issues with anything which does not involve largesse for himself, Mr F. If Micheál had any cahunas, he’d put it to O’Callaghan and MacSharry to either join the party of get the fohhherke out. These tools only think of themselves.
FrancieBrady wrote: » eh...the 3 or was it 4 who were remiss in repaying the money to the northern exchequer? While FF FG and the greens were circling the wagons to ignore wrongdoing.
Solutionking wrote: » Interesting how neither of you denied the comment about Mary Lou covering up for Gerry and Liam Adams.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So where are the 'strong rumours' coming from Brendi?
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Same place as the Shinners commands come from, dude The black hole in space. Rumours ,pal, you do know what they are I’m sure. Surely you don’t want folk to back up rumours, just like you don’t back up Jerry’s IRA membership career. Jeeez man..... 2020 like.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So, akin to a feeling in your waters. Get your drift dude!
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Have to laugh Francie, given the Shinners capped the party tighter than a bulls hoop going up a hill for the last seven weeks, you expect me to disclose origins of rumours to get rid of Stanley. You could’nt make it up. Stanley couldn’t resist and immediately The Square emptied the bench to try to stem the leak Heh heh.... lot of hard necks around here I have to opine. Stanley has a lot of turbulence coming up, but while he may not be outed due to Mary Lou’s lack of political sense, rest assured he is on thin ice. Now F, unlike yourself I don’t have hours of 7/24/365 to batter the ‘cause’ so forgive me for taking leave . Let the ‘subs’ go back to the bench.
Nobotty wrote: » I dont think Stanley's tweet is a resigning matter All core SF members and politicians hold the same view as himIts just not pc to to put it out there in a tweet For him and say Mary lou to broadcast these views outside of the core circle would be like an Iman shouting death to America on 5th avenue Stupid basically All that happened with Stanley is he forgot himself, that's all
Yeah_Right wrote: » This is hilarious. Not supporting terrorism is now considered being PC. Seriously. WTF!!
Bowie wrote: » If we went about addressing all the guff designed to deflect and divert we'd be here all day.
walshb wrote: » This is what grates me with some people. If you show any kind of care or concern or humanity to the "other side," some so called nationalists and Irish people latch onto it and accuse you of excusing the "other" side. It has to be some kind of insecurity. Some Irish people who don't ever want to be seen to be maybe on friendly and warm terms with Britain, or don't ever want to be seen to maybe praise or say any nice things about Brits or loyalists or Unionists I am very comfortable in my own skin to be a proud Irishman who has always supported the struggle of my fellow Irishmen up North. But times change, we grow, mature, adapt, and see things differently and view things differently, and should become more tolerant and considerate and understanding This is not the 1980s when there was real hell up North..real hate shown towards Irish people from Unionists and loyalists... I am not saying hate does not still exist, but I'd like to think that both sides have lessened it somewhat.... Not everyone in SF is a die hard anti Brit either... Seems here there are a fair few.... Some of the defenders here want to jump down your throat at the slightest feeling that they get that maybe you aren't anti Britain enough...
Bowie wrote: » I think it's the hypocrisy people point out. The IRA were terrible in great detail followed by 'not defending the BA' or the like doesn't really cover the 'both sides' of it. The tweet wasn't a call to arms. I just think FF/FG are desperate to gain some ground.
FrancieBrady wrote: » He was supporting two acts of war against terrorists - IRA position Or was it one act of war and one act of terrorism - FG FF Partitionist position. Or was it two acts of terrorism - British/Unionist position.
Solutionking wrote: » Not everything is about FF and FG you do realise that? just because people said the tweet wasn't on can't be brushed away by saying it is only because of political parties As I posted before, very very few in Rep and nearly nobody in the North at the end supported the PIRA. The glorification of the PIRA by SF and others disgusts a lot of people.
Bowie wrote: » Yes. My point, lost on you or ignored as per, is that the hype about the tweet is partially driven by FF/FG. Again, sez you. You missed the point repeatedly. It's not about glorification, it's about recognising that some people do appreciate and would have supported them.
Bowie wrote: » Yes. My point, lost on you or ignored as per, is that the hype about the tweet is partially driven by FF/FG. Again, sez you. You missed the point repeatedly. It's not about glorification, it's about recognising that some people do appreciate and would have supported them. The shock and awe is not believable.
blanch152 wrote: » There is my position. Acts of terrorism, acts of war, acts of violence, all have to be viewed through the lens of the social norms of the time. In 1916, homosexuality was a crime, women were considered less equal and couldn't vote, workhouses were the norm, social welfare was non-existent, people believed in the war to end wars, religion had a grip on society. No television, no radio, no mass ownership of cars, misery and degradation were part of everyday life for the masses. It was a different world, a bigger world where people knew little outside their main hometown. I remember 1979, it was a very different place. The horrors of the Second World War were widely known and understood. What nuclear bombs could do was now clear. Ireland was a leader in peace, but we had a shameful secret. There were people claiming Irishness who rejected peace in our name and that will never be forgotten. It is possible therefore to see 1916 and what followed during the half-decade after through the prism of the times and to understand it, for some, they can celebrate it, others can commemorate it as the steps that started the route to the country we are today, steps that we would not contemplate now, but were seen as appropriate through the lens of the time (Aside: I often wonder was the rejection of their violent past the trigger for the Irish commitment to nuclear disarmament - it resonates with me). You can't apply any of that to Warrenpoint or Mountbatten in 1979. Horrific unforgiveable acts. We had peaceful revolutions and change in the 1960s and 1970s, there was no need for violence, it only set back Northern Ireland by decades.
blanch152 wrote: » Catherine Murphy led the charge on this so you are making things up. It is about glorification, that is how most people see it.
Bowie wrote: » Who sets the 'norms of the time'? Using your Nazi analogy, the norms of pre war Germany were not acceptable. What about the norms of occupied east germany? The norms of shooting unarmed civilians dead by the 'legitimate' authorities in N.I.? Generations of women treated worse than dirt by the state and the church, okay, because sure it was the 'norm'? People are more complex than simply fitting in with your ideology or not.Warrenpoint was occupying soldiers killed in a military action IMO. Don't celebrate the death of any person. Soldiers sign up to kill and often be killed. It's a horrible fact. Just because you don't like or maybe understand doesn't mean you get to decide what's 'norms' for everybody.
Solutionking wrote: » Just because "some" people do appreciate it doesn't mean a TD should be glorifying it. I am sure some people still support the Nazi do you think a TD should be sending out tweets about it? Look at the racism around here, do you think TD's should be allowed tweet tell XYZ they should leave Ireland? According to you because "some" people support it then the TD should do it Do you agree that is not a great idea? You don't seem to realise the hatred for the PIRA. They sat and planned bombings knowing innocent people would die. They knew for the Shankill bombing that the target was not in the building, it was a chip and it had zero political gain. It was just a bomb to kill men, women and children. Yet you make excuses for them.
Bowie wrote: » She didn't her hole. She was looking for him to comment on it. MM was aghast god bless him and the likes of yourselves are up in arms days. Give over.
