hatrickpatrick wrote: » I suppose you'd say the same about the Americans celebrating the killing of Bin Laden vs people celebrating 9/11 then? The attempts at moral relativism when it comes to Northern Ireland are f*cking ridiculous. One side was fighting to maintain its dominance over the other side. They are automatically the scumbags in that equation. No other factors are relevant - fighting to maintain your coercive power over the other side makes you the bad guys, in any context or conflict. It's as simple as that. The entire loyalist/British "cause" came about because one side didn't want to give the other equal democratic rights. How anyone can talk as if there's any equivalence is utterly beyond me. Any attacks against the British Army were fully justified in the context of an entire demographic being systematically oppressed by that army and those who backed them. Christ, it's such a ludicrous situation. What the IRA did to civilians was atrocious and celebrating that is atrocious. Attacks against Crown forces of any kind are an entirely different kettle of fish and it's ridiculous to conflate the two. They were fair game up until the signing of the GFA, and rightly so. They were committing acts contrary to all conventions of human decency through their activities in Northern Ireland - not even because of the actions themselves, but because of the regime of oppression they sought to maintain. It's just f*cking stupid. Would you equate pro and anti apartheid militants in the same breath as if their actions carried the same moral consequences? How about the pro and anti slavery factions in the American Civil War? It's a painfully stupid debate. Loyalism is rooted in hatred and supremacy. F*ck 'em. You cannot equate that with people who fought to free themselves and their people from the same aforesaid hatred and supremacy.
Harry Palmr wrote: » When did the Warrenpoint attack get rebranded?
An Claidheamh wrote: » No it wasn’t It was stating a fact The two ambushes were similar That tweet was nothing out of the ordinary, no different to any second DUP tweet British MPs regularly remember their “heroic soldiers” and say, not very nice things about the foreigners they were “civilising” In fact, shortly after that tweet you had the Dee Ewe Pay whinging about government commemorations of Kilmichael, any statement from FF, the Republican Party on that? MM and the Irish media will do anything to avoid questions about his spineless lack of action regarding Finucane’s murder
Hamsterchops wrote: » Is it Narrowpoint, or something? Anyway I remember the day very well, shock and horror here in Dublin, great sadness & disgust with total and utter contempt for those responsible for all the loss of life on that day.
Normal One wrote: » I wonder did your part of Dublin feel the same when Kilmichael happened too? Do you wear your poppy with pride?
Mr Caughey said it was a scene of "total carnage". He added: "Everything was on fire. My legs were on fire. But this didn't register with me. I just looked around. "There were bits of bodies everywhere, the only way I can describe it as being like something out of an abattoir. I couldn't see anyone alive. "The majority of the guys were in parts, rather than whole people. Everything was on fire. The smell of burning flesh still haunts me to this day. "Suddenly the reality hit me that my legs were burning and I couldn't move.
Hamsterchops wrote: » OK then, at least I know whom I'm engaging with. I am talking exclusively about the horrors of that day in 1979 when the Provisional IRA killed so many, hence Stanley's Tweet was rightly attacked from all sides. Dublin Central, South side + every where was appalled at the murders in 79. I guess you are possibly coming from a bomber-friendly Provo perspective? (Please clarify). With regard to your poppy jibe, well I make no apologies for my families history in WWI & WWII.
Bowie wrote: » You keep talking about Dublin like you represent it's views. You don't. His tweet wasn't attacked by all sides. Not the kind of thing I tweet but I'd no issue with it.
Bowie wrote: » We might be neighbours actually.
Hamsterchops wrote: » I worked and lived in Dublin at the time as I still do, so I witnessed the mood from work, while on the bus, from family, from the media, so although I don't represent all views (probably some RA-heads thrilled on the day) I was here and I witnessed the vibe. Most normal Irish people were horrified.God I hope not Perfectly sums up the west Brits living in Ireland
tipptom wrote: » Perfectly sums up the west Brits living in Ireland
Hamsterchops wrote: » I worked and lived in Dublin at the time as I still do, so I witnessed the mood from work, while on the bus, from family, from the media, so although I don't represent all views (probably some RA-heads thrilled on the day) I was here and I witnessed the vibe. Most normal Irish people were horrified.
Hamsterchops wrote: » God I hope not.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Why are you saying that tipptom? So I was against the murders and you supported them, what can I say?
doublejobbing 2 wrote: » Ah here. Let me break it down for those in the cheap seats.
Making cracks about Arlene Fosters personal appearance = great craic Doing same about Mary Lou= old boys club misogyny
A FG or FF TD to ever drop the N bomb = a hanging offence Gerry Adams actually doing this = Gerry is basically an honorary black person via his civil rights work
Golf.Society Dinner with 100 people = out of touch **** putting the nation at risk The core of the SF SF Dublin Brigade travelling North to attend the biggest funeral these islands have seen since Princess Di's= a small socially distanced gathering of family and close friends that SF had nothing to do with regarding attendance
And dont even start on their endorsement of the BLM protests.
SF are a banter party with the most emotionally sensitive members of the big 3.
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » let the british be dicks, we should aim higher
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Ah now come on, we really shouldn't be shooting them at all anymore in the GFA-era :pac: In all seriousness, commemorating our side in The Troubles should not be considered "being a dick". The oppressed minority had (and always has, in my view) every right to react violently when suppressed with violence. The only thing that matters as far as right and wrong in Northern Ireland is that the Troubles began when the RUC ambushed a peaceful civil rights march and beat the absolute sh!t out of peaceful protesters to deter further protests against state-backed, systematic discrimination and oppression. They and the rest of the Crown Forces were fair game from that moment onwards until the signing of the GFA. They started what was in essence a mini civil war and they were 100% the aggressors of the entire conflict. The aggressor is fair game for being retaliated against, by pretty much any standard of human morality apart from "turn the other cheek" Catholic doctrine which unfortunately has never worked in the history of this island.
blanch152 wrote: » You are right, commemorating our side in The Troubles should not be considered "being a dick", it is far worse than that. Firstly, we didn't have a side in the Troubles. The IRA never spoke or killed or bombed or sexually abuse or kneecapped in my name. Secondly, respect needs to be shown to the people who are still alive maimed and crippled by IRA actions, not to mention the people permanently scarred by the loss of their loved ones in many hideous and horrible actions by the IRA. So commemorating anything from the Troubles is just wrong.
tipptom wrote: » You say your family has been in the British army for over a hundred years so you are more intimate with supporting murderers than i am
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Many of the IRA's actions were absolutely atrocious and I have never shied away from that as you well know. Doesn't change the fact that there were two macro sides in the conflict - oppressor and oppressed. Putting the two on equal moral footing is bullsh!t and always will be. There would have been no Troubles if the Unionist/Protestant side hadn't decided they were better than everyone else and deserved more votes, disproportionate representation and disproportionate allocation of national resources. There would have been no Troubles if the armed Crown forced who backed that side hadn't responded to peaceful civil rights marches with extreme violence. Everything which came after is, in my view, irrelevant to apportioning morality in this conflict. The conflict began because one demographic refused to relinquish its power over the other. Any demographic which does that, for any reason, at any point in history, is "the bad guy". The oppressed demographic is not. It's extremely black and white as far as I and many, many other people are concerned. Does that justify any atrocity or crime committed by the IRA? No. Does it mean that any atrocity or crime committed by the IRA is orders of magnitude less immoral than any action committed by the loyalist side or its state-backed supporters? Absolutely yes. No ifs. No buts. No nuance. One side fought to maintain dominance over the other and doing that is fundamentally evil in any and all contexts, regardless of any other factors.
blanch152 wrote: » The IRA never spoke or acted for me, a southern nationalist. Your warped history of the times is shocking, for someone like me who actually lived through the 1970s and 1980s.
There would have been no Troubles if the Unionist/Protestant side hadn't decided they were better than everyone else and deserved more votes, disproportionate representation and disproportionate allocation of national resources. There would have been no Troubles if the armed Crown forced who backed that side hadn't responded to peaceful civil rights marches with extreme violence.
blanch152 wrote: » The IRA never spoke or acted for me, a southern nationalist.
Your warped history of the times is shocking, for someone like me who actually lived through the 1970s and 1980s.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Which of these three facts is, in your view, incorrect?
Wibbs wrote: » None of them. I agree with you 100%. The Troubles and all the tragedy and death that came of it didn't magic themselves into reality. It was a centuries long simmering antagonism, born of plantation by a foreign colonising force that came to the fore in what was most certainly an apartheid state on this island. My sole issue with the tweet is akin to Blazers on the first page of the thread. That is it's not exactly helpful or appropriate for a TD to come out with that stuff. We need to build a bridge and get over it, or that crazy crap could well kick off again. We've had peace on this island for decades. At times an uneasy peace to be sure and that's the danger. Especially in the wake of who the fcuk knows will happen post Brexit in the long term and how it will affect the North and ultimately us.
timmyntc wrote: » Point scoring. Polls recently indicated SF on highest support ever(?) so naturally MM will have to use whatever he can to attack them. Warrenpoint & Kilmichael were no different really. We glorify murder all the time when we commemorate the Rising and various other skirmishes around Civil war era. How is Warrenpoint (or Brian Stanleys tweet mentioning same) any different?
