maccored wrote: » a tweet cant kill people. c-19 and non compliance can. two different things. lads, can yous not get your act together and at least have some kind of argument to back? a stupid tweet is a stupid tweet. nothing more important than that. not to FFG right enough. for them and their supporters its constantly an issue of 'Look!! Over There!!!' anything to avoid talk of the shambles of a country we live in
Bowie wrote: » Who attacked Matt Barret? Have you quotes? Is there a link between the two incidents or just desperate whataboutery?
blanch152 wrote: » Francie, just struggling with the one rule for Sinn Fein approach that is being taken here. We have seen the choice of partner being used to score political points for quite a while, not only choice of partner but family as well. Jim O'Callaghan has suffered for it, we had the notorious example on here of Leo's partner, Joe McHugh ditto, Lorraine Clifford-Lee, yet the first time you object to it is when Pauline Tully's relationship with a convicted murderer is mentioned. You have squirmed all day on the issue, trying to find more and more ways to ensure plausible deniability. However, I think where you are coming from is now clear to everyone.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » A tweet can’t kill people .....but tweets can bring out the deep underlying ideals of punters who present an urbane peaceful position, but, their tweets reveal their true ideals. The suit doesn’t disguise the flak jacket or dampen the whiff of cordite. Good to remember that little proverb, pal
RandomViewer wrote: » Most of us don't care, without that whiff the numbers dead would have been much higher, next time you snuggle up for a selfie with Jeffery remember what his brethren would happily have done to you but for the fear of retaliation
Bowie wrote: » It's unlikely Catholics were ever going to be protected or treated as equal citizens under the BA/Unionist watch. Listening to that BA officer who assisted the UDA in setting off a bomb that killed two teens, laugh it off on RTE today, was atrocious.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Different perspectives Brendi, you guys don't control the narrative no more. Fold the tent. There'll be 'perspectives' on history fully exposed next year, the nationalist and Unionist versions of how partition went. Which one will you go for?
RandomViewer wrote: » Why did it take so long to be exposed, was there somebody they were waiting to die?
Brendan Bendar wrote: » He heh heh. “Fold the tent” that’s what SF would love , get out of reality and like back in the day the duffle coat student activists roared and shouted, didn’t give a toss for consequences, just horsed out the auld ‘downtrodden and beaten’ rhetoric, confident it wouldn’t affect their lifestyle. Francie, I have folk like that well sussed, all they want to do is sit down for years and bullshidt about history, being well paid for dancing on the head of a pin. Personally I prefer to dwell in the present, influence the things I have control over, look forward,and not listen to wispy bitter discourse over something I can’t change 24/7/365. Duddnt do nowt for this poster, dude. Won’t change anything .
Bowie wrote: » A researcher making a documentary on it found an archived recording over in England. It was chilling to hear how the officer told the story. Not one bit of regret. He laughed it off. Was played on RTE radio 1 today.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Doc is on tonight after the news.
Bowie wrote: » Can we expect Micheal Martin to speak on it I wonder? Will anyone ask Arlene or Boris for comment?
Bubbaclaus wrote: » So if you are not on the same perspective of Sinn Fein, then you are a Unionist? What's with all this divisive crap in 2020.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not at all. There will be two different perspectives on the same 100 years. Exactly what happened with the Stanley tweet - a clash of two different perspectives. Seems to be you guys who want to turn that into a battlefield and metaphorically spill blood because another perspective dared speak.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You guys don't get it, the official history is not everyone's history and we have to come to a better way of telling it. Otherwise you are gonna have a lot of days with a lotta anger.
blanch152 wrote: » The binary mentality - if you are not with us, you are against us - speaks again. There are many perspectives on the same 100 years. One widely held perspective is that what the British did on Bloody Sunday was wrong, but that the IRA response was also wrong. It is possible to believe that the British Army on some occasions, loyalist terrorists on all occasions and SF/IRA on all occasions were wrong in the North between 1969 and GFA. It is probably the most balanced perspective.
Hamsterchops wrote: » No Francie, you don't get it. So, leaving history from 100 years ago out of the discussion, let's talk about Stanley's Warren point/Sligo tweet for slow learners. The Provision IRA murdered Lord Mountbatten, two children, another woman + eighteen soldiers all on the same day, now with this in mind consider this..... If the official forces of this state had committed those crimes Britain would have declared war that very same day, RAF Harriers, Vulcans & Jaguars would have wiped out our defense forces within hours or just a few days! .... but our forces didn't attack anybody, our state didn't attack another sovereign state, neither did our forces murder anybody on that terrible day! We the Irish people were innocent of any wrongdoing that day, we had no part in the murders, and the Irish Army played no part. An illegal terrorist organisation called the Provisional IRA planted the bombs and murderdered UK citizens (within the UK), they also murdered Louis Mountbatten in our country, bringing shame and disgust from all directions aimed at those terrorists who had committed the crimes. So when Brian Stanley sends out a smart arse "dog whistle" tweet, then he's is obviously a total arsehole of the extreme kind, and as such he should be toast, indeed he should have been toast long before now after his "do what you like in bed" tweet. I just hopes he gets serious grief tomorrow, I hope he's kicked out the door of the PAC, and taken to pieces in the Dail from all sides..... I hope so, although the way things are going at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if he gets off Scott free and smiles in our faces.
Hamsterchops wrote: » So, leaving history from 100 years ago out of the discussion, let's talk about Stanley's Warren point/Sligo tweet for slow learners. .
FrancieBrady wrote: » Again, that is your view and you can't just ignore history because it makes you or the 'official version' hypocritical. History is about what people did not mythical removed from reality figure - real people.
Fann Linn wrote: » Documentary on tonight regarding UK state forces in collusion with Loyalists to kill and maim across the border. Will MM or Leo make comment I wonder?
FrancieBrady wrote: » And as they say - that is just your opinion. Unionists would think (Arlene said it when she RSVP'ed her invite to 1916 commemorations) much of our version (the 'official' one) is wrong. How do you intend sharing the island with these people? Call for their resignation if they speak it publicly? Vilify them? Silence them? Or debate and put your point of view, like any civilised member of a society with a divided past?
