Brendan Bendar wrote: » Doubt if he has four or five years to ‘sit down debating’ unlike some who seem to think that folk have nothing else to do. You see, this is the problem, we have a present which demands all our resources and more !!.Huge problems not of our making. But some people want to live in the past. You couldn’t make it up.
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: » DOn't be worrying Brendi...life will go on, regardless of your view of the past.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Thanks Francie, I don’t live in the past, I dwell in the future and present. That way life can be enjoyable rather than bitter and twisted, I find. Lot of anger out there, but I guess it suits some folks. They like that kind of thing.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Not sure what you mean by "you guys", my only post on this matter was questioning your very divisive rhetoric.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What generally divides people is others saying you cannot do that, you cannot have that and you cannot say that. I am adamant that there are different views and we have to find a way to allow people to have those views. I seek the end of division, not the continuation of it.
Bowie wrote: » No it's not. You can't accept that people supported the IRA and many of it's actions. Here you are accusing Francie of what you yourself go on to do in the same post. Your perspective and no other.
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.
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.
blanch152 wrote: » That post has upped the nonsense quotient to new levels. Have a look at what was said: Francie, with his two perspectives, trying once again to create a them and us narrative, to divide, to separate. My post, talking about many perspectives, and putting forward a balanced one that is critical of all sides. How you can say that I am "accusing Francie of what you yourself go on to do in the same post", given the huge differences between the two posts, only one of which acknowledges the wrongs committed by the PIRA supported by Sinn Fein.
Bowie wrote: » So what about the people who supported the Loyalists and IRA, or have issue with the BA murders, their opinion doesn't count? Do you see a problem here? You are one of the first to bang on about the IRA when FG are criticised. Stop codding.
Hamsterchops wrote: » This could very well be a seminal moment in Irish politics, Irish history, and political landscape of this country, why? Because if Stanley is not faced up to by the PAC or the Dail, then his (bombing) tweet will have officially got through the net, the sentiments and the Pro-Provo message will not have been stamped out, and the whiff of sulphur & the actions of the Provos will have been allowed to be acceptable in an official capacity. This changes history, indeed it turns history on its head, whereby the actions of the Provos (previously Terrorist crimes) somehow become acceptable and official, ergo Sinn Fein take their mantal of Republicanism (including their Provo legacy) while Fianna Fail get overshadowed and end up the same way as Irish Labour! If the other members of the PAC have any backbone or morals they should demand he steps down as chairperson, he should also be lambasted and made to answer questions in the Dail about his tweets, and what he really believes re Provo bombs (good, bad, justified)? What will he say? That bedroom tweet needs to be scrutinised too.
blanch152 wrote: » I didn't say their opinions didn't count, I said the opposite. I said there were many perspectives. Some of those perspectives are unhinged, or sociopathic, others are normal, some are childish, some are balanced and fair. I put forward a balanced fair perspective as one of many.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yours is just one view. You and FG try to force people to subscribe to that view which is like me trying to force Unionists to subscribe to mine. And PIRA and indeed SF can admit to some wrongs. Mary Lou said the other day on Clare Byrne that car bombing was wrong. Paisley said Unionism was wrong in part too. People will, given time and space, reach an accommodation on the past (look at FG and FF for instance, now bedfellows and practically merged when once they too killed each other) FG won't win this obsession with controlling the narrative. Stanley won't be backing off what he said in the tweet about Kilmichael, he will apologise for the triumphant insensitivity of it, correctly IMO. We have seen too much triumphalism.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There will be two different perspectives on the same 100 years. .
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. .
Danzy wrote: » No disrespect intended but you are more than a bit obsessed with SF.
blanch152 wrote: » Mine is just one view of many, as I have made clear. I am not from the divisory college of only two perspectives.
blanch152 wrote: » I am concerned at the damage that Sinn Fein are doing to our society and that they are a threat to our democracy. Trumpian proclamations on election night being only the tip of the iceberg. However, if I was obsessed I would post twice as much on these threads as anyone else. That isn't the case.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Nah, don't think so! Francie on serious Sinn Fein lead vocals, Bowie on obsessive harmonies, McMurphy on drums with Danzy on keyboards. The Republican band of brothers Davycc behind the curtains polishing his french horn & giving the odd nod of approvals..
FrancieBrady wrote: » How about we revert to the girl herself.
markodaly wrote: » How about we go from the Public documents that are known to us. 'Seamus Lynch, IRA man who aided and abetted the murder of a Garda when robbing a post office' This is a fact, as per the court documents.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And?
markodaly wrote: » So, its not your typical neighbour that comes around calling for tea and scones. a) This was a convicted man of being involved in a murder and being part of an illegal paramilitary group who has murdered thousands of people, including women and children. b) He called over to this girls house to 'ask her' to remove a tweet critical of SF. c) The girl left the party over the incident It is entirely justifiable to call this man a 'heavy', indeed that is being very kind, as one can call him a terrorist and murderer.
McMurphy wrote: » What did Stanley tweet about Sligo/Mountbatten? You wouldn't be trying to shoehorn another lie into the thread chops?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Who gives a flying hoot what you want to call him? Seriously, you think your opinion has any weight? He visited as a friend and left as a friend. If you were getting twinkles of fear wherever you live on behalf of the girl...see a doctor. Jaysus the clinging to and insisting on a narrative you know is entirely and wholly false is weird.
markodaly wrote: » Ah, yes visited as a friend, left as a friend.... and then the young girl, on reflection left SF over it....
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, and if you stopped ranting and read her twitter, you'd see it wasn't because she was threatened by a heavy.
markodaly wrote: » Oh, tell us, Francie, why oh why did she leave SF? Blatant homophobia tolerated in the party... perhaps?? :D
