The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Watch the videos from Pearse, it is standard huff&puff with zero behind it. It keeps the "hundreds" on twitter happy because all they hear is #ripoffinsurance. They can fire out a few tweets, share to a few lads and complain.

They even show the video of Pearse from 2019 which I actually thought was good, then what happened? nothing. Now 2021 and again more huff&puff and guess what will happen? nothing.

That is why I ridicule Sinn Fein, all Huff&puff and absolutely nothing at the end of it.

The same Pearse was fined in 2019 because he couldn't bother his arse showing up to work. Is that not ripping off the people of Ireland who are paying a wage for him to sit at home?

Ridicule SF all you want....I've pointed out that I can see a load of things they're wide open for ridicule on.

On the insurance issue, it could easily be argued that the constant huff and puff are the reason that it has stayed front and centre in the public eye and why the government has been forced to acknowledge and act on it. That sort of huffing and puffing is one of the strengths of having an opposition. I'd find it a more legitimate criticism that SF are great at being in opposition but totally unproven in government in this state.

Why make up outright lies though, that totally undermine legitimate criticism like that though? Why make such a blatant and obvious exaggeration like saying Pearse has promised free insurance?! It does nothing to advance your argument, it just allows a bunch of people who are already convinced that SF are the source of all the ills in the world to have a wee circle jerk over how clever they are.

markodaly wrote: »

Being so black and white, I guess that makes Unionist and Protestant children fair game to be killed, butchered and murdered, by those rebelling against the state? Am I right?

In what universe does literally a single word of what I posted imply that it's fair game for innocent civilians to be murdered? Jesus f*cking Christ.

EDIT: Y'know what f*ck it, I'm reposting the entire thing here so you can easily pick out specifically where I justified attacks against civilians. Hint: You can't, because I didn't. I did, however, justify attacks against the illegitimate government and its enforcers. Seems fairly unlikely there were any kids among the government officials or RUC leaderships, given that one generally has to be an adult in order to apply for such work :pac:

blanch152 wrote: »

I presume you do not accept the Irish government elected after the Tullymander process?

Absolutely. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, or disenfranchisement with the intention to skew an election result, in literally any form whatsoever, automatically invalidates any claim that an election was democratic and fundamentally nullifies the legitimacy of any resulting government. End of story. No ifs, no buts. People would have had every right to protest about this, and the Gardaí would have absolutely no right to hamper those protests. Such action would have been justified until the law was repealed. Had such protests been met with violence from state actors, protesters and/or their supporters would have been more than justified in returning fire.

P.S. I do not accept any of the premises in your post bourne as they are of a 2020s lookback at events that happened during my lifetime.

Implying what, exactly? Sh!tting all over democracy was socially acceptable a few decades ago so we're not allowed to look back at the individuals who engaged in it and call them fascists who deserved to be overthrown?

Is this the same argument people use about brutal corporal punishment meted out to children in industrial schools when they say "you have to look at these things by the standard of the time"? No. You don't. There's right, and there's wrong. Anyone who engaged in that sh!t was a fundamentally bad person who wasn't worth the air they breathed. The same applies to any individual who intentionally fiddled with the democratic process in order to prejudice the end result, and even more so if that was further used to then deny a large demographic group access to housing, healthcare, education, or employment.

The government of Northern Ireland which presided over a quasi-official policy of discrimination and segregation arising out of this intentional tampering with the democratic process was an illegitimate government. As is and was any government anywhere in the world, at any point in the history of democracy, which employed such tactics. Ergo, the police force which was backing up that government was an illegitimate police force, because the state from which that police force drew its official power was an illegitimate state.

And you haven't addressed my second point, either. What is your response to my position that any police force which escalates a non violent protest into a violent confrontation for the sole purpose of suppressing that protest, deserves to be met with any and all forms of resistance, violent or otherwise, available to those being oppressed?

Again, not exclusive to Northern Ireland. The minute the police began brutalising protesters in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011, overthrowing them using violence became a legitimate action. For the record, I applied exactly the same paradigm to the United States police during the Occupy movement. Were the Gardai to go out and baton charge a peaceful protest because the government didn't like the protesters, I would 100% support an uprising against that as well.

To summarise:

Governments elected in elections which were not free and fair, deserve to be otherthrown. Violently if necessary.

Police forces which attack peaceful protesters with violence and without provocation, deserve to be retaliated against. Again, violently if necessary.

It's a very black and white issue in my opinion. Corrupt state, undemocratic state, brutal state = violent resistance being entirely justified from those being oppressed. Again, no ifs, no buts. No qualification. A government which exists without the democratic backing of open and free elections is a government which deserves every protest, every assault, every shot fired in its direction. And the same applies to police forces which use violence to suppress democratic protests.

I personally have absolutely no exceptions to this principle whatsoever. Any democratically illegitimate government in any circumstances whatsoever is a government that the citizens have a moral right to overthrow by any means necessary. And that includes any apparatus of that government, be it civil, police, military, etc.

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Nobody is justifying the RUC on any post I read.

Blanch has, on several occasions, claimed that the RUC were for the most part just honest to God law and order advocates and not sectarian bigots hell bent on maintaining the status quo of state sponsored discrimination. Presumably that's why they beat the ever living sh!t out of people who were marching in the street demanding an end to electoral shenanigans and resource discrimination.

Deleted User wrote: »

We are most morally bankrupt state in western europe

I guess when/if it comes for a UI vote, you will be voting 'NO', as sure how could the North every unify with the most morally bankrupt state in all of Western Europe.

:D:D:D

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Blanch has, on several occasions, claimed that the RUC were for the most part just honest to God law and order advocates and not sectarian bigots hell bent on maintaining the status quo of state sponsored discrimination. Presumably that's why they beat the ever living sh!t out of people who were marching in the street demanding an end to electoral shenanigans and resource discrimination.

The vast majority of the work of every police force is ordinary everyday work from dealing with driving offences, routine paperwork for driving license and passport applications, petty theft, burglarly, school truancy etc.

Of course they were a police force under pressure from sectarian thugs on both sides. Of course there were many incidents where they reacted inappropriately and on occasion in a criminal fashion.

However, to paint all of the RUC as "sectarian bigots hell bent on maintaining the status quo of state sponsored discrimination" is a simple and simplistic characterisation that is not true. I wouldn't label the nationalist community in the North at the time as enthusiastic terrorism supporters. In fact the evidence suggests that SF/PIRA never had more than 1 or 2% popular support from the nationalist population of this island while they were going around killing, maiming and terrorising ordinary people.

blanch152 wrote: »

The vast majority of the work of every police force is ordinary everyday work from dealing with driving offences, routine paperwork for driving license and passport applications, petty theft, burglarly, school truancy etc.

Of course they were a police force under pressure from sectarian thugs on both sides. Of course there were many incidents where they reacted inappropriately and on occasion in a criminal fashion.

However, to paint all of the RUC as "sectarian bigots hell bent on maintaining the status quo of state sponsored discrimination" is a simple and simplistic characterisation that is not true. I wouldn't label the nationalist community in the North at the time as enthusiastic terrorism supporters. In fact the evidence suggests that SF/PIRA never had more than 1 or 2% popular support from the nationalist population of this island while they were going around killing, maiming and terrorising ordinary people.

The RUC was an oppressive organisation in itself. I wouldn't suggest that the entire Unionist community supported them, but the organisation itself was the militant wing of an illegitimate government. It's not the fact that individual officers beat the sh!t out of protesters, but the fact that the leadership supported this and the government backed it. It doesn't necessarily mean that every individual member was a terrorist but it does mean that the organisation itself was a criminal organisation.

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I told you the legitimate reason and you ignored it and went on a rant again. As I said Pearse was shouting and roaring about this in 2019, had backing of everyone(including me) and done nothing. He will do the exact same now.

Do you not think that is a legitimate reason? if he had any interest in resolving the issue then why didn't he do something in 2019? he got a few headline and fecked off. It will be the same now.

I don't think SF are the source of all ill's. I just point out the stupidity. It if fairly simple I don't support any party. I say the same about them all.

Same as all the huff&puff minions shouting and roaring about how terrible FF and FG are, yet 12 months ago huff&puff had no issue going into government with them. Also huff&puff slagged off FF for the last 12 months but when a few TD's say they would go into government with SF next election they are suddenly a great party.

it's all waffle. Hate to tell you. Ranting at me ain't going to change my opinion.

I've literally responded to your point about the huffing and puffing right there, though as I've said SF are wide open for ridicule, I'm not sure why you're expecting me to defend them.

My question, which remains unanswered is with SO many legitimate criticisms available (let's say including the one you just made re: why Pearse didn't get something done in 2019, even though he wasn't in government), all of that low hanging fruit.....and you still resort to telling an outright, demonstrably incorrect lie.

Why bother with the lying instead of just sticking with the actual truthful criticisms?! I don't care about changing your opinion on SF, I'm not trying to discuss your opinions, I'm just trying to delve into factual matters here.

blanch152 wrote: »

The vast majority of the work of every police force is ordinary everyday work from dealing with driving offences, routine paperwork for driving license and passport applications, petty theft, burglarly, school truancy etc.

Of course they were a police force under pressure from sectarian thugs on both sides. Of course there were many incidents where they reacted inappropriately and on occasion in a criminal fashion.

However, to paint all of the RUC as "sectarian bigots hell bent on maintaining the status quo of state sponsored discrimination" is a simple and simplistic characterisation that is not true. I wouldn't label the nationalist community in the North at the time as enthusiastic terrorism supporters. In fact the evidence suggests that SF/PIRA never had more than 1 or 2% popular support from the nationalist population of this island while they were going around killing, maiming and terrorising ordinary people.

The old, 'a few bad eggs' cop out, Blanch?

The RUC employed many good, decent people who just wanted to make a living, and it would be incorrect to call them all, "sectarian bigots hell bent on maintaining the status quo of state sponsored discrimination", but there were organisational issues from the top down in the RUC which made it a sectarian bigoted organisation hell bent on maintaining the status quo of state sponsored discrimination.

One can be critical of an organisation without that being an outright condemnation of each and every individual member. One could even be critical of an organisation while thinking most members of that organisation were fine and normal.

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Every organisation in Northern Ireland was bigoted according to these threads apart from the PIRA. The RUC, the Orange order, PSNI,DUP, etc etc you name it and it will called "bigoted" or "partitionist" or some other derogatory word.

Then the PIRA, well they are freedom fighter, great lads, helping the local community. You know, the salt of the earth lads.

A lot of comments of course from people who have never lived in the North during the troubles and probably haven't set foot in the North since the troubles ended.

It wasn't called a bigoted sectarian state for nothing. Even Ian Paisley himself admitted to that at the end of his life.

Nobody I have ever seen here has referred to the IRA as 'salt of the earth lads', 'great lads' etc. They did respond with some instances of sectarianism, we know this.