FrancieBrady wrote: » Sigh. I don't 'complain about Remembrance Day' blanch, I am consistent about saying clearly and unambiguously that a way HAS to be and will be found for all sides to remember their dead with respect.
Natterjack from Kerry wrote: » Not all dead deserve to be remembered with respect though. Some, as people who were torrorists and murderers, should rightly be forgotten, as humanity's waste, the world is a better place for the lack of them, and they are to be consigned to the dustbin of history, and not commemorated in any way. Approving or 'commemorating' - the very use of the term in their regard is surely an oxymoron - of such people makes those doing so, as despicable as the dead themselves.For the rest of society though, it does serve a purpose of revealing who the people are who still harbour such reverence for murder as a good thing.
James Brown wrote: » This include the chaps family, the ones who initiated it?
Natterjack from Kerry wrote: » Not all dead deserve to be remembered with respect though. Some, as people who were torrorists and murderers, should rightly be forgotten, as humanity's waste, the world is a better place for the lack of them, and they are to be consigned to the dustbin of history, and not commemorated in any way. Approving or 'commemorating' - the very use of the term in their regard is surely an oxymoron - of such people makes those doing so, as despicable as the dead themselves. For the rest of society though, it does serve a purpose of revealing who the people are who still harbour such reverence for murder as a good thing.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's killing for political aims blanch. You support the political aims of the IRA 100 years ago...that's the only difference. I.E. you are being hypocritical.
James Brown wrote: » A romanticised view of the past coupled with a party political bias are the only differences between either IRA. The disident lads and lassies would argue same about themselves I'd imagine. It's a complex world. FG/Lab made one a senator sure.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You remember or don't remember who you like Jack...I could not care any less really.
Bishop of hope wrote: » I remember a care about the proposed tan commemoration. Don't sell yourself short Francie. Interesting point here on the indo.https://m.independent.ie/news/sinn-fein-bid-to-commemorate-edward-obrien-21-is-a-reminder-of-how-the-ira-groomed-impressionable-youngsters-40111091.html?utm_source=xtremepush&utm_medium=webpush&utm_campaign=Bid+to+commemorate+Edward+O%E2%80%99Brien+%2821%29+is+a+reminder+of+how+the+IRA+groomed+impressionable+youngsters+%28xtremepush+%2352725029%29&utm_term=notification+%23598452745_1444558892&utm_content=A
rdwight wrote: » You both seem to be saying that all political violence is morally equivalent. Hence 1916=Balcomb Street=Edward O'Brien=Omagh? I'm not a philosopher but surely context counts for something eg.: proportionality (violence committed in relation to degree of oppression/violence suffered); likelihood of success; degree of popular support; opportunities for non-violent action as alternative; risk of non-combatant casualities. The PIRA score poorly on these "measures", 1916 not great, the WOI slightly better and CIRA/RIRA worst of all.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The Black and Tans are remembered and have been remembered every year. Nobody I know, and I DON'T have an issue with that. The B&T controversy was about according the B&T's something else entirely. Please don't be disingenuous Bish.
James Brown wrote: » Nope. I wasn't. Repeatedly pointing out one killing being 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of opinion. What is a just or 'proportionally' correct killing? It's actually quite simple. People will be more likely to defend the killers they agree with and condemn those they don't. We should recognise that. Look at 9/11. Terrorists killed many civilians. Horrible acts. Seen as an over due welcome retaliation by some people in the middle east use to U.S. Army drones wiping out villages and children losing limbs in forgotten mine fields. I don't see why knighting one bomber is okay but the family of another commemorating their relative isn't. People really need to step outside their trench.
FrancieBrady wrote: » McMurphy has shown already what a ridiculous stance this is - different mores? You don't need to accept the similarities of the IRA, you just need to accept that 'killing for political aims' is the same whenever it was done.
James Brown wrote: » Yes. It's more stick it to the shinners bull****e quite frankly. High time FG, (in this case) took some responsibility for themselves. Flanagan attended RIC/Tan commemorations before. They happen regularly seemingly. There was an interview with one of the organisers. He said they never asked for a state commemoration. They just heard Varadkar might be turning up to the next one. Flanagan and Varadkar should have been ran out of office for attempting such a snakey dig. It was more to do with shinners than any respect.
rdwight wrote: » If I were you, Natterjack, I'd take that as a graceless concession.
FrancieBrady wrote: » P.S. I have zero issues with the B&T's and British soldiers being remembered respectfully.
I think if someone continues to wear something I find offensive that they are forcing it on me.
James Brown wrote: » Oh, sorry. I'll explain. You posted a romanticised rant about collins'IRA and how restrained he/they were. I gave examples of a massacre and several assassinations carried out under his leadership. Then some one commented on the fact a bomber was to be commemorated (by the family it turns out, not SF) and I showed its not unheard of and gave an example. So apart from smiley faces and being confused if you need more help let me know.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Usual interview with MLMCD plenty of name checking, usual anecdotal description of “a woman rang me.....” and nothing else except waffle. Every interview the same......mostly populist waffle. Will he tackle her on the Wexford councilors. No.... and why am I not surprised.
markodaly wrote: » McDonald is scared of her IRA brethren, that is why she will not criticise them. Shows us all who is running the party.
smurgen wrote: » Maybe in opposite land where hamburgers eat people. Honestly tis like the twilight zone in here. I check in every now and again to see the latest conspiracy theory. One small thing involving SF gets discussed and morphed. The usual contributes. Reminds me of the right wing in the US getting wrapped up in QAnon.
Deleted User wrote: » the brits and yanks,are the worse....they just make a balls of every intervention they go on 64 million displaced by their war on terror,3 million dead this century....if world was anyway right,they'd be facing crippling econmic sanctions Quite why jihadis dont target ireland for us,facilitaing them with the shannon stop over is suprising
rdwight wrote: » You think SF indiscretions get done to death? How about several pages being devoted to Michael Martin's non-trip to Washington?
markodaly wrote: » You mean a dedicated thread to the 'trip'? What about the thread about disagreements between the greens? Or Leo and the Village article? SF and some of their supporters would like nothing more than to silence anyone who dares criticise the party.
markodaly wrote: » Well that is a load of codswallop. You were leading the charge when it came to the anti-RIC commemoration. Also, your views on the poppy are well known.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105122184&postcount=190
markodaly wrote: » So why should the state commemorate anything then, as people will object to it? If your argument is that the state should stay out of ALL commemorations, I may agree, but if your argument is that the state should only commemorate things that you agree with, then that is where there is an issue.:pac:
McMurphy wrote: » Funny you should say that, I've been applying the same arguments to the state commemorations of members of the IRA, and the condemnation from the same folk when the shinners want to commemorate similar. I don't think you thought your argument through tbh.
rdwight wrote: » Of course we should recognise that "people will be more likely to defend the killers they agree with and condemn those they don't". But that doesn't mean they are right. I believe it is possible to develop ethical principles as a guide to discuss the morality of violent acts. I gave you my rough measure of proportionality: the balance of violence considered against oppression/violence suffered. I'm not saying this is easy to calculate or apply but it's a better road than denying that acts of political violence can be morally differentiated. eg
markodaly wrote: » Your whole argument is based on the "Everyone is as bad as Hitler" fallacy. Collins is as bad as the British, the British are as bad as the Third Reich, the PIRA is as bad as everyone else... It is a nonsense argument of course because it lacks nuance and actual historical references. It is an argument people only make on the internet and social media. :pac:
markodaly wrote: » So, is that a yes or no, as you didn't answer the question.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Quite why jihadis dont target ireland for us,facilitaing them with the shannon stop over is suprising
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
