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

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

I think we will go with my opinion being right.

No. Its his job to visits all parts of the kingdom, and with the precautions taken no social distancing protocols were flouted - he didnt go for a walk with a few hundred of his mates.

So you just want to bore me with the Storey funeral and not discuss MLMD/MON?
"Does SF Boris not do phones or internet meetings"?

I'd suggest public representatives from SF, with elected politicians on both sides of the border, might be well placed for discussing the Northern Ireland protocol.

blanch152

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

They were only showboating though. This is not the 19th century where someone being in the area was the only chance to discuss something with them. Does SF not do phones or internet meetings which they could ask him for at any time. Or, even with the Bobby Storey headlines, does SF still not believe social distancing applies to it ?

You could make a movie "Looking for Boris" out of Mary-Lou and Michelle's adventures traipsing around the North for a meeting.

On another note, where are all the posters who criticised Martin for considering going to Washington to meet Biden on the 17th? Surely, they must think it far worse for a nonentity opposition leader to be harking around the UK looking for a meeting with Boris?

James Brown wrote: »

So you just want to bore me with the Storey funeral and not discuss MLMD/MON?
"Does SF Boris not do phones or internet meetings"?

I'd suggest public representatives from SF, with elected politicians on both sides of the border, might be well placed for discussing the Northern Ireland protocol.

Why should BJ have any interest in talking to a foreign politician, who isnt even in office, just because she says she will go abroad to meet him in his country ?

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Why should BJ have any interest in talking to a foreign politician, who isnt even in office, just because she says she will go abroad to meet him in his country ?

Ask him why he was willing to meet for a photo op maybe.
The suggestion was MLMD/MON were only doing it for PR. I stated that they were offered a photo op but turned it down. That's it really

blanch152 wrote: »

You could make a movie "Looking for Boris" out of Mary-Lou and Michelle's adventures traipsing around the North for a meeting.

On another note, where are all the posters who criticised Martin for considering going to Washington to meet Biden on the 17th? Surely, they must think it far worse for a nonentity opposition leader to be harking around the UK looking for a meeting with Boris?

Parading or traipsing? Can FG HQ pick one?

blanch152 wrote: »

You could make a movie "Looking for Boris" out of Mary-Lou and Michelle's adventures traipsing around the North for a meeting.

Sorry, but did MLMD actually go abroad on the off chance of meeting a foreign head of state even though she had no appointment ?

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Sorry, but did MLMD actually go abroad on the off chance of meeting a foreign head of state even though she had no appointment ?

I think he's making a funny about the north.
Not as good as Varadkar's 'overseas' but still...

James Brown wrote: »

I think he's making a funny about the north.
Not as good as Varadkar's 'overseas' but still...

Must be more than a grain of truth to it if you see some humour.

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Must be more than a grain of truth to it if you see some humour.

I was laughing at him not with him

bobbysands81

markodaly wrote: »

A weird statement.

Irish Republicans who support SF/PIRA have never accepted that they were the primary instigators of the conflict in the North.

Mark, you’ve conveniently ignored this insane comment...

Fann Linn

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Mark, you’ve conveniently ignored this insane comment...

Comes from the 'met a man with two pints' history lessons which FG are so fond of.

Fann Linn wrote: »

Comes from the 'met a man with two pints' history lessons which FG are so fond of.

In fairness, that statement from Mark was absolutely batsh*t ridiculous. No amount of deflecting onto the shinners will make it any less idiotic.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

In fairness, that statement from Mark was absolutely batsh*t ridiculous. No amount of deflecting onto the shinners will make it any less idiotic.

I think in the a rush to stir the pot and get a reaction, reality gets left behind.

markodaly

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Mark, you’ve conveniently ignored this insane comment...

Wow, I made that comment a week ago..
..and I stand by it.

The PIRA were the primary instigators of the conflict. It is a fact because they had no mandate and enjoyed only a tiny amount of support from within the Nationalist community, the majority of whom voted for the SDLP who wanted to achieve more civil rights for Catholics through peaceful democratic means.

The PIRA and the like wanted to murder, bomb and kill for a UI, to achieve the dream of the Easter Rising through blood sacrifice in the face of any peaceful negotiations, which ironically came 30 years AFTER the conflict kicked off.

When the BA were deployed and the Nationalist communities were protected from Loyalist mobs, there was no need for an armed struggle. All efforts then should have been to negotiated a peaceful outcome. The PIRA had other ideas...

markodaly wrote: »

When the BA were deployed and the Nationalist communities were protected from Loyalist mobs, there was no need for an armed struggle. All efforts then should have been to negotiated a peaceful outcome. The PIRA had other ideas...

....so if the Provos were the primary instigators (despite not actually existing for the first several years of The Troubles), precisely why did the BA have to be deployed to protect Nationalists from Loyalist mobs, and can you think of any particular reason that Nationalists didn't feel particularly protected given that (despite initially being warmly welcomed) the BA troops deployed to protect them very quickly started colluding with those Loyalist mobs and shooting the Nationalists who were attempting to protest the matter as part of NICRA?

This isn't some subtle attempt to defend the actions of the provos, I'm consistently more than happy to call them out. I'm literally just pointing out that your timeline is so blatantly wrong to be approaching the point were it has to be just trolling.

UDAWINNER

markodaly wrote: »

Wow, I made that comment a week ago..
..and I stand by it.

The PIRA were the primary instigators of the conflict. It is a fact because they had no mandate and enjoyed only a tiny amount of support from within the Nationalist community, the majority of whom voted for the SDLP who wanted to achieve more civil rights for Catholics through peaceful democratic means.

The PIRA and the like wanted to murder, bomb and kill for a UI, to achieve the dream of the Easter Rising through blood sacrifice in the face of any peaceful negotiations, which ironically came 30 years AFTER the conflict kicked off.

When the BA were deployed and the Nationalist communities were protected from Loyalist mobs, there was no need for an armed struggle. All efforts then should have been to negotiated a peaceful outcome. The PIRA had other ideas...

Agreed, they proected them from loyalst mobs, sure look how well they were protected on Bloody Sunday, didn't need protection. FFS, give it a rest. The British Army only colluded with the loyalists to murder more. As for your iniation BS, if the Brits and the loyalist scum had fcuked over across the water, then no one would need protection.

wicklowstevo

Poor mark is after triggering the hell out of the sf active service unit boards brigade :-)

same lads claiming sf to be part of the direct line of decent for Arthur Griffiths and Michael Collins in one post and them denying that the ira existed even existed before the ba arrived in another

They say history makes fools of us all , bit it seems it makes bigger fools of some than others

markodaly

Doesitmatter21 wrote: »

So making up something that u dont know is true or not is not a lie?

I think you need to look up the definition of what exactly is a lie.

Doesitmatter21

markodaly wrote: »

I think you need to look up the definition of what exactly is a lie.

Panic this morning now Leo is toast

Happy Mothers Day to all

Mary Lou will have enjoyed her fry while reading the Sunday Papers

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

....so if the Provos were the primary instigators (despite not actually existing for the first several years of The Troubles), precisely why did the BA have to be deployed to protect Nationalists from Loyalist mobs, and can you think of any particular reason that Nationalists didn't feel particularly protected given that (despite initially being warmly welcomed) the BA troops deployed to protect them very quickly started colluding with those Loyalist mobs and shooting the Nationalists who were attempting to protest the matter as part of NICRA?

This isn't some subtle attempt to defend the actions of the provos, I'm consistently more than happy to call them out. I'm literally just pointing out that your timeline is so blatantly wrong to be approaching the point were it has to be just trolling.

Sorry, but when the BA was deployed, both the IRA and the Nationalists community welcomed them, and the relationship was good for about 9 months, until the PIRA started to amass arms and take pot shots at the BA and RUC...

It is this simple, why did the PIRA start to reduce parts of Belfast to rubble, if their efforts was to protect the Nationalist community?

Ffff221

markodaly wrote: »

Sorry, but when the BA was deployed, both the IRA and the Nationalists community welcomed them, and the relationship was good for about 9 months, until the PIRA started to amass arms and take pot shots at the BA and RUC...

It is this simple, why did the PIRA start to reduce parts of Belfast to rubble, if their efforts was to protect the Nationalist community?

The IRA was barely active until 1971 after internment without trial where hundreds of Catholics were lifted and not a single loyalist arrested despite having killed more people than the IRA.

The British army killed 11 innocent people in that couple of days (ballymurphy massacre) including a young mother, another man also died of a heart attack after a mock execution in front of dozens of men women and children, there was also hundreds of allegations of assault and widespread abuse by soldiers as this was going on.

Simultaneously as this was going on loyalist mobs attacked Catholic areas burning nearly ten thousand people out of their homes, thousands of people fled across the border the biggest movement of refugees in Europe since WW2.

There's a video on YouTube during internment of an elderly woman stumbling around with a big hole in her face after soldiers came into her house.

All this is before Bloody Sunday and the Springhill Massacre of the next year.

wicklowstevo wrote: »

Poor mark is after triggering the hell out of the sf active service unit boards brigade :-)

same lads claiming sf to be part of the direct line of decent for Arthur Griffiths and Michael Collins in one post and them denying that the ira existed even existed before the ba arrived in another

They say history makes fools of us all , bit it seems it makes bigger fools of some than others

If any of that is directed at me, I'd suggest you note I've been largely critical of SF and consistently so with the PIRA.

I also stated that the PIRA (not the IRA) didn't exist at the start of the Troubles, this is historical fact; the PIRA was founded at the end of 1969 due to a split from the old IRA (who were dormant at the time, and who's remaining membership wished to remain so).

So yes, trying to argue with chronologically self evident statements certainly would make a complete and utter fool of you.

blanch152

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Sorry, but did MLMD actually go abroad on the off chance of meeting a foreign head of state even though she had no appointment ?

Yes, so it seems, her and Michelle were poised to go chasing Boris all around the North looking for a meeting. Completely lost on her and on the comrades that that was exactly what they criticised MM for.

markodaly wrote: »

Sorry, but when the BA was deployed, both the IRA and the Nationalists community welcomed them, and the relationship was good for about 9 months, until the PIRA started to amass arms and take pot shots at the BA and RUC...

It is this simple, why did the PIRA start to reduce parts of Belfast to rubble, if their efforts was to protect the Nationalist community?

When the British Army were deployed in NI, already several years into The Troubles, the Provos (who you referred to as the primary instigators) did not exist. As you highlight, initially the BA were welcomed, but relations between the British Army and the Nationalist community started to sour before the existence of the PIRA, and moved to the point of no return due to events such as the Falls Curfew (at a point where the PIRA were barely active, certainly had limited influence and before they had planted a single bomb) through to slightly later events such as Operation Demetrius or indeed Bloody Sunday (by which point the PIRA was certainly more influential). It takes a pretty spectacularly biased reading of history (and I'd imagine practically zero lived experience) to suggest that the PIRA were responsible for trust between the BA and the broader Nationalist community breaking down rather than looking at the actions of the BA themselves.

Nowhere did I state that PIRA efforts were either entirely or in part to protect the Nationalist community (I didn't actually make any comment on the goals of the PIRA), I merely pointed out the historical fact that the Troubles were underway for several years before the PIRA existed, so it would be difficult to make a case that they were the primary instigators when they weren't even around for the first several years. An argument could certainly be made that they made it worse, but primary instigators? I think not. It isn't an attempt at a moral or ethical defense of PIRA actions, purely pointing out that your view is totally at odds with history and fact.

Ffff221

Seen this the other day an average day in a lot of areas in the North at this time.

Hard to believe this stuff was going on not too long ago, not a single death on this day, nothing but respect for the people who fought well and hard for our countries honor showing that some people are prepared to fight for the people.

An IRA man once said it's easy to call yourself a man of peace because it's better than calling yourself a coward.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kK3Ff4ivkJA

Doesitmatter21

wicklowstevo wrote: »

Poor mark is after triggering the hell out of the sf active service unit boards brigade :-)

same lads claiming sf to be part of the direct line of decent for Arthur Griffiths and Michael Collins in one post and them denying that the ira existed even existed before the ba arrived in another

They say history makes fools of us all , bit it seems it makes bigger fools of some than others

Are you joking me. Everyone in SF is sitting at home feet up laughing at the Sunday papers were the FG party is in crisis and FF cant not back him now. Mary Lous probably on the Gin and Tonic already

wicklowstevo

Doesitmatter21 wrote: »

Are you joking me. Everyone in SF is sitting at home feet up laughing at the Sunday papers were the FG party is in crisis and FF cant not back him now. Mary Lous probably on the Gin and Tonic already

no idea why you quoted me in this post but you got the like you needed anyway :pac::pac::pac: