The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

markodaly wrote: »

Oh lord! Tell me exactly what results killing a 3 year old boy achieved? Be precise now.
Did it free NI from the clutches of the British?
Did it give the people of NI untold riches and raised their quality of life?
Did it make the place un-sectarian?

No, no and no is the answer to all them.
Killing a toddler did nothing for Nationalists in the North.

Tell me if that boy was not killed and lived, would life in NI be that much different?

Any honest assessment of that time would show that the IRA and the British had reached a stalemate in the conflict/war.
The IRA wanted their political wing to be at the negotiating table and began the bombing campaign in England.
They achieved their aim, SF got to the table without the IRA having to disarm.

The 'result' of those negotiations was the GFA, which Nationalists did and still see an achievement. So much of a 'result' was it that they continually rewards the political wing of the IRA with their vote and have made them the biggest nationalist party by a long shot.

I cannot fathom how you could be in denial of this simple fact, no matter who you support.

What results did the killing of Lyra McKee achieve? Since we are going down the road that pretty much any unlawful killing in the name of a political goal is moral now.

Why have you switched to a 'morals'?

My opinion of killing by anyone is that it is immoral.

Oh, softening your position now? Only a certain amount?
When Lyra McKee was murdered by the New IRA you were quick out of the traps telling us all that partition killed her, not the terrorists who killed her.
Victim blaming at its finest.

Partition and the holding on by the British to a part of this island is the reason what 3000 and more have died here mark. Again, how can you say otherwise.

YOUR party...Fine Gael are running around the world telling anyone who wants to listen (correctly IMO) that the hardening of the border (the physical manifestation of Partition) will destabilise the peace process and endanger the peace here.

If that isn't an admission that partition is the problem, what is?

blanch152 wrote: »

I am continually amazed at how an abstract concept such as partition (leaving aside the question of how you partition something that was never whole and united) has such an ability to plant bombs, shoot guns, kneecap teenagers, abuse kids and kidnap people in the dead of night.

...no sectarianism, gerrymandering, discrimination, violence aimed at peaceful protests and activists....?

blanch152 wrote: »

an abstract concept such as partition

'Abstract concept' what are you on about?

blanch152 wrote: »

A line on a map is an abstract concept.

...not when you place armed soldiery to police and guard that line, no.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any honest assessment of that time would show that the IRA and the British had reached a stalemate in the conflict/war.

The stalemate was so, since the 80's. Warrington happened in 1993. Why did the PIRA bomb it if they knew there was a stalemate.

The IRA wanted their political wing to be at the negotiating table and began the bombing campaign in England.
They achieved their aim, SF got to the table without the IRA having to disarm.

This was after the first ceasfire in August 1994 which they broke in February 1996.

Warrington was in 1993. So again I ask, if the Warrington bomb never happened, would life be different for Nationalists in the North?
Was killing a 3 year old boy crucil to the aims of the PIRA?

My opinion of killing by anyone is that it is immoral.

What results have been achieved by the New IRA by the killing of Lyra McKee?

Partition and the holding on by the British to a part of this island is the reason what 3000 and more have died here mark. Again, how can you say otherwise.

The reason people died is because people killed them. That is first and foremost. the PIRA killed 2000 of those people, and killed more nationalists and Catholics than the British Security forces. They also killed more women and children than the British Security forces.

As I keep saying, partition was inevitable but some hardline nutcases in Republican circles never got the memo and still live in fantasy land.

markodaly wrote: »

What results have been achieved by the New IRA by the killing of Lyra McKee?

The New IRA didn't go out to kill Lyra McKee so were not looking to achieve anything. I don't understand what point you are trying to make by asking this question.

markodaly wrote: »

The PIRA didn't set out to kill Three-year-old Johnathan Ball, but they did. Does that mean the PIRA were not trying to achieve anything but the death of innocent people? Not really doing your side a service here.

My question as it has always been, how did killing a 3 year old toddler help Nationalists in the North?

The answer of course, it didn't. It did nothing, but we have apologists of child murderers here giving an Olympian effort in whataboutery as if killing that child resulted in something tangible.

Yet more intellectual dishonesty.

markodaly wrote: »

The stalemate was so, since the 80's. Warrington happened in 1993. Why did the PIRA bomb it if they knew there was a stalemate.



This was after the first ceasfire in August 1994 which they broke in February 1996.

Warrington was in 1993. So again I ask, if the Warrington bomb never happened, would life be different for Nationalists in the North?
Was killing a 3 year old boy crucil to the aims of the PIRA?

The GFA was not signed until 1998 mark. They also bombed England in 1996 escalating the pressure on the British.

I am not here to defend the bombing or the killing of two boys, I am telling you that the bombing campaign was mounted to bring results, in the case of this particular campaign it was to bring pressure to bear on the British.

The 'result' was that John Major quietly dropped the insistence that the IRA disarm first and allowed SF to the negotiating table.

You are perfectly free to pretend or believe genuinely otherwise. Who cares anymore? The GFA is here thankfully and so far the result is that it is protecting nationalist interests in NI and the voters there have been rewarding who they think are responsible since it was signed.

What results have been achieved by the New IRA by the killing of Lyra McKee?

Too early to say but for the perps, so far it has been an entirely negative one, thankfully.

The reason people died is because people killed them. That is first and foremost. the PIRA killed 2000 of those people, and killed more nationalists and Catholics than the British Security forces. They also killed more women and children than the British Security forces.

As I keep saying, partition was inevitable but some hardline nutcases in Republican circles never got the memo and still live in fantasy land.

I never viewed the killing as a competition myself. That is a nauseating way to behave tbh.

And as long as there is a campaign for a UI, partition was NOT inevitable. How many more years than a 100 of them do you need to view it as wrong and a failure and a complete and abject kicking of a problem down a long and tragic road for everybody?

jm08 wrote: »

You are still talking about the death of that 3 year old,

Because it is the nauseating thing these posters do, select victims for their 'emotive' value. No other reason.

You won't find Mark or any other partitionist posters asking what benefit was the killing of 18 children (that we know about at this point) by the British Army or the killing of 120 people in a small geographical area.

A sickening hierarchy of victims.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because it is the nauseating thing these posters do, select victims for their 'emotive' value. No other reason.

You won't find Mark or any other partitionist posters asking what benefit was the killing of 18 children (that we know about at this point) by the British Army or the killing of 120 people in a small geographical area.

A sickening hierarchy of victims.

Nobody around here is arguing that any of the killings you mention brought results.

That is the real sickening notion - killing people for results. That is what you support, the idea that killing people achieves something. It doesn't, it only adds to the total of misery, but you support it, you welcome it, you acknowledge it, you support the organisation that celebrates it, because it achieves results.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody around here is arguing that any of the killings you mention brought results.

That is the real sickening notion - killing people for results. That is what you support, the idea that killing people achieves something. It doesn't, it only adds to the total of misery, but you support it, you welcome it, you acknowledge it, you support the organisation that celebrates it, because it achieves results.

He didn't say that people were killed for results. As a result of what was happening in the north and ultimately what happened in England it brought the British government to the table to talk because they were concerned about the financial impact in England i.e. London.

Do you ever think about the big picture or is it a case of having a go a one particular section of the conflict but ignore the rest?

blanch152 wrote: »

You crow about killings achieving results, that is support.

Did the killing of Dublin Monaghan achieve results for Loyalist and the British...yes, Sunningdale collapsed.

Am I crowing/supporting Loyalism and the British?

Honestly I have never heard such a stupid argument in my life before.
Never take 'History' as a subject blanch and mark...you'll be supporting all sorts if you do.

Many of us believe that those results would have happened much quicker without the killings. The IRA campaign intensified and deepened sectarian divisions, with the added aspect of their "community policing" imposing an apartheid in the North. As Seamus Mallon put it, the GFA was Sunningdale for slow learners, and those slow learners included Sinn Fein and the IRA.

There was nothing inherently wrong with partition, it is the outdated clinging to notion of nationhood requiring territory that is commonplace on both sides of the sectarian divide that is the problem. Nobody in the world needs a united Ireland to be Irish. The Irish nation doesn't need a united Ireland to be Irish. Time you and others left the past behind.

Yeh, I hope you know by now what I think of your 'Lie down Croppy Boy and await the British to be democrats' tosh and nonsense.

Even TODAY they will ride roughshod over northern Irish people to achieve their own English centric aims.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Planting bombs is, & never was a good idea and can never be allowed to happen again!

They can kill people.

Oh yeah, so if we hadn't planted that bomb it might have taken us longer to get to the negotiating table, and yes it might have killed one or two, but at least we got to the table :cool:

Partitioning a country and turning a blind eye as the majority change the voting system and gerrymander to maintain a sectarian bigoted oppressive statre ain't a great idea either Hamster.
There are very few places, if any, in the world where that didn't eventually result in bombs going off and conflict/war.

P.S. That is neither 'support' for bombs going off or for allowing a sectarian bigoted state to exist.
That needs to be pointed out for those in difficulty with what analytical reviews of history are.

mynamejeff wrote: »

how paisleyesk of you ,

shout down barrack and bully

however id assume the irony is lost on you

Shout?

Who is shouting?

Deal with the point jeff.

*I think you missed a bit of irony in your own censoring and scolding post.

blanch152 wrote: »

Lack of respect and tolerance for other viewpoints is one of the main characteristics of Irish "republicanism", a trait on full display here.

Where is the lack of respect and tolerance?

You routinely lie and misrepresent posters when it suits you, that is disrespectful.