Irish National War Memorial vandalised.

mycroft

magpie wrote:

EDIT/ Nope, not my imagination:

Based on? On my understanding the pogram I've heard of in limerick occured in the first decade of the century.

bonkey

mycroft...

allow me to repeat what I said to magpie above. If this is what you want to discuss, please take it to a thread/forum thats relevant.....because its got nothing to do with the descration of an Irish War Memorial.

jc

shltter

i realise this is off topic but may i just throw something in

<edit>
No, you may not. Bonkey.
</edit>


now that out of the way
there is a good chance that the two attacks are related
but as i have said republicans did not do this
more than likely some brits out gob****e that has never actually really tought about the situation in this country or anything else

magpie

because its got nothing to do with the descration of an Irish War Memorial.

Unless the painting of swastikas on Jewish property on the same night is in some way related. Which seems probable.

Hobbes

magpie wrote:

I'm not a member of any political party or organisation, nor do I support any sectarian organisation. Like Celtic FC for instance

As you're not a member of Sinn Fein I'm sure you won't remember this little embarrasment regarding Mary Lou 'Himmler' McDonald: http://www.unison.ie/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1038743&issue_id=9732

[/quote]

I believe Bonkey said to put up or shut up. Your quote is even more offtopic. So do you have any links to proof that SF are wrecking graves?

Stabshauptmann

Victor wrote:

Who's to say this? Many would have joined up for patriotic, economic or personal reasons anyway.
rebellion = failure
revolution = successOf course, they could more rightly be described as Pearse's victims, for he wanted them dead.The 50% is artificially low. In those constituencies which were uncontested they would have received more than 50% anyway, bringing that percentage up.

The second quote you have is one of the corinthians, not me.

magpie

I believe Bonkey said to put up or shut up. Your quote is even more offtopic.

Unless the painting of swastikas on Jewish property on the same night is in some way related. Which seems probable.

So do you have any links to proof that SF are wrecking graves?

Nope. I don't have any proof that their leaders are high-ranking IRA members either.

I didn't realise that we weren't allowed to debate issues based on the balance of probability.

Hobbes

magpie wrote:

Unless the painting of swastikas on Jewish property on the same night is in some way related. Which seems probable.

No it doesn't seem probable at all.

Nope. I don't have any proof that their leaders are high-ranking IRA members either.

Then don't spout BS, and don't assume that somehow adding another comment to your original one makes it valid.

I didn't realise that we weren't allowed to debate issues based on the balance of probability.

There is a probable chance that monkeys might come out of your backside. Doesn't mean its worth debating. There is also a difference between debating 'what-if' and trying to pass it off as facts.

magpie

No it doesn't seem probable at all.

http://indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=67436

Attack on War Memorial Gardens, Jewish Museum. 'Free Iraq' daubed on national war memorial gardens. Swastika painted on Jewish Museum in apparently coordinated attacks.

As a matter of interest Hobbes, I'd be interested where you might feel inclined to point the finger? What single group do you think might paint the following:

1) "Traitors" on a WW1 memorial
2) "Free Iraq" on a WW1 memorial
3) A swastika on the Jewish Museum

OK, so it's someone who thinks that Irish volunteers where traitors, so that makes them Republicans. Right?

It's someone who is anti- the current war in Iraq. OK, that could be anyone.

It's someone anti-semitic. Given our country doesn't have a vast history of anti-semitism, you have to look at who was pro-Nazi in WW2. The evidence is there that Sinn Fein were pro-nazi in WW2.

Therefore, the balance of evidence would seem to point to SF being behind both attacks, as they are the only republican group with documented sympathies for anti-semitic groups.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

Unless the painting of swastikas on Jewish property on the same night is in some way related. Which seems probable
....
I didn't realise that we weren't allowed to debate issues based on the balance of probability.

Oh, you are...but you obviously don't seem to realise that you're not allowed to debate issues based on the balance of relevancy either.

You've taken an event, decided another event is probably related, then decided that because the two events have a probable relationship to
a particular group that this is now fair reason to engage in a tirade against that group, bringing up events ranging from 60 to 90 years ago as evidence, rather than discussing the original topic at hand.

I'm telling you that its not relevant here. Is that clear enough?

If you disagree, then go start another thread and take your points there. Alternately, go start one on Feedback and complain how I'm out of line.
Alternately, stop.
Alternately, get banned for continuing to ignore what you've been told.

Your choice. Make it.

jc

Hobbes

magpie wrote:

As a matter of interest Hobbes, I'd be interested where you might feel inclined to point the finger? What single group do you think might paint the following:

1) "Traitors" on a WW1 memorial
2) "Free Iraq" on a WW1 memorial
3) A swastika on the Jewish Museum

Assholes.

Sorry but I don't see any link to SF in that story you posted?

OK, so it's someone who thinks that Irish volunteers where traitors, so that makes them Republicans. Right?

It might make them republicans, it doesn't automatically make them SF.

It's someone anti-semitic. Given our country doesn't have a vast history of anti-semitism, you have to look at who was pro-Nazi in WW2. The evidence is there that Sinn Fein were pro-nazi in WW2.

Wow.. that is quite a stretch. De Valera after WWII publically voiced his support for Hitler, prehaps it was a FF member that did it? See the fault in your logic yet?

they are the only republican group with documented sympathies for anti-semitic groups.

StormFront?

... [edit] Bonkey just got in before me. Back on topic.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

What single group do you think might paint the following:

1) "Traitors" on a WW1 memorial
2) "Free Iraq" on a WW1 memorial
3) A swastika on the Jewish Museum

In reply, I'd ask this question:

What poster here shows that they confuse "probable" and "definite":

1) magpie, who thinks that a probable connection means the events are connected.
2) anyone who differs

hc

A Dub in Glasgo

Some very interesting reading from contributers on that indymedia site. Good photos and a good post from someone who feels the memorial to the victims of the biggest mass murder in the Republic is left in a disgusting state.

magpie

De Valera after WWII publically voiced his support for Hitler

He expressed his condolences to the German people on the death of their head of state. There is a difference, albeit Jesuitical. But that's DeValera for you.

What poster here shows that they confuse "probable" and "definite":

It was reported in the media as "apparently co-ordinated". It would frankly be an enormous coincidence for both instances of politically-motivated vandalism to happen on one night.

But since there is no absolute proof, then fine, believe what you like.

Mighty_Mouse

Yes, they're the same ones who go around stencilling "Join Oglaigh na hEireann" on walls all over the place

Proof if I ever saw it :eek:

I see we have another stimulating discussion of republicanism in a modern Ireland. (and not a forum where republicans answers the same questions they're accused of avoiding and defend themselves against an off-the-wall, ranting, lunatic fringe)

bonkey

magpie wrote:

2) "Free Iraq" on a WW1 memorial
...
It's someone who is anti- the current war in Iraq. OK, that could be anyone.

So...take a group who has a reason to write one of the messages....then add in a tenuous connection to a second event, and dismiss the third connection as not needing a connection at all, because hey....its inconvenient to the argument.

I take it all back. Suich selective examination of the evidence has me convinced.

jc

magpie

Like I said, who do you think dunnit Clouseau?

dismiss the third connection as not needing a connection at all, because hey....its inconvenient to the argument.

On the contrary. SF are very vocal in their opposition to the war in Iraq. However as they are one of many groups who take this stance it neithers implicates nor absolves them from involvement in this case.

Mighty_Mouse

Again are we ruling out the "16year olds with too much time on their hands" theory here Magpie?

In favour of your: Sinn Fein politically motivated,"nazi-youth-equilivant" party attack?

Edit:

neithers implicates nor absolves them from involvement in this case.

sound logic if ever I heard

bonkey

magpie wrote:

Like I said, who do you think dunnit Clouseau

I'm still going with the "assholes" idea.

As yourself this...who is most likely to commit a series of acts of vandalism:

1) Vandals, who - by definition - have a history of vandalism.
or
2) Members of a possibly-existing "youth group" of a political party, acting on instruction of said party. Let us bear in mind that this is a party who is desperately trying to raise their social acceptability and who do not have a recent history of organised vandalism (i.e. vandalism carried out at the instruction of the party)

So..it must be the overwhelming logic that clearly makes it the latter group. So lets look at that logic....

On the contrary. SF are very vocal in their opposition to the war in Iraq. However as they are one of many groups who take this stance it neithers implicates nor absolves them from involvement in this case.

OK...so that says "lets ignore Iraq".

Fair enough. Lets apply the same logic to the desecration of the War memorial:
SF are very nationalistic. However, as there are many people not in Sinn Fein who are very nationalistic, this neither implicates nor absolves them from involvement in this case.

So we'd better ignore the desecration of the war memorial as well so...

Next....the Jewish desecration:
The only possible anti-Semitic link which you've tried to apply to Sinn Fein is actually a connection that one Sinn Fein member had with another nationalist organisation, and from this you have concluded that because teh other nationalist organisation is anti-Semitic, the Sinn Fein member in question, and thus the entire party must be anti-Semitic.

However...even if you're correct, there are plenty of other anti-Semitic people in Ireland, so this neither implicates nor absolves Sinn Fein from involvement in this case.

So, we have three situations, none of which are conclusive, and some of which aren't even conclusively applicable.

One, you decide to leave aside because its not conclusive. From the remaining inconclusive two, you conclude that there can be only one suspect......

If thats what you want to conclude...then fine. You suspect Sinn Fein. We know this already. Now can we PLEASE move on and get back to the subject at hand, rather than have to sit through more and more and more and more of the off-topic justifications which are just another shallow excuse to have a go at Sinn Fein?

jc

cdebru

i think the reason why the thread has been diverted so much is that anyone with half a brain would condemn both acts so there is not much up for discussion

however using magpies logic
i think the most likly suspects are young fine gael

their links to the blueshirts are well known in fact enda kenny still wears a blue shirt from time to time
they also have links to a group who fought british soldiers at the time of world war one..
in fact one of its senior members is a grand niece of micheal collins
and i have heard some of them say the war in a iraq was a bad idea
so i think its pretty conclusive it was fine gael

in fact wasn't their former leader from limerick and wasn't there once a pogrom against the jews in limerick
the evidence is mounting
i intend passing this on to the gardai straight away

magpie

i think the reason why the thread has been diverted so much is that anyone with half a brain would condemn both acts so there is not much up for discussion

I agree entirely.

On a lighter note it seems unlikely that the Guards are going to catch anyone for this, based on their amazing deductive reasoning, as reported in the Irish Times:

Gardaí were tonight investigating whether vandalism of the National War Memorial in Dublin was linked to commemorations to mark the end of World War One.

mycroft

Gardaí were tonight investigating whether vandalism of the National War Memorial in Dublin was linked to commemorations to mark the end of World War One.

reminds me of the quote by the Gardaí originally in charge of the shergar investigation who said "We've a good chance of finding him as we have a good description of the horse"

I want to try and continue this discussion about the low level of constant rascism that we are seeing in this country. Consist simmering underscore of minor acts of vandalism, rascist abuse and assaults.

While the concerted effort displayed in these attacks, this low level constant rascism barely hoping up on the national media radar. What methods can and should be used to combat them?

bonkey

magpie wrote:

it seems unlikely that the Guards are going to catch anyone for this, based on their amazing deductive reasoning

I think thats because you'll find that the legal system in Ireland works on the basis of proof, not assumption.

jc

magpie

I think thats because you'll find that the legal system in Ireland works on the basis of proof, not assumption.

Yes, yes, you are quite right.

Sand

I want to try and continue this discussion about the low level of constant rascism that we are seeing in this country. Consist simmering underscore of minor acts of vandalism, rascist abuse and assaults.

While the concerted effort displayed in these attacks, this low level constant rascism barely hoping up on the national media radar. What methods can and should be used to combat them?

Perhaps a government education iniative to remind Anto, Bazo and Micko that making monkey noises at black people can be considered offensive?

A stern editorial in the leading broadsheets?

Introducing the concept of thought crime and making it punishable by 50 years hard labour? PD voters can be rounded up for starters, FF and FG voters need to be heavily purged. Labour and the Greens voters are undoubtedly beyond reproach with their left wing politics. Sinn Fein are ultra-nationalists, but lefty nationalists so we can assume theyre okay as well.

The first two have been tried and have not been as successful as hoped. The third has promise.

Honestly though, this is a problem that cant be solved from the top down. There are plenty of assholes out there. Humans are practically designed to pick on those different from them - why should it be any different for immigrants? Add to that the way petty crime in our country has become almost acceptable and expected - something you deal with. Assholes like Anto and co do it because they know theyll get away with it. They know that no one else will get involved, and they know theyre highly unlikely to be identified and arrested let alone jailed.

If you want to crack down on racist acts then crack down on petty crime - make it unacceptable on a cultural and policing level. That people will not actually walk around someone getting mugged but intervene, that they wont pretend not to have heard someone shouting abuse at a foreigner but actually tell the gob****e involved to shut up. And back the police up in their dealings with petty crinimals - provide them with the resources to arrest, charge and jail petty crinimals. Its the broken windows syndrome.

You can do the policing part easy enough if its a priority - but its unlikely to ever really be a priority. The cultural part is far harder because theres no control over it, nobody wants to get involved in trouble.

shltter

bonkey wrote:

I think thats because you'll find that the legal system in Ireland works on the basis of proof, not assumption.

jc

well most of the time anyway