Politics Forum

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

You keep raising the Omagh issue. The claim there was that they phoned it in, but due to miscommunication it was a terrible accident that so many people got killed. But the reality of bombmaking is that accidents happen. If the dissidents were serious about preventing deaths, they would not be setting off bombs, no matter how many 'precautions' they take.

Yeah I know all that, hence I have condemned the dissidents campaign. The time for violence is over.

As for winning support through violence aimed at social undesirables, exactly whose support are they trying to win? Bombing banks is a cynical ploy to take advantage of the current economic situation. And kneecapping drug dealers may win some hearts and minds, but any rational person has to ask themselves, again, about the prospect of a slippery slope. I can think of no case where this kind of vigilantism did not, over time, slide into a morass of extortion, racketeering and intimidation, often at the whim of those with the muscle. Who wants to live like this?

Disalusioned republicans presumeably. I have no issues with the above at all.

At this point we are going in circles. We are not going to see eye to eye on this.

It is quite clear, you just want a discussion along the line of "Dissidents are evil" Without any subjective analysis. Tell me, how can a problem be addressed if we do not talk about the causes and motivations etc?

Paddy Woodworth wrote the following about the Basques, but I think it equally applies to the Irish. This critique may not apply to you directly, but it certainly applies to many of your fellow-travelers.

And these individuals must be aware that there are many non-violent alternatives to such actions in the Basque Country today.

I am confused, you and I are in agreement, the dissidents are wrong. However, I would like to engage in a proper discussion and debate about them, beyond erroneous statements like "Dissidents want to kill everyone/now they are targeting kids" or any other sensational headline you want.

Overheal

Southsiderdosie wrote:

I wouldn't say I feel "intimidated". It's more the fact that it seems impossible to have a real and/or interesting discussion because the reactions are so predictable and doctrinaire. Any debate where the core rationale or issue boils down to nationalism ends up being a shouting match, because nationalist narratives in general leave no room for subtlety, heterogeneity, or debate.

You have me thoroughly confused. Because when you were offered a heterogeneous, subtle debating point - here's how you chose to use it:

"And yet, based on Ireland's history of car bombings, another Omagh is inevitable because nobody can guarantee that something will not go wrong when there are explosives involved. And, again, it does not matter what the intent is; the reality is that bombs do not always go off according to plan and they KILL PEOPLE.

"Dissidents placed a bomb"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school, but called ahead and it was evacuated"

Once we've established the fact that dissidents placed a bomb, I honestly don't give a **** what any of the qualifiers or circumstances are: they are using VIOLENCE to make a POLITICAL point. Although the school as a case only makes it more horrible, not less."

So forgive me, but I detect a hypocrisy between what you are saying today and what you were saying last night. For you the use of violence is an absolute No, and you've shouted to get that point across. Do you not see how this lends itself to a shouting match which you describe? If you don't want the shouting match and you want the nuance, why are you throwing it back in the face of your fellow poster? Just asking.

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

You have me thoroughly confused. Because when you were offered a heterogeneous, subtle debating point - here's how you chose to use it:

"And yet, based on Ireland's history of car bombings, another Omagh is inevitable because nobody can guarantee that something will not go wrong when there are explosives involved. And, again, it does not matter what the intent is; the reality is that bombs do not always go off according to plan and they KILL PEOPLE.

"Dissidents placed a bomb"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school, but called ahead and it was evacuated"

Once we've established the fact that dissidents placed a bomb, I honestly don't give a **** what any of the qualifiers or circumstances are: they are using VIOLENCE to make a POLITICAL point. Although the school as a case only makes it more horrible, not less."

So forgive me, but I detect a hypocrisy between what you are saying today and what you were saying last night. For you the use of violence is an absolute No, and you've shouted to get that point across. Do you not see how this lends itself to a shouting match which you describe? If you don't want the shouting match and you want the nuance, why are you throwing it back in the face of your fellow poster? Just asking.

The issue of Al-Qaida came up earlier. How ridiculous would it sound if, after a string of Al-Qaida bombings that caused damage, and scared people, but didn't actually kill people, the consistent response was "well, at least it wasn't a 9/11-type attack". That post would be called out for its absurdity, and rightly so.

MUSSOLINI has consistently responded to posts about dissident violence with two key replies: 1) dissidents don't want to hurt civilians and 2) the use of Omagh as an example of what they don't want to happen. How many times can we go around in circles over the same point without finally landing in a hard position? If your starting point is "well, at least they aren't carrying out massacres", then what the hell kind of conversation are we supposed to have?

I deplore political violence in Ireland, and in particular post-GFA Ireland, and I especially hate that attempts to "subjectively' examine it inevitably defy common sense. The history of car bombing in Ireland makes it patently clear that the claim "we didn't do it to harm anyone" is a falsehood. And this pops up every time Omagh is discussed. No matter what is said, someone will always come along and say "well they phoned it in". Never mind the fact that the chances that someone will get seriously hurt or killed are quite high when you put a large car bomb on the main street of a village on a busy market day.

To consistently claim that dissidents don't want to hurt civilians when they set off car bombs seems to willfully ignore the dozens (hundreds?) of people who were killed or maimed during the Troubles when bombs went off unexpectedly. "Oh, we didn't mean to kill THOSE people" rings hollow, especially in light of the last 40 years of Irish history. Calling bull**** on this position is not meant to shut down debate, but it is meant to throughly discredit this line of reasoning.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

The issue of Al-Qaida came up earlier. How ridiculous would it sound if, after a string of Al-Qaida bombings that caused damage, and scared people, but didn't actually kill people, the consistent response was "well, at least it wasn't a 9/11-type attack". That post would be called out for its absurdity, and rightly so.

If a post needs to be refuted, then refute it. Could you describe the absurdity of it? I for one would be rather pleased if Al Qadea stopped killing people and started putting on firework exhibits.

MUSSOLINI has consistently responded to posts about dissident violence with two key replies: 1) dissidents don't want to hurt civilians and 2) the use of Omagh as an example of what they don't want to happen. How many times can we go around in circles over the same point without finally landing in a hard position? If your starting point is "well, at least they aren't carrying out massacres", then what the hell kind of conversation are we supposed to have?

Attack the post, not the poster.

I deplore political violence in Ireland, and in particular post-GFA Ireland, and I especially hate that attempts to "subjectively' examine it inevitably defy common sense. The history of car bombing in Ireland makes it patently clear that the claim "we didn't do it to harm anyone" is a falsehood. And this pops up every time Omagh is discussed. No matter what is said, someone will always come along and say "well they phoned it in". Never mind the fact that the chances that someone will get seriously hurt or killed are quite high when you put a large car bomb on the main street of a village on a busy market day.

How does it defy common sense exactly? And I think the term you were looking for is Objectivity.

I'd also refute that it might make it a "Likely Falsehood" but not an absolute falsehood. You have to accept the possibility that they have moved for a change of strategy.

To consistently claim that dissidents don't want to hurt civilians when they set off car bombs seems to willfully ignore the dozens (hundreds?) of people who were killed or maimed during the Troubles when bombs went off unexpectedly. "Oh, we didn't mean to kill THOSE people" rings hollow, especially in light of the last 40 years of Irish history. Calling bull**** on this position is not meant to shut down debate, but it is meant to throughly discredit this line of reasoning.

So refute it then, as you just have, to me, someone who is willfully ignorant of issues concerning the North (because I know how would up you all get about it and I generally don't wish to be involved). If I may add though, it really does shut down conversation when you can't find common ground, and in these case you have refused MUSSOLINI's, which seems to be this is 2010, not 1998, and not 1968 either. I had to google those dates..

Further to that when I can't find any common ground with a poster I generally after a short while just stop speaking with them: you shouldn't feel the need to shout down MUSSOLINI, or anyone else, because they express a dissenting opinion. Boards is an open platform where your views should - ideally - be permitted to coexist. There is no Highlander Clause in the Charter.

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

MUSSOLINI has consistently responded to posts about dissident violence with two key replies: 1) dissidents don't want to hurt civilians and

They don't though. The primary aim is to gather support, killing innocents wont do that.

2) the use of Omagh as an example of what they don't want to happen. How many times can we go around in circles over the same point without finally landing in a hard position? If your starting point is "well, at least they aren't carrying out massacres", then what the hell kind of conversation are we supposed to have?

You are misrepresenting me again. I made my point with regards to not wanting to kill civilians in reply to a claim that the dissidents were actually trying to do so. I pointed out that in fact they were trying to kill PSNI men with that bomb at the school. Killing civilians would be counterproductive for the dissidents. They are not idiots. I provided factual clarification. They are not trying to kill civilians, they are trying to kill the security forces. Do you deny that?
Sure, they may be willing to accept some civilian deaths as collateral damage, but my analysis of their activities leads me to believe that they do not want any civilians dead.

I deplore political violence in Ireland, and in particular post-GFA Ireland, and I especially hate that attempts to "subjectively' examine it inevitably defy common sense.

While I feel that violence is at times necessary, today is not one of those times. Subjective analysis is now in defiance of common sense?

The history of car bombing in Ireland makes it patently clear that the claim "we didn't do it to harm anyone" is a falsehood. And this pops up every time Omagh is discussed. No matter what is said, someone will always come along and say "well they phoned it in". Never mind the fact that the chances that someone will get seriously hurt or killed are quite high when you put a large car bomb on the main street of a village on a busy market day.

There is a lot more that could be said about Omagh, but I am not gonna say it. Needless to say the IRA takes the blame for that. Omagh killed off any remaining support for armed campaign. If something similar happened again it would probably be the end of the dissidents campaign. They know this, and will strive to avoid it. They seem to be attempting to show a different face, only attacking security forces.

To consistently claim that dissidents don't want to hurt civilians when they set off car bombs seems to willfully ignore the dozens (hundreds?) of people who were killed or maimed during the Troubles when bombs went off unexpectedly. "Oh, we didn't mean to kill THOSE people" rings hollow, especially in light of the last 40 years of Irish history. Calling bull**** on this position is not meant to shut down debate, but it is meant to throughly discredit this line of reasoning.

How is it bullsh!t? What is bullsh!t is to claim that the dissidents are going out to kill civilians, they are not. What is bullsh!t is to say that the kids were the target of that attack, it is simply not true. Of course that doesn't make the attack right, it is still wrong.

Take your carbomb example. The only carbombs that the dissidents have set off(to the best of my knowledge) have been in the dead of night when no one was around. They have phoned in warnings beforehand. IF their aim was to kill civilians they would detonate a no warning bomb in the middle of a crowded street. Fact is that is not their aim. I do not understand how you cannot see that.

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

If a post needs to be refuted, then refute it. Could you describe the absurdity of it? I for one would be rather pleased if Al Qadea stopped killing people and started putting on firework exhibits.
Attack the post, not the poster.

Do you really think it is reassuring for people that there are bombs going off, even if they aren't 'meant to kill'? Especially in places where thousands of people have been killed by similar-type bombs?

If the Ku Klux Klan randomly started showed up at my house to burn a cross on my lawn, am I supposed to just sigh as say "well, it's 2010, not 1959, at least they didn't lynch me today!"

Overheal wrote: »

How does it defy common sense exactly? And I think the term you were looking for is Objectivity.

No, I specifically meant subjectivity, because that is the word that comes up time and time again.

Overheal wrote: »

So refute it then, as you just have, to me, someone who is willfully ignorant of issues concerning the North (because I know how would up you all get about it and I generally don't wish to be involved). If I may add though, it really does shut down conversation when you can't find common ground, and in these case you have refused MUSSOLINI's, which seems to be this is 2010, not 1998, and not 1968 either. I had to google those dates.

I don't see the fact that it is 2010 as particularly significant. There is a living memory of the violence from the Troubles, especially in places like Belfast. People are living with ghosts. Again, saying "this time it's different" does little to lessen people's concerns, especially if you are cognizant of the history of these kinds of attacks.

If the date is to be an issue, then I would argue that it makes the use of violence even less legitimate, because of the GFA. Yes I know that the dissidents reject the GFA. But if the point is to recruit supporters, why do they think they would gain support by undermining the democratic process that led to the approval of GFA-related statutes in the first place? To me, this legitimization of violence on the part of dissident republicans is fascistic in two key ways: 1) the idea that violence is legitimate in furthering and/or strengthening the Irish 'nation', and 2) that the will of those who seek to preserve the nation takes precedence over the democratically expressed will of the majority of the population in whose interests they claim to act.

Overheal wrote: »

Further to that when I can't find any common ground with a poster I generally after a short while just stop speaking with them: you shouldn't feel the need to shout down MUSSOLINI, or anyone else, because they express a dissenting opinion. Boards is an open platform where your views should - ideally - be permitted to coexist. There is no Highlander Clause in the Charter.

I honestly don't think there will ever be common ground on the topic of the use of political violence in Northern Ireland, and there seems to be even less room for it now since there is a constitutional path to unification.

Which brings us back to my earlier post about why I generally don't comment on Northern Ireland. I also generally don't shout people down. But I find much of the discourse of the political situation in the north today to be intellectually dishonest and, yes, it pisses me off to the point where I do make harsher statements than I would otherwise.

As I said before, I will probably just stick to threads on parties and economics because I will never, ever accept certain views on the use of violence by republicans, and I don't think their purported motives are particularly worthy of closer examination so long as the end product is a bomb.

southsiderosie

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You are misrepresenting me again. I made my point with regards to not wanting to kill civilians in reply to a claim that the dissidents were actually trying to do so. I pointed out that in fact they were trying to kill PSNI men with that bomb at the school. Killing civilians would be counterproductive for the dissidents. They are not idiots. I provided factual clarification. They are not trying to kill civilians, they are trying to kill the security forces. Do you deny that?

Sure, they may be willing to accept some civilian deaths as collateral damage, but my analysis of their activities leads me to believe that they do not want any civilians dead.

Do you not see the contradiction in what you wrote here?

I'm not going to comment any further on your post, because what you just said highlights everything I find wrong with the dissident campaigns: they can talk all they want about wanting to avoid "civilian casualties", but at the end of the day they are OK with it as long as they can take out a few cops or soldiers. Potentially killing children or elderly people - or anyone for that matter - is just the cost of doing business for them, and that attitude is repugnant.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do you not see the contradiction in what you wrote here?

Do you?

You've gone and done it again just now by misrepresenting MUSSOLINI as someone who is "willing to accept civilian deaths as collateral damage".

Wolfe Tone

Overheal wrote: »

Do you?

You've gone and done it again just now by misrepresenting MUSSOLINI as someone who is "willing to accept civilian deaths as collateral damage".

This is exactly the type of thing I am talking about Overheal.

Overheal

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

This is exactly the type of thing I am talking about Overheal.

Once is careless reading, but if you see another poster being consistently and willfully obtuse in the interpretation of all of your posts, that's basically Trolling*. I suggest that you gather up those posts, use the Permalinks, and report them under one single Report Post so the mods can quickly determine whats going on by looking at the several problem posts side by side, with a context.


*Southsiderdosie I doubt very much you are trolling but you did seriously misread MUSSOLINI's post, deriving the exact opposite meaning from that which was actually written.

Wolfe Tone

Overheal wrote: »

Once is careless reading, but if you see another poster being consistently and willfully obtuse in the interpretation of all of your posts, that's basically Trolling*. I suggest that you gather up those posts, use the Permalinks, and report them under one single Report Post so the mods can quickly determine whats going on by looking at the several problem posts side by side, with a context.


*Southsiderdosie I doubt very much you are trolling but you did seriously misread MUSSOLINI's post, deriving the exact opposite meaning from that which was actually written.

What happens when a mod is doing the misrepresenting?

TBH it has been the exact type of thing(worse actually) that I have reported, except it has been more than just the one poster doing it.

Thanks for the tip, I will do that the next time it happens.

Overheal

If the Mod is doing it report it to an CMod, Admin, Help Desk, etc. but the same method applies.

If multiple people are doing it just do what you can to make your words more difficult to twist. Thats all I can suggest

FlutterinBantam

Overheal wrote: »

Do you?

You've gone and done it again just now by misrepresenting MUSSOLINI as someone who is "willing to accept civilian deaths as collateral damage".

That's a load of bulldust actually.

The poster by his sigs and attitude would seem to support armed struggle.

It's the typical 'put the width of a credit card' between what I support and

what those whom I seem to support promulgate.

In law enforcement it's referred to as 'form'.:cool:

Overheal

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

That's a load of bulldust actually.

How is that. The Poster clearly indicates they don't support the violence, are not affiliated with the aggressors and yet is responded to with accusations that basically allege the poster approves of or at least is tolerant of Civilian Casualties in the North, in spite of direct evidence to the contrary.

The poster by his sigs and attitude would seem to support armed struggle.

It's the typical 'put the width of a credit card' between what I support and

what those whom I seem to support promulgate.

In law enforcement it's referred to as 'form'.:cool:

You've just used an Ad Hominem argument. Instead of actually looking at what the poster has written you're looking at the poster to make the point?

Furthermore I am unclear as to how a youtube video to For what died the sons of Rosin and support for a Republican or Nationalist forum (or even indeed being a Republican or a Nationalist) somehow incriminates the User and means that "Surely they must approve of violence against civilians" etc. - to do so would be bigotry and generalization.

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

Do you?

You've gone and done it again just now by misrepresenting MUSSOLINI as someone who is "willing to accept civilian deaths as collateral damage".

This is ridiculous.

First, I clearly stated that my problem is with the attitude of the dissidents, as "interpreted" by MUSSOLINI. His posts are always very clear about that he is posting based on his analysis of their activities. Taking his analysis at face value, I find their activities and thought processes repugnant.

If people want to interpret the behavior of political organizations, and a poster critiques the organization based on their interpretation, then the OP shouldn't get all huffy about it.

If I were to post in a thread about budget cuts, and said "Sure, Fianna Fail may be willing to accept that some elderly people and sick children are going to die as a result of their cuts in health services, but my analysis of their activities leads me to believe that they do not want children and elderly to die", then I need to stand over my comments and not go crying to the mods when people then say that Fianna Fail is a vile, soulless organization. I should also be prepared for people to say that I seem to be expressing sympathies for the position of Fianna Fail, if my analysis of their actions lead me to such a conclusion.

Wolfe Tone

Just to clear up on the sigs issue, I once had a pic of Wolfe Tone and I also used to have Bobby Sands.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

This is ridiculous.

First, I clearly stated that my problem is with the attitude of the dissidents, as "interpreted" by MUSSOLINI. His posts are always very clear about that he is posting based on his analysis of their activities. Taking his analysis at face value, I find their activities and thought processes repugnant.

If people want to interpret the behavior of political organizations, and a poster critiques the organization based on their interpretation, then the OP shouldn't get all huffy about it.

If I were to post in a thread about budget cuts, and said "Sure, Fianna Fail may be willing to accept that some elderly people and sick children are going to die as a result of their cuts in health services, but my analysis of their activities leads me to believe that they do not want children and elderly to die", then I need to stand over my comments and not go crying to the mods when people then say that Fianna Fail is a vile, soulless organization. I should also be prepared for people to say that I seem to be expressing sympathies for the position of Fianna Fail, if my analysis of their actions lead me to such a conclusion.

And yet if I accused you of being one of these so called vile and soulless members of Fianna Fail, because of your sympathetic analysis, I would be infracted or banned.

This is basically what you did above: accused MUSSOLINI of condoning civilian casualties because he provided Sympathetic/Subjective Analysis; essentially accusing him of being a member of this political group that is willing to carry out such attacks.

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

And yet if I accused you of being one of these so called vile and soulless members of Fianna Fail, because of your sympathetic analysis, I would be infracted or banned.

This is basically what you did above: accused MUSSOLINI of condoning civilian casualties because he provided Sympathetic/Subjective Analysis.

If you said to me, "Fianna Fail is a vile organization, and your kind of rationale makes no sense because x, y, and z", and I consistently said to you "well, this is my take based on my analysis", and my analysis disregarded all of the other times Fianna Fail screwed up policies and people suffered needlessly, then at what point are you justified in thinking that the only reason why I could possibly come to such conclusions given the track record of Fianna Fail is if I were a supporter of Fianna Fail?

FlutterinBantam

Overheal wrote: »

And yet if I accused you of being one of these so called vile and soulless members of Fianna Fail, because of your sympathetic analysis, I would be infracted or banned.

This is basically what you did above: accused MUSSOLINI of condoning civilian casualties because he provided Sympathetic/Subjective Analysis; essentially accusing him of being a member of this political group that is willing to carry out such attacks.

There you have it again.

All the paraphernalia displayed, but when the chips are down you can't touch them.;)

Like a guy waving a Union Jack outside Parkhead and when people get upset, he says well I am not anti Celtic, I said nothing against them.


Pull the other one ,friend, no one with any intelligence buys that lame one;)

If it walks like a duck,quacks like a duck ,then it is a duck

Get a grip.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

If you said to me, "Fianna Fail is a vile organization, and your kind of rationale makes no sense because x, y, and z", and I consistently said to you "well, this is my take based on my analysis", and my analysis disregarded all of the other times Fianna Fail screwed up policies and people suffered needlessly, then at what point are you justified in thinking that the only reason why I could possibly come to such conclusions given the track record of Fianna Fail is if I were a supporter of Fianna Fail?

Would I need to bother?

Also did you know it's slander to assert that Bill O'Reilly is a Republican? He's not actually affiliated with the party. He's (nowadays) a registered independent in spite of his wide range of conservative views. Strange I know but the point is it's not that hard to protest Bill O'Reilly without making references to whatever party affiliation he happens to be or not be with: I just attack his substance, not him.

Seriously, at that point why wouldn't you just disregard said poster? If you know you are diametrically opposed to a poster and have no desire to accept anything they have to say, why pick a fight with them? It's so much easier to just say "Well you're disregarding X years of ABC and I think thats a terrible mistake but if you want to believe that, even in the face of xyz then it's your call." - Move on; Put poster on ignore if they rile you up that much (theres a few on mine!); Go make a nice cup of coffee. Half & Half is in the fridge, 3rd shelf on the door.

FlutterinBantam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Just to clear up on the sigs issue, I once had a pic of Wolfe Tone and I also used to have Bobby Sands.

No need to clear that up.;)

FlutterinBantam

Overheal wrote: »

Would I need to bother?

Seriously, at that point why wouldn't you just disregard said poster? If you know you are diametrically opposed to a poster and have no desire to accept anything they have to say, why pick a fight with them? It's so much easier to just say "Well you're disregarding X years of ABC and I think thats a terrible mistake but if you want to believe that, even in the face of xyz then it's your call." - Move on; Put poster on ignore if they rile you up that much (theres a few on mine!); Go make a nice cup of coffee. Half & Half is in the fridge, 3rd shelf on the door.

It's called integrity.

If you wear the uniform , stand up for it.

Don't go hiding behind symbols and rhetoric and expecting people to believe you don't condone what your symbols and signatures promote.


that's just plain immature.

Wolfe Tone

I honestly do not understand why pointing out the dissidents tactics is such a big deal. They want to kill soldiers and police men, not kill civilians. That much is true, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.
Stating something like "They are now targeting kids" Is simply wrong.
Saying that they want another Omagh is also wrong.

FlutterinBantam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I honestly do not understand why pointing out the dissidents tactics is such a big deal. They want to kill soldiers and police men, not kill civilians. That much is true, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.
Stating something like "They are now targeting kids" Is simply wrong.
Saying that they want another Omagh is also wrong.

Your previous signatures promoted people who wanted to kill soldiers and police.


Do you support that.

Overheal

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

It's called integrity.

If you wear the uniform , stand up for it.

Don't go hiding behind symbols and rhetoric and expecting people to believe you don't condone what your symbols and signatures promote.


that's just plain immature.

Flut you cannot police other users and 'force them' to stand up for whatever viewpoint you think they may have. If you think they're being immature, and call them such, you'd also probably be acting against the Charter. Again, you may think someone is hiding something and you may think they are being mature but why get yourself into trouble about it? If you don't respect a poster ignore the poster.

FlutterinBantam

Overheal wrote: »

Flut you cannot police other users and 'force them' to stand up for whatever viewpoint you think they may have. If you think they're being immature, and call them such, you'd also probably be acting against the Charter. Again, you may think someone is hiding something and you may think they are being mature but why get yourself into trouble about it? If you don't respect a poster ignore the poster.

Haven't quite mastered that skill OH.

Working hard on it.!!

southsiderosie

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Haven't quite mastered that skill OH.

Working hard on it.!!

We obviously have the same problem.

/slowly backs away from thread...again...

Wolfe Tone

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Your previous signatures promoted people who wanted to kill soldiers and police.


Do you support that.

They were from a different time. In todays context none of that is necessary or in my view, morally justifiable. Whereas back then there was justification for at least some of their actions based on the context of the north at the time. Unless you feel the world and the north of today is the same as the 70s and 80s, or as 1916, or as 1798(the dates associated with the men who I have had in my sig) your point is irrelevant.

And that was not the only thing they wanted.


This is typical of the type of thing I have complained about, the threads end up being about myself.

FlutterinBantam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

They were from a different time. In todays context none of that is necessary or in my view, morally justifiable. Whereas back then there was justification for at least some of their actions based on the context of the north at the time. Unless you feel the world and the north of today is the same as the 70s and 80s, or as 1916, or as 1798(the dates associated with the men who I have had in my sig) your point is irrelevant.

And that was not the only thing they wanted.


This is typical of the type of thing I have complained about, the threads end up being about myself.

If they were from a different time, why glorify them in todays context.

You see, being two faced has its drawbacks.

You can't wave the paraphernalia and symbols around while at the same time disassociating yourself from the actions

That's what you are doing ,and then blaming people for coming to obvious conclusions.

Nodin

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

They were from a different time. In todays context none of that is necessary or in my view, morally justifiable. Whereas back then there was justification for at least some of their actions based on the context of the north at the time. Unless you feel the world and the north of today is the same as the 70s and 80s, or as 1916, or as 1798(the dates associated with the men who I have had in my sig) your point is irrelevant.

And that was not the only thing they wanted.


This is typical of the type of thing I have complained about, the threads end up being about myself.

You aren't required to explain yourself. Theres a facility that people can use to report signatures if they have a problem with them. I'd suggest that if somebody raises it on thread you ask them to stop and if they persist, you report them.