Derry Bombing thread

Wolfe Tone

This is the thread here...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056221675

I have to say I am really pissed off at the implications made. To accuse a poster of defending an attempted bombing is, or at least I thought, a very serious matter. I mentioned the wall because you cant see it on the picture as it is an aerial photo. Its a major landmark in Derry.

I said on the thread why I mentioned it. Permabear then effectively called me a liar and maintained in the face of correction that I had posted that in an attempt to defend the bombing. As far as I see he has not been sanctioned whatsoever. I reported those posts ages ago, and PMd a mod.

Thos who are familiar with my posts know I have no qualms about defending actions of the PIRA(obviously not all of them). If I wanted to defend dissident bombings I would. I dont, I never have, and have frequently condemned their actions.

Closing Mod Post:

Okay, Wolfe Tone - you walked into that. This thread isn't about the event per se, it's about wider social attitudes towards political violence in the Derry area. As such I can see no reason why you linked to the image and gave it such captions beyond what the others are saying. That shouldn't be read as a justification for posts here; it's not. But if you want to avoid accusations of such sympathising you need to wise up and see how your posts will be percieved by others.

However, you clearly do not want it dragged on, and this discussion is getting too personalised. So I am asking all of you to move on and stop discussing the picture and the post.

PM me if you've problems with that.

/mod.

The thread is not about the event... I must have imagined the thread title then.

No reason why I linked the image? I took the time to screenshot that pic and write in the captions in an attempt to shed further light and add to the info on the thread. Seemingly I was wrong to feel that a map of the area showing where the bomb and the buildings where would be helpful and appreciated by those unfamiliar with the town.

Ah, so victim blaming are we? What a joke. He accused me of defending a proscribed terrorist organisation and an attack which could have caused untold damage or loss of life, hardly a trivial matter.


I have to say that I am deeply angry that a poster has been allowed to make such accusations. I know many people on this site, both online and in real life. Im not annon.

I have put this in feedback because I think it is a wider issue which needs to looked at carefully, and I know I would most likely be wasting my time PMing Eliot Rosewater.

It is a serious matter when someone is accused of supporting/defending bombings and proscribed organisations, and moderators collude(by thanking) in doing such. I resent being defamed in such a way, and on top of that being blamed for it. The poster was given free reign to attack my character, call me a liar and accuse me of defending an attempted bombing.

I rarely get "worked up" over stuff on the internet, but really this is too much. How is this allowed?

RDM_83 again

I would like to point out that I reported post #26, much earlier today (1-2pm) as it was going to take yet another NI thread of topic. At the very least mods should have removed both post #24 (Wolfe Tones map post) and post #26 if there was a problem with the posts.

K-9

I can see WT's point, after all the location was mentioned in the OP.

To me linking the rise of MacLochlainn's vote which increased substantially in 07 and was very close to election, and dissident activities is soap boxing. Permabear didn't provide a single piece of evidence to support that and should know better, as a mod, though a different forum.

These bombings would have happened regardless of SF in the South.

Having said that, posters jumping on the bandwagon here wouldn't be as quick to condemn if it was more sympathetic to their political leanings.

The election is over, no need for soap boxing like that.

southsiderosie

When I read the following:

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Here is the layout of the area.... Apparently the bomb was in the carpark. Derrys walls are between the carpark and the sheltered housing.

It was a 110lb bomb, hidden in a beer keg in a stolen vehicle. A warning was phoned in at 6:45 yesterday.

My immediate thought was "Oh, FFS, here we go again..."

Taking the current Derry bombing thread at face value, Permabear's post seemed like a leap in logic. But based on the previous Derry bombing thread,
pointing out that the bomb was 1) behind a wall, 2) small, and 3) phoned in, seemed like a prelude to saying something along the lines of:

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Fact of the matter is, if the dissies wanted to massacre people they could. They would not be planting bombs in the dead of night and phoning in warnings.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Clearly the dissidents in question did not intend to kill anyone, ample warning was given, everyone was evacuated. This lends further weight to my theory that the dissidents have absolutely no aim under any circumstances to either harm or kill innocent civilians. Seemingly the dissidents have embarked on a campaign to gather public support. This attack coupled with the increase in "policing" and the dealing with of drug dealers clearly illustrates that.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I am not justifying them, I have made my position on the dissies clear numerous times.

It is dangerous what they are doing yes, but the aim is not to kill innocents, do you at least see that?

Therefore, based on your posting history, I do not think that Permabear's post was a far fetched presumption to make.

Now the usual response at this point is to get huffy and say that explaining dissident activity is not excusing dissident activity. But again, let us turn back to the first Derry bombing thread:

Einhard wrote: »

Sometimes there's a fine line between understanding and excusing. That's my point. I think labelling the shooting of pizza delivery men as "not black and white" crosses that line somewhat.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yet again you are accusing me of supporting dissident activity?

Nothing is as black and white as it seems is it?

The problem is that, for many people, planting a bomb IS very black and white: regardless of the intention, any time a bomb is set, there is a very real risk that it could go off early or something could go wrong and someone would get injured or killed. The fact that you took the time and energy to highlight specifics of the bombing that would suggest that it presented minimal risk was a strong signal - based on your posting history - that we were again going to be presented with an argument over intent - an argument that many people, including myself, have absolutely no time for.

A Dub in Glasgo

Appalling moderating

A Dub in Glasgo

southsiderosie wrote: »

The problem is that, for many people, planting a bomb IS very black and white: regardless of the intention, any time a bomb is set, there is a very real risk that it could go off early or something could go wrong and someone would get injured or killed. The fact that you took the time and energy to highlight specifics of the bombing that would suggest that it presented minimal risk was a strong signal - based on your posting history - that we were again going to be presented with an argument over intent - an argument that many people, including myself, have absolutely no time for.

Looks like pointing out some facts does not sit nicely with some people then

southsiderosie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Looks like pointing out some facts does not sit nicely with some people then

Yes, you are right. Trying to emphasize that there is "minimal risk" when there is a bomb involved, especially given how many bombs went off unexpectedly during the Troubles, is nonsensical. You cannot claim, as was done in the previous Derry thread, that dissidents don't want to hurt civilians given the risks involved in transporting explosives through residential and commercial areas. Driving a bomb past a nursing home, a church, and god knows how many other buildings presents a clear risk of injury or death to anyone within close proximity of the vehicle. But unfortunately that sad fact is one that is always minimized or explained away in these kinds of threads, and WT is always in the thick of those arguments. Therefore I do not think he has bought himself any benefit of the doubt as far as the latest dissident bombing thread is concerned.

FlutterinBantam

This is a 'Feedback' thread, not a thread which transfers the discussion on to another Forum.

My feedback is that the Mods were perfectly right.

RDM_83 again

Whats the story with mods being involved in threads they lock? Eliot Rosewater thanks post #26

which at the very least is only at the ad hominem level of this guide from the forum.



Though a quick look over the politics forum/Rosewaters thanked/thanks posts in relation to Permabear shows its not suprising.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Yitzhak Rabin

I'd just state from the outset that I hate the IRA, in all its forms from PIRA to CIRA to RIRA, and I have said in the past that I think the 1916 rebels were terrorists. I also despise SF.

With that said, I do think there was a bias at play in that thread. I read it after the lock, however, I feel like Permabear was allowed to make wild assertions about the rise of Sinn Féin in Donegal was in some way connected to the planting of a bomb by a group who are essentially enemies of SF, and who SF actively encourages its members to cooperate with the PSNI to stop them.

I'm not from Derry, haven't a clue of the locality, so all I got from the news reports was that the bomb was planted in a carpark near the courthouse and sheltered housing. I didn't know did near mean 10m or 300m and I found the aerial photo that Wolfe Tone posted quite useful.

Basically, I think that moderators should look at what people say and base their decisions on that, rather than basing their decisions on what they think the poster might have secretly meant. I also think it is unacceptable that people can accuse Wolfe Tone of excusing or even supporting dissident republicans, when he has said in the most black and white way that he doesn't. Accusing someone of supporting terrorists is a serious and insulting accusation.

twinQuins

I think what Eliot was really saying was that you have a part to play in these accusations being made against you - and you do. People know your politics so when you make posts like that you're going to get the kinds of comments you did.

It happens every time and the fact that you continue to do so while complaining is rather baffling. Yes, those posters shouldn't be making the assumption that you're defending those actions but if you know a particular point is going to rile people up like that don't you have to take at least some responsibility?

I'm not placing a value judgement on what you've said as I've little time for NI politics, I just think you should be more careful about what you say and how you say it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

yekahS wrote: »

Basically, I think that moderators should look at what people say and base their decisions on that, rather than basing their decisions on what they think the poster might have secretly meant.

Very good point Y. Too often they don't. Perceptions attached to the username can run strong. I've made that mistake myself TBH.

Yitzhak Rabin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In this case I think that the thread was derailed and action was taken because it was Wolfe Tone that posted an aerial photo and information of the bomb site.

I have no doubt if I had posted it, no one would have accused me of supporting the action. I think that there is bias shown against SF supporters, in that it is fair game for people to write all supporter of Republicanism as advocates of violence, even if they say in the clearest way possible that they do not.

Calling someone a supporter of fascism because they support Fine Gael and one of the groups in its past was fascist is not on, in the same way as assuming someone is excusing dissidents because they are republican is not on either. Particularly when they say they do not ad naseum.

nesf

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats the story with mods being involved in threads they lock? Eliot Rosewater thanks post #26

which at the very least is only at the ad hominem level of this guide from the forum.



Though a quick look over the politics forum/Rosewaters thanked/thanks posts in relation to Permabear shows its not suprising.

Post 26 isn't Ad Hominem ffs. At worst you can call it misrepresentation of a poster's intention in their post. However, it is perfectly reasonable to read WT's post as a defense of the placement of the bomb, if not the planting of the bomb, so if he did not want this interpretation from happening he should have made it very clear in his post that he wasn't doing this. Otherwise he's leaving himself open to accusations of the same in the thread. His intention was not clear from the post to a neutral reader. That is the key problem here because any defense of anything to do with a bombing needs to be extremely carefully worded if one does not want to be seen to be on the side of the bombers!

These threads are absolute minefields, posters should have more than enough cop on to make sure what they're posting can't be misinterpreted when they're posting about dissidents or other emotive groups.

K-9

yekahS wrote: »

I'd just state from the outset that I hate the IRA, in all its forms from PIRA to CIRA to RIRA, and I have said in the past that I think the 1916 rebels were terrorists. I also despise SF.

With that said, I do think there was a bias at play in that thread. I read it after the lock, however, I feel like Permabear was allowed to make wild assertions about the rise of Sinn Féin in Donegal was in some way connected to the planting of a bomb by a group who are essentially enemies of SF, and who SF actively encourages its members to cooperate with the PSNI to stop them.

That thread was only going to go one way, the way the OP was worded.

I'd wonder if a new poster would have been granted the same leniency?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes I have said that, and it is a logical conclusion. I posted up the picture so people could get an idea of the geo of the area and where the bomb was. I mentioned the Walls because they are a landmark, and you cant see them from the aerial picture. I also mentioned some relevant facts, such as a warning was phoned in, and that it was a 110lb bomb in a keg in a stolen car.

Wolfe Tone loudly protests that he repudiates terrorism, while still taking pains to depict republican dissidents as somehow responsible, caring terrorists who really don't want to hurt any "innocent civilians." However, his very phrasing suggests that there are people who are not innocent and/or not civilians whom these dissidents might legitimately target.

Could have sworn most peoples definition of "innocent civilians" or indeed "civilians" would be average Joes going about their lives, and not the PSNI or the British Army. So you are accusing me of wanting PSNI men dead? How dare you. You are accusing me of saying that the BA are legitimate targets in this day and age? How the fcuk are you allowed to come out with this rubbish?

Wolfe Tone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I explained why I posted the pic and made the comments. You proceeded on regardless calling me a liar telling me why I had posted the picture. You didn't make criticism, you made a series of hugely insulting and dangerous accusations in the face of correction.

Wolfe Tone

nesf wrote: »

Post 26 isn't Ad Hominem ffs. At worst you can call it misrepresentation of a poster's intention in their post. However, it is perfectly reasonable to read WT's post as a defense of the placement of the bomb, if not the planting of the bomb, so if he did not want this interpretation from happening he should have made it very clear in his post that he wasn't doing this. Otherwise he's leaving himself open to accusations of the same in the thread. His intention was not clear from the post to a neutral reader. That is the key problem here because any defense of anything to do with a bombing needs to be extremely carefully worded if one does not want to be seen to be on the side of the bombers!

These threads are absolute minefields, posters should have more than enough cop on to make sure what they're posting can't be misinterpreted when they're posting about dissidents or other emotive groups.

Even in the face of correction then? You are happy with such insulting defaming comments being made in your forum?

Wolfe Tone

yekahS wrote: »

I'd just state from the outset that I hate the IRA, in all its forms from PIRA to CIRA to RIRA, and I have said in the past that I think the 1916 rebels were terrorists. I also despise SF.

With that said, I do think there was a bias at play in that thread. I read it after the lock, however, I feel like Permabear was allowed to make wild assertions about the rise of Sinn Féin in Donegal was in some way connected to the planting of a bomb by a group who are essentially enemies of SF, and who SF actively encourages its members to cooperate with the PSNI to stop them.

I'm not from Derry, haven't a clue of the locality, so all I got from the news reports was that the bomb was planted in a carpark near the courthouse and sheltered housing. I didn't know did near mean 10m or 300m and I found the aerial photo that Wolfe Tone posted quite useful.

Basically, I think that moderators should look at what people say and base their decisions on that, rather than basing their decisions on what they think the poster might have secretly meant. I also think it is unacceptable that people can accuse Wolfe Tone of excusing or even supporting dissident republicans, when he has said in the most black and white way that he doesn't. Accusing someone of supporting terrorists is a serious and insulting accusation.

Thats exactly why I posted it. I had no idea of the locality so I checked out the area on google maps. I figured others would appreciate me sharing.

RDM_83 again

NESF so your saying that if a certain poster simply states the facts of a case, and there is literally only facts in WT's post, its ok to presume they're condoning criminal actions,. To my mind thats a clear case of "attacking the characteristics or authority of the writer" to my mind labelling somebody a supporter of those dissident idiots isn't something that should be bandied about

Yitzhak Rabin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But that wasn't what happened in this thread. WT pointed out where the bomb went off, and what kind of impact it could of had. It was then you who ascribed the notion that he was defending or at least mitigating the bombing. This is what I see as the problem. People know Mussolini is an ardent republican, and therefore take what he says and construct a strawman saying he excuses dissident terrorist attacks. Even when he says "I don't support the dissidents, I never have" thats not enough, and people continue to put words in his mouth and basically say 'you mightn't say it, but I know thats what you really think'

Wolfe Tone loudly protests that he repudiates terrorism, while still taking pains to depict republican dissidents as somehow responsible, caring terrorists who really don't want to hurt any "innocent civilians." However, his very phrasing suggests that there are people who are not innocent and/or not civilians whom these dissidents might legitimately target.

To my mind, claims such as "they weren't trying to hurt innocent civilians" doesn't actually mitigate the gross repugnancy of their actions in the slightest—the fact that they were trying to hurt anyone at all is the problem here.

How do you interpret such statements, as a matter of interest?

My thoughts on it are very similar to yours. I think that the dissidents are scum of the earth. Absolutely lowest of the low. They also have a different definition for innocent civilians to me. They don't view policemen, soldiers, or colluders like Polish pizzaboys as innocent civilians.

I also think the very act of planting a bomb is criminal and morally repugnant. But I am not so blind as to deny that a relatively small bomb in a carpark with a warning is not an act where loss of life is the main aim. Still thuggish though...

Frankly, I think you are greatly mistaken about the tenor of the Politics forum. There are so many pro–Sinn Féin posters in the Politics forum, and so many pro–Sinn Féin threads, that I have on occasion joked that it should be renamed the Sinn Féin forum. Republican posters are given as much free rein as anyone else, as long as they stay within the scope of the charter. But that doesn't give them a free pass from deserved scrutiny and criticism from others, as long as those others also stay within the forum charter.

Fair enough, I'll take that point.

I do still think that people are quick to make assumptions about users beliefs despite what they say. People automatically assume that SF supporters deep down support dissidents, even when they say they don't.

What if someone claimed that "fascists had absolutely no aim under any circumstances to either harm or kill innocent civilians." Could that person legitimately be accused of excusing fascism?

Yep, but on the thread in question, it would be more a case of someone posting a picture of Auswitcz, and pointing out the gas chambers, the soldiers guardroom and the prisoner exercise yard. Then someone else coming along and saying "So you think that because they had an exercise yard that they treated the prisoners well? You're excusing what the Nazis did!" Sorry about the Godwin

Yitzhak Rabin

I'm not sure if a solution like this would work in politics, but it has worked well for us in CT.

Basically, we had a big problem whereby people would accuse other people of being anti-semites and it would end up in pages and pages of arguing over whether or not someone is an anti-semite or not. It was not constructive to debate, stifled discussion and every Israel related thread ended up being a minefield in a similar way to the NI threads in politics.

The solution we came up with was to add this to the charter:

The very nature of a conspiracy theory means that it will be unpalatable to some. Individuals, Corporations, Interest Groups, and collectives of all sorts will inevitably be suspected (and accused) of involvement in any manner of activities.

This is not a license for anyone to ignore site-wide guidelines or the rest of this charter.

If you feel that a post (or poster) is doing so, then report the post and do not respond to it.

This meant that people could not ascribe beliefs to others that they did not express themselves. It means that if someone posts something anti-semitic it is reported and the mods deal with it, rather than a big long off topic back-and-forth about whether or not what the person said is anti-semitic.

In politics it would mean, that if someone posts something in defence of terrorism, users must report it and not respond to it. The mods can then take action. If that means simply getting the user to clarify what they mean, or in clear circumstances ban/infract. It stops the b1tching which ruins threads about controversial topics.

danbohan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Republican posters are given as much free rein as anyone else,

what proof have you for that statement . it would be interesting to see how the banned lists stack up , mods like elliot rosewater are only looking for any opportunity to ban republican posters . this is the real weakness of boards .

Bottle_of_Smoke

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well that would be a lie. I'm probably of the same opinion as Wolfe Tone on dissident republicans.

To be clear that means I think they are reckless, unsupported and their actions are wrong.

To call a spade a spade, I would agree they are not targeting civillians. That however is not in any sense a defence of them.

Think about it, not targeting civillians is not the sign of a righteous organisation. It is something that should be taken for granted because no reasonable person would target a civillian.

Their actions are of course putting civilians in danger. Thats why it galls me when you hear some muppet defending the Real IRA for the Omagh bombing saying it was set up by the British.

If that were true the Real IRA would still be responsible because they're the ones who left 1000lbs of semex and fertiliser in a market town. They should have known the British intelligence can't be trusted to put civillian safety ahead of political propoganda and the risk was there. Though of course said muppet never looks at it that way.

That is why saying they don't target civilians is not defending them.

Eliot Rosewater

I thanked Permabear's post in my capacity as a regular user of the Politics forum.

Here's why. The thread set up wasn't about the event per se. Permabear didn't say "this is terrible, what do you think?" He was making a general point about the rise in extreme republicanism: "We are regressing politically, not progressing." And most of the responses up to Wolfe Tone's post addressed the general point, not the specific bombing.

When I saw the post I could see no reason why it was posted, other than, as Permabear and nesf have said, to defend the placement of the bomb, though not the planting of it. This thread was not about the actual bombing as an event. No posts up to that mentioned the details of the bombing, or queried specifics. It was all general.

The wording of Wolfe Tone's post played right into this: "Derrys walls are between the carpark and the sheltered housing." I don't see any reason why you would say this. And I don't find the geography argument particularity convincing, as the specifics of the bomb were unmentioned up to that point.

Now, as I said in the mod message, regardless of the intention it should have been obvious to Wolfe Tone that this post was going to be taken up like that. Especially with Wolfe Tone's "history", as quoted by southsiderosie. You've obviously a right to request mod intervention, but you can't hide behind that. You have to take personal responsibility too, for how other posters will see you, and how your posts will shape the discussion.

Eliot Rosewater

As regards the bias argument, I'm comfortable enough with myself to appreciate that I may be biased subconsciously - but I sure as hell try my best to be even and fair. I co-mod Politics with six others, and I always endeavour to act in a way that they'd approve.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is acceptable to respond to an individual based on my own perception of said individual and their post history. I always thought it was only acceptable to respond to the posts people make in the thread in question. I had not realised it is acceptable to post based on perceptions and post history!

Edit: It would appear that it is unacceptable to post specific details about an incident if the original poster does not ask for it

RDM_83 again

I reported post #26 at maybe 1 or 2 and referenced post #24 in my reasons why I reported the post, why then did moderatorship action take so long and only occur after you as a user approved of post #24. I;m sorry but this stinks