Derry Bombing thread

southsiderosie

yekahS wrote: »

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.

The Politics forum is a place where most regulars are familiar with other regulars' posting styles and political positions on certain issues. Most people know, based on the OP, who is going to get involved in a thread, and what they are going to say based on the issue at hand. So I do think assumptions are made when certain posters insinuate certain things, and those assumptions are usually based on a certain posting history. If Keith AFC said something nice about Gerry Adams or Liam Byrne voiced support for Fianna Fail, the world would tip off of its axis a little bit.

I would agree that some people are always going to write off SF supporters as supporters of violence, based on the party's recent history and leadership. But you know what? That is the nature of politics. There are some people who are going to think you are a moron for voting Fianna Fail or Green. There are some people who are going to think you are a greedy baby-eating monster for being Libertarian (and many of these people will be republicans). There are some people who are going to think you are a communist for being a Democrat. As long as things do not get personal, I fail to see why SF supporters should be treated with kid gloves when supporters of other parties are not. And because there are very few vocal FF supporters these days, and it seems like every fourth thread involves republicanism, yes, there are going to be more negative posts about SF - in part because SF supporters are also some of the most prolific posters on this website.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Yitzhak Rabin

southsiderosie wrote: »

The Politics forum is a place where most regulars are familiar with other regulars' posting styles and political positions on certain issues. Most people know, based on the OP, who is going to get involved in a thread, and what they are going to say based on the issue at hand. So I do think assumptions are made when certain posters insinuate certain things, and those assumptions are usually based on a certain posting history. If Keith AFC said something nice about Gerry Adams or Liam Byrne voiced support for Fianna Fail, the world would tip off of its axis a little bit.

I would agree that some people are always going to write off SF supporters as supporters of violence, based on the party's recent history and leadership. But you know what? That is the nature of politics. There are some people who are going to think you are a moron for voting Fianna Fail or Green. There are some people who are going to think you are a greedy baby-eating monster for being Libertarian (and many of these people will be republicans). There are some people who are going to think you are a communist for being a Democrat. As long as things do not get personal, I fail to see why SF supporters should be treated with kid gloves when supporters of other parties are not.

There is a bit of a difference though. Assuming someone is blinded by environmental fundamentalism because they support the greens, or is obsessed with personal wealth and doesn't care about fellow citizens because they are a libertarian is not nearly as insulting as assuming they endorse/condone murder because they are a republican.

But my main issue is when someone clarifies that they don't condone/excuse terrorism, they are simply brushed aside, and essentially given a ":rolleyes:, sure ya do...". Its a nasty insinuation, and in my opinion definitely shouldn't be allowed after someone clarifies that that is not their opinion.

And because there are very few vocal FF supporters these days, and it seems like every fourth thread involves republicanism, yes, there are going to be more negative posts about SF - in part because SF supporters are also some of the most prolific posters on this website.

Oh I'm not advocating that people don't criticise SF. I'll be there criticising their ridiculous economic policies, the fact that they have a terrorist as party leader, and alleged murderers in their ranks along with most other people. However I won't make unsupported nasty accusations against the people defending them. Particularly if they make it clear that they don't support dissidents.

nesf

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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

I'm saying someone has to be very careful when presenting the facts to make it clear that they are just doing that and not justifying anything. Especially so if you've a history on the forum of arguing in favour of the PIRA or similar.

The issue is that when it comes down to terrorist actions it's very hard to not sound like you're justifying them if you lay down facts showing how they tried to minimise causalities.

Wolfe Tone

But I explained why I mentioned the wall. You cant see the wall in the picture. In hindsight I should have just labelled it in the picture itself. There seems to be a horrible aversion to facts. I myself was boggled that the bomb was so far away from the courthouse for one when it was supposed to be targeting it.


I think it is obvious now at this stage that it was not my intent to defend this bombing in any way. In light of that I would like an apology from the poster for accusing me of defending the bombing even when I explained why I posted the picture. He misinterpreted my post and insisted on continuing to do so despite me explaining why I posted it. It is clear he did this to further his claim in the OP that all republicans, SF or otherwise support attacks like this.

Long and ever before the current mod team of politics existed,it was policy not to allow even a hint of advocacy for either the IRA's campaign or the disidents that came after them or any violence for that matter.

Thats as clear as day,It was the policy I persued when modding politics here and is still the policy and rightly so.

WT was wrong to go to lengths explaining, giving the impression that the bomb was safely positioned to give a message.
No bomb is safely positioned,least of all an improvised one.

The forum is about politics.

The dissidents don't even believe in politics like most of the population do.
They have a warped life's view,most people would agree.

The thread therefore should even have been locked earlier in my view,never mind run the risk of someone posting things in it that can be construed as violence advocacy.

Lesson learned or taken by everybody hopefully.

Wolfe Tone

Its political violence which would fall under the remit of the politics forum I would have thought.

Violence is not inside the word politics,it has to be added to it.
The dissidents are not politicians.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Long and ever before the current mod team of politics existed,it was policy not to allow even a hint of advocacy for either the IRA's campaign or the disidents that came after them or any violence for that matter.

Thats as clear as day,It was the policy I persued when modding politics here and is still the policy and rightly so.

WT was wrong to go to lengths explaining, giving the impression that the bomb was safely positioned to give a message.
No bomb is safely positioned,least of all an improvised one.

The forum is about politics.

The dissidents don't even believe in politics like most of the population do.
They have a warped life's view,most people would agree.

The thread therefore should even have been locked earlier in my view,never mind run the risk of someone posting things in it that can be construed as violence advocacy.

Lesson learned or taken by everybody hopefully.

It was a bizarre thread from the start, linking SF TD's getting elected in Donegal, to a RIRA or whoever it was bomb in Derry!

southsiderosie

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

But I explained why I mentioned the wall. You cant see the wall in the picture. In hindsight I should have just labelled it in the picture itself. There seems to be a horrible aversion to facts. I myself was boggled that the bomb was so far away from the courthouse for one when it was supposed to be targeting it.

Do you not understand why based on the "facts" you have presented in other threads on dissident activity why some of us would see your comments on the bomb placement as a prelude to comments about the intent of the dissidents? And why people find this distasteful?

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think it is obvious now at this stage that it was not my intent to defend this bombing in any way. In light of that I would like an apology from the poster for accusing me of defending the bombing even when I explained why I posted the picture. He misinterpreted my post and insisted on continuing to do so despite me explaining why I posted it. It is clear he did this to further his claim in the OP that all republicans, SF or otherwise support attacks like this.

I am not up on Derry/Donegal politics, so I didn't feel like I was in a position to comment on the original claims by the OP, claims which were rebuffed by several posters in a very even keel way.

But this is not the first time that issues have been raised with your posting style. At what point do you think it makes sense to take a close look at what you are saying and how you say it? Because if your posts are constantly being 'misunderstood', particularly by those who are not strongly anti-SF, perhaps the problem lies with you and not with other people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, as it's feedback, it was a pointless thread that adds nothing to the forum, other than the usual sniping. This was brought up on here before, a couple of months ago and I think leeway was given because of the election and sheer numbers of posters.

As southsiderosie said though, your OP was answered well in an even keel way, that constituency has always had a high Republican vote even when SF barely registered as a vote there.

You did mention the bomb in your OP, WT posted the pics, probably about as much relevance as SF to the bomb!

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

Well, as it's feedback, it was a pointless thread that adds nothing to the forum, other than the usual sniping. This was brought up on here before, a couple of months ago and I think leeway was given because of the election and sheer numbers of posters.

As southsiderosie said though, your OP was answered well in an even keel way, that constituency has always had a high Republican vote even when SF barely registered as a vote there.

You did mention the bomb in your OP, WT posted the pics, probably about as much relevance as SF to the bomb!

Not only that he had an article with details of the bombing, I thought further detail on the attempted attack would be appreciated.

danbohan

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do you not understand why based on the "facts" you have presented in other threads on dissident activity why some of us would see your comments on the bomb placement as a prelude to comments about the intent of the dissidents? And why people find this distasteful?



I am not up on Derry/Donegal politics, so I didn't feel like I was in a position to comment on the original claims by the OP, claims which were rebuffed by several posters in a very even keel way.

But this is not the first time that issues have been raised with your posting style. At what point do you think it makes sense to take a close look at what you are saying and how you say it? Because if your posts are constantly being 'misunderstood', particularly by those who are not strongly anti-SF, perhaps the problem lies with you and not with other people.

raised with your posting style



it seems certain posters would have a problem with irish nationalist/sinn fein posts no matter what style of posting was used . they would like a boards free from all forms of dissension to their opinion and will use any opportunity to attack sinn fein or their supporters even if it means driving posts totally off topic , allowable to certain members it would appear

FlutterinBantam

Deleted User wrote: »

Long and ever before the current mod team of politics existed,it was policy not to allow even a hint of advocacy for either the IRA's campaign or the disidents that came after them or any violence for that matter.

Thats as clear as day,It was the policy I persued when modding politics here and is still the policy and rightly so.

WT was wrong to go to lengths explaining, giving the impression that the bomb was safely positioned to give a message.
No bomb is safely positioned,least of all an improvised one.

The forum is about politics.

The dissidents don't even believe in politics like most of the population do.
They have a warped life's view,most people would agree.

The thread therefore should even have been locked earlier in my view,never mind run the risk of someone posting things in it that can be construed as violence advocacy.

Lesson learned or taken by everybody hopefully.

Well put.

As usual the apologists, and I am not imputing anyone who posted, will have one dancing on the head of pin to drill down the pedantic nuances of what was actually said or implied or insinuated.

The whole idea of course is to sanitise the butchery these dissidents purport to conduct,and put a 'gloss' on acts of terrorism, for which there can be no justification.

Only the immature and keyboard warriors can defend that.

RDM_83 again

nesf wrote: »

I'm saying someone has to be very careful when presenting the facts to make it clear that they are just doing that and not justifying anything. Especially so if you've a history on the forum of arguing in favour of the PIRA or similar.

The issue is that when it comes down to terrorist actions it's very hard to not sound like you're justifying them if you lay down facts showing how they tried to minimise causalities.

He never stated that they were trying to minimise causalities?what I took from the map was the locations that were mentioned in the OP were not likely to be at risk.
Anybody in the carpark and surrounding area was at high risk courthouse employees,people in the verbal arts centre, shoppers, people going to wetherspoons, nothing in the posts indicated that WT was trying to minimise the potential dangers to these equally worthy people (though maybe not as media friendly for soundbytes for some reason).


The issue with moderation has been still not been addressed either, if there was such a problem with the posts why were they not removed much earlier (and before the mod that locks the thread can thank one side of the argument)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

danbohan wrote: »

it seems certain posters would have a problem with irish nationalist/sinn fein posts no matter what style of posting was used . they would like a boards free from all forms of dissension to their opinion and will use any opportunity to attack sinn fein or their supporters even if it means driving posts totally off topic , allowable to certain members it would appear

I would agree that some have a problem with nationalist, and in particular, Sinn Fein posts no matter what. This is also true of Fianna Fail, but the response to SF tends to be much more emotive because of their past ties to the PIRA and their current leadership. I don't think this has to lead to thread derailment, but nor do I think that SF supporters should get a free ride - nobody else does.

Also, in terms of not brokering dissent, I think this is a significant problem from some of the republican posters on boards. References to people being closet unionists, self-hating Irish, or West Brits abound, and are tiresome. You yourself made these kind of comments on the thread in question. To be fair, other republican posters noted that this kind of stuff is unproductive, but it does have a "tuning out" effect on people and discourages legitimate debate and dissent.

Ultimately, almost every thread on republicanism, Sinn Fein, or dissidents descends into the same 6-8 people thanking and/or sniping at each other. Which is exactly why they get tiresome quickly: everyone else bows out.

Wolfe Tone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear are you going to acknowledge now that in no way I defended the dissidents or the bombing? And apologize for accusing me of doing so?

Or are you going to call me a liar and persist in accusing me of trying to defend the attack, and the groups responsible?

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Threads taking cheap shots at SF are relevant. There's a couple of posters who do that just to wind up Republicans and SF posters.

I think Southsiderosie put it well at the end, WT walked into it, the it being your thread.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I explained why I posted it.


So you reject that explanation and are indeed calling me a liar and maintain that I am defending the attack and its perpetrators?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

This reminds me of the carry on with another boards user posting stuff off boards and linking to it to get around rules. It was said at the time; one rule for some, another rule for others.

Eliot Rosewater

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The issue with moderation has been still not been addressed either, if there was such a problem with the posts why were they not removed much earlier (and before the mod that locks the thread can thank one side of the argument)

I believe I thanked the post very soon after it was posted (about an hour afterwards). Could you explain to me what was wrong with my thanking it?

And could you also explain what you would have me do, at 11 o'clock, when I locked the thread? On this thread you've both complained about me locking it, and the long time it took to lock it. If I hadn't locked it it would have taken even longer.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I explained why I posted it.

Do you still maintain there is nothing wrong with your post, that any misunderstandings are the fault of others, and that comments like "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" are never going to be interpreted as justifications?

AckwelFoley

There is nothing symbolic about a bomb placed in an urban environment.

Wolfe Tone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Do you still maintain there is nothing wrong with your post, that any misunderstandings are the fault of others, and that comments like "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" are never going to be interpreted as justifications?

There was nothing wrong with my post. It was intended, and many posters picked it up as such, to provide extra detail on the attempted attack. Obviously this was an attack. The thread was entitled "Substantial bomb in Derry". There was detail in the OP about the attack. I merely provided more facts, thats all. I gave no opinion in that post whatsoever, all I did was give extra detail.


As for your second point I think Bottle of Smoke covered that perfectly...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71413647&postcount=27


I explained why I posted the picture. PB called me a liar and insisted in telling me why I posted what I did. In fact EVEN NOW he still maintains I defend/support dissident actions and groups. That is hugely insulting, not to mention defaming.

Eliot Rosewater

And you don't see any problem with people misinterpreting them? It's all their fault and none of yours?

Wolfe Tone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

And you don't see any problem with people misinterpreting them? It's all their fault and none of yours?

I believe that PBs bias led him to that conclusion. The major problem is that even after I told him why I posted what I did he refused to accept that, he then exercised his psychic mind reading power and came to the conclusion that my explanation was a lie.

Eliot Rosewater

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I believe that PBs bias led him to that conclusion.

And southsiderosie? And nesf? ("His intention was not clear from the post to a neutral reader")? Are they only seeing a problem because they're so biased too?