Derry Bombing thread

Wolfe Tone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Okay, this is going to get nowhere if either side just repeatedly sounds off about the responsibilities of the others, without taking any responsibility themselves.

Permabear and Soldie shouldn't have persisted with the accusation after Wolfe Tone had denied it, and should ensure such a thing doesn't happen again.

Wolfe Tone should admit that his posts often generate misunderstandings, and should take appropriate steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Fair enough I have no problems with that.

However I would like the closing post edited so as to reflect that the moderators accept that I don't support dissident republicans and that PBs accusations where and are incorrect. Mainly for the benefit of outsiders looking in.

yekahS

yekahS wrote: »

I think you misread my post. I said I can see how...

I did,my edit clashed with your post.

wolftone wrote:

But some of their political wings intend to run people in elections.... Surely talk about dissident republicans would be necessitated in threads about that?

political wing my arse.Their ideas are stuck in the dim and distant past,Ireland has moved on long ago.
politics and bombs are mutually exclusive in a democracy.
You've just sadly given another example of your desire to publicise these criminals.
Thats caused a lot of bother so far.
Please move on.
The only discussion they merit is how to lock them up.

Wolfe Tone

Deleted User wrote: »

I did,my edit clashed with your post.

political wing my arse.
politics and bombs are mutually exclusive in a democracy.
You've just sadly given another example of your desire to publicise these criminals.
Thats caused a lot of bother so far.
Please move on.
The only discussion they merit is how to lock them up.

There are a number of groups who are considered the "political wings" of these groups. Now if someone starts a thread on them surely dissident activities would be relevant?

Personally I would(and do on other sites) take great pleasure in telling their supporters that they are full of sh!te. The concern I have is that you are advocating either a ban on discussing certain political parties or saying that the dissident campaign cant be used as a stick to beat them with.

They are not political parties,not real ones,thats my point so don't deserve discussion on a politics forum.
They are apoligists for terror.
Thats not politics.

You don't seem to understand that and you seem to have ample other areas on the internet to discuss them away from a serious politics forum like the boards one.

Wolfe Tone

Deleted User wrote: »

They are not political parties,not real ones,thats my point so don't deserve discussion on a politics forum.
They are apoligists for terror.
Thats not politics.

You don't seem to understand that and you seem to have ample other areas on the internet to discuss them away from a serious politics forum like the boards one.

Sure you could say the same about SF....


I personally feel that it is worthy of discussion on the politics forum(although as I have said many times I believe a separate NI forum would be best)

Although this is all OT, if you want to start a separate thread on it we can talk about it there.

No you can't as SF have chosen politics not the gun.
They were pariah's and rightly so when they wanted both.
Both don't go together.
It's either one or the other.

southsiderosie

Deleted User wrote: »

They are not political parties,not real ones,thats my point so don't deserve discussion on a politics forum.
They are apoligists for terror.
Thats not politics.

You don't seem to understand that and you seem to have ample other areas on the internet to discuss them away from a serious politics forum like the boards one.

I don't see why you wouldn't have a serious political discussion involving groups that have grievances with the state? That seems like an inherently political question. These groups may be undemocratic, but they are not apolitical.

I can see the practical problem with this, as these kinds of discussions often include about 80% propaganda. And I'm not confident that those who want to have these discussions are capable of doing so without demonizing anyone who disagrees with them (and that is on both sides). But those are logistical concerns, not theoretical ones.

Finally, I'm not so sure about the serious nature of the politics forum these days, but that is a topic for another thread.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Theres merit in what you are saying.
But do you not accept that theres two of you in it here.
You started the thread and you must have known WT was going to post in it in the way that he does.
Why bother?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

He shouldn't.
But you could consider giving it a rest,even for the moderators sake for a while,as should he.
It's been done to dust.

Yitzhak Rabin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think you'll agree the mods of politics are reasonable people. As I understand it condoning or excusing terrorism is against the charter. So just report any "ambiguous, equivocal, and morally dubious" posts and let the mods deal with it, and then the thread can continue without the "yes you did/no I didn't" and a reasonable discussion can be had.

A Dub in Glasgo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually permabear, you used your own prejudices and previous dealings with WT to inform your behaviour in that thread.

What was posted was a set of facts which may or may not be picked up by someone that the poster supports the bombing. However, once clarified by WT, you continued with your assertion that WT supported the bombing.

Wolfe Tone

PB do you accept that I in no way support dissident republicans, their methods, or their political wings?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

Soldie and I were simply cross-examining Wolfe Tone about why he was highlighting the wall between the bomb and the assisted living facility—something that would not have been particularly out of the norm on any other kind of thread.

Sure I explained why I posted it.

danbohan

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Sure I explained why I posted it.

As such, the very presence of Wolfe Tone serves to stifle certain lines of debate


this is really bottom line you know , permabear would much prefer discussions where everybody agrees with him , its a deity thing

Yitzhak Rabin

danbohan wrote: »

As such, the very presence of Wolfe Tone serves to stifle certain lines of debate


this is really bottom line you know , permabear would much prefer discussions where everybody agrees with him , its a deity thing

You know given this discussion about how people can ascribe beliefs onto people that they didn't themselves express, and how people can twist what other people say and make it mean what they want it to mean, this comment is pretty ironic.

FlutterinBantam

danbohan wrote: »

As such, the very presence of Wolfe Tone serves to stifle certain lines of debate


this is really bottom line you know , permabear would much prefer discussions where everybody agrees with him , its a deity thing

The presence of Wolf tone stifles nothing buddy.

Don't get ahead of yourself.

Wolfe Tone

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

The presence of Wolf tone stifles nothing buddy.

Don't get ahead of yourself.

Glad to see you disagree with PB on that count.

danbohan

yekahS wrote: »

You know given this discussion about how people can ascribe beliefs onto people that they didn't themselves express, and how people can twist what other people say and make it mean what they want it to mean, this comment is pretty ironic.

really , i guess we have a different understanding of what pb meant then, dont we ?

danbohan

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

The presence of Wolf tone stifles nothing buddy.

Don't get ahead of yourself.

fully agree with you for once .

Eliot Rosewater

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I appreciate what you're saying. The main problem is balancing posters' right to criticise others (including other posters' motives) with the general desire to avoid personalisations. I don't think one should be forced to accept rationales given by other posters, but I don't see the kind of consistent questioning directed at Wolfe Tone as desirable, either. The middle-ground might be to voice your concern about a particular poster's motive, but not drag it out. If the poster responds "that was not my motive" say "I disagree, but let's leave it a that."

That's not to be read as an exclusive answer, by the way: it's a very grey issue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

An accusation which a reasonable person might well take to mean and imply that he supported the bombing, as it essentially labels him an apologist.

A Dub in Glasgo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

People who agree with permabear on this = level headed & neutral
People who disagree with permabear on this = a republican cohort who make things up

The language you use gives it away

danbohan

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

People who agree with permabear on this = level headed & neutral
People who disagree with permabear on this = a republican cohort who make things up

The language you use gives it away

you know i am not very educated but i struggle through ,and everday i learn something new . now the term libertarian was new to me and i had look it up but most the answers in wikipedia etc were bit vague or long winded but i finally understand it now . it is one who is ''right'' in all things ,does not tolerate alternative viewpoints , and will spend hours trying to justify how ''right'' they were in the first place . strange i would have thought that was nazism but maybe its just me .

Yawn

What time is it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.