Derry Bombing thread

danbohan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

not at all permabear , desperation is when you get somebody at midnight posting all of the below to justify himself , sad really



Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliot Rosewater
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.
I understand, Eliot, and thank you.

However, if you review the thread which form the subject of this Feedback thread, you essentially find that this is how it unfolds after Wolfe Tone posts the map.

Quote:
Wolfe Tone: Derrys walls are between the carpark and the sheltered housing.
Permabear: And that excuses the planting of the bomb, does it?
Wolfe Tone: Ah not this type of thing again.
The issue would have been dropped there if Wolfe Tone had not picked it up again in a subsequent post. This is the point where he suddenly starts demanding apologies.

Quote:
Wolfe Tone: Still waiting for an apology for you implying I support the attack.
There has been no implication to this point that Wolfe Tone supports the attack. He introduces this idea into the discussion himself.

Quote:
Permabear: Are you saying that you weren't defending the placement of the bomb?
Note the clarification here. I did not say that Wolfe Tone supports the attack, but that his map post strongly suggests that he is defending the placement of the bomb. There is ample opportunity here for Wolfe Tone to acknowledge that that interpretation was possible, and to clarify his position. Instead he chooses merely to dissemble:

Quote:
Wolfe Tone: Lets review this here... I posted a picture of the area, and highlighted the main buildings. I then proceeded to mention other details such as the bomb size, and that yes, the wall separates the car park from the housing(as you can see from the pic it is unclear that the wall is actually there). I posted the pic so that people unfamiliar with the area would appreciate where the bomb was in relation to the other buildings. So no, I was not defending the bombing. Again you imply I support the bombing. Apologize and retract.
Yet again, Wolfe Tone insists that others are implying that he supports the bombing.

Quote:
Permabear: And why does it matter where the bomb was placed in relation to the other buildings? Explain the significance of your map and your commentary, please?
A reasonably legitimate question under the circumstances, I feel.

Quote:
Wolfe Tone: Why would it not matter? I posted a picture so people could be more familiar with the areas geography, so they could have a greater understanding of the attempted bombing. Obviously this is some sort of serious crime. Apologize and retract.
Permabear: Your point was clearly to point out that the retirement home would have been shielded from the blast by the Derry Walls, and thus to defend the would-be bombers from the accusation that they had targeted elderly people. But now you're claiming that you were just giving us a geography lesson.
Wolfe Tone: Ah for gods sake. When I heard about the alert last night/this morning I looked on google maps to get an idea of what we were looking at. I thought others would like to see it too as like me they may be unfamiliar with the area. It also raised the issue that the bomb was actually quite far from the courthouse. Also, seen as it is an aerial photo, it is not clear there is a wall so I mentioned that there was. Now are you going to apologize and retract?
At this stage, Wolfe Tone is arguing not only that the assistant living facility was behind a wall, but that the alleged target, the courthouse was quite far away. And yet we are not allowed to interpret this as rationalizing the placement of the bomb in a way that mitigates criticism leveled at the dissidents?

KeithAFC interjects at this point to show that he doesn't buy Wolfe Tone's explanation, either.

Quote:
KeithAFC: Does it matter? Its hardly miles away. Anything flying from the bomb, can kill people, easily.
Permabear: You are now backtracking and tapdancing around your original rationale for posting this image. [quotes original rationale] You were quite evidently defending the placement of the bomb here. Now you are trying to invent on alternative rationale for posting the image and those comments—such as that we all need a lesson on the geography of Derry.
Wolfe Tone: I have stated why I posted the picture. I mentioned the wall as you cannot really see it in the pic. Apologize for accusing me of defending the bombings. Retract the allegation.
Soldie enters the discussion to say that he doesn't accept Wolfe Tone's dissembling, either.

Quote:
Soldie: Come off it. It's plainly obvious why you were pointing out the wall; I notice you didn't point out all the bushes and trees in the picture. If only one Northern Ireland thread didn't involve a circling of the wagons...
Wolfe Tone: If I supported the bombing I would say it. If I wanted to defend it like I have PIRA actions I straight out would. I dont.
Interestingly, Wolfe Tone acknowledges that he has previously defended the terrorist atrocities of the Provisional IRA.

Quote:
Soldie: (responding to another poster) I'm not saying that he's explicitly supporting the actions of those who planted the bomb but, in pointing out that there is a wall between the car park and the housing settlement, it's clear that he's trying to play it down to some degree. Why else would he point out that the wall is there? Why not the cathedral to the right or the clearing to the left?
deise go deo: Might it be because those are very clear on the map? While the wall is not? I think this has gone beyond a joke, a poster being attacked for posting a picture relevant to the topic.
Yet another poster appreciates that Wolfe Tone's map could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting that the assisted housing facility would be shielded from the blast.

Quote:
karma_: In fairness, I just read it as not pointing out that there was a wall separating it, rather that the actual Derry walls are adjacent to that carpark, which isn't entirely clear from that picture, unless you are from the area or note the ramparts on the lower left edge of the picture. Thankfully, and do not take this as an excuse for those who planted the bomb, but these would have offered substantial protection to the houses there, in fact I had no idea there was sheltered housing situated there. What is far more worrying about these lunatics is the proximity of the diamond to where this bomb was planted, it's as close almost as the sheltered housing and there would have none of the protection of the walls and it is always packed with shoppers and has many shops and pubs. Just goes to show how cheaply these dissidents value life.

(A few more unrelated posts later, Eliot Rosewater locks the thread.)
A few things are worth noting about this exchange.
Wolfe Tone himself deliberately escalates any hostilities that arose here, firstly by reviving an issue that had essentially been dropped, secondly by inventing charges that he imagines are being leveled against him, and thirdly by aggressively and consistently demanding retractions and apologies.
This was not an exchange that involved just Wolfe Tone, Soldie, and me, but several other posters too. KeithAFC also asked Wolfe Tone why it mattered where the bomb was placed in relation to the buildings. Karma_ picked up on the idea that the location of the wall could be interpreted as excusing the placement of the bomb (although he is careful not to follow this logic himself, and is a lot more direct in condemning the placement of the bomb than Wolfe Tone had been, since he notes its proximity to pedestrianised areas).
The accusation that Wolfe Tone was supporting dissidents and/or defending the bombers originated with Wolfe Tone himself, not with me or with Soldie. Soldie actually clarified at one point, "I'm not saying that he's explicitly supporting the actions of those who planted the bomb, but, in pointing out that there is a wall between the car park and the housing settlement, it's clear that he's trying to play it down to some degree."
In summing up, I think the idea of an innocent Wolfe Tone being subjected to a barrage of hostile questioning from two accusatory antagonists is not borne out by the evidence here. While this image has been manufactured and cultivated in this thread by Wolfe Tone himself and his republican cohort, I believe that the evidence above shows reasonably that Wolfe Tone invented the charges that he imagined others were leveling against him, and then proceeded to hotheadedly defend himself against them, aggressively demanding apologies and retractions despite the fact that nobody had actually accused him of anything other than seemingly trying to mitigate criticism of the placement of the bomb. At least 4 other posters had picked up on the latter point.
Last edited by Permabear; Today at 10:02.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

danbohan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

straws and clutching , permabear ? tell us about it your an expert on it . and nobody is branding anybody a nazi unlike you who has branded people as supporters of dissident republicans despite their denials that they are .

K-9

Wolfe Tone: Derrys walls are between the carpark and the sheltered housing.
Permabear: And that excuses the planting of the bomb, does it?

That's where it all started.

He posted the pictures and didn't say much else.

You jumped to the conclusion that he was excusing the bomb and then it went on.

People have pointed out that you should take some responsibility Permabear, I don't get the impression that you are getting that from the tone of your posts.

The thread had more or less been settled and then you came back with more excuses last night.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

By calling me an apologist there is a pretty clear implication that said apologist supports the attacks. Take Black Briars previous post on the political wings of dissident repyblicans, he labels them as apologists.....

I have quite a thick skin, however calling people apologists for dissident republican attacks is a very serious charge.

And re attacking the post... If you had done so and solely focused on the post you would ave accepted it as solely a selection of facts. But you didn't.


I think it is rather pathetic that you won't simply say that this is all a big misunderstanding in which we both have a degree of responsibility in, and accept that I am not a supporter or defender of dissident republican attacks. Then we can all draw a line under it and move on and never let it happen again.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can see why WT didn't see it as a rhetorical question, indeed I can't see why it's rhetorical myself

It was a very leading question I'd say, very "have you stopped beating your wife?", very different from rhetorical.

I don't disagree. I think the whole thread is a good example of something that needs to be dealt with in the politics forum and there is a more general thread set up now on it.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, they're often so closely related that a person might easily take one for the other, a point you ignored earlier.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

....what I'm saying is that - quite specifically - taking the impression he did from your post was not unreasonable, and in fact would be the one most likely to strike a person.

What I find rather extraordinary snd absurd is an effort on your part to try to engage in hairsplitting over whether or not labelling somebody as an apologist is the same as labelling them a supporter.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

It's clear Pb doesn't believe Wt
That doesn't mean Wt is an apologist.
It means Pb thinks he is.

Immovable feasts like I said earlier.

Lessons learned,the mods can and should police the lessons because I don't feel confident that these issues won't rise their ugly head on the forum again.

But lads can this be parked now? Thanks.

danbohan

Deleted User wrote: »

It's clear Pb doesn't believe Wt
That doesn't mean Wt is an apologist.
It means Pb thinks he is.

Immovable feasts like I said earlier.

Lessons learned,the mods can and should police the lessons because I don't feel confident that these issues won't rise their ugly head on the forum again.

But lads can this be parked now? Thanks.

It means Pb thinks he is

it is ok to think whatever anybody likes , it is another thing to infer or cause doubt on what somebody is despite their denial of it
many people lost their lives in northern Ireland on both sides because somebody believed they were not entirely innocent .

your right it should be parked its going nowhere

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deise go deo

nesf wrote: »

If people post in a way that a person who would support the terrorists would post then yes they're going to have problems on the forum.

A supporter of the RIRA would point out, as WT did, that the bomb posed little threat to civilians or that effort had been made to minimise that threat. This is the core issue here! It's perfectly legitimate for someone to ask whether or not the person is supporting the bombing in this case because they've given something that could be used to justify the bombing. This is why people need to be very careful to be clear when they post on issues like these.

You are absoutly correct, It is perfectly legitimate for someone to ask whether or not the person is supporting the bombing, However once a clarification has been given as to the intention of the post, is it legitimate to continue hounding that poster by implying that they are lying and really intended to justfy terrorism despite no actual evidence to back up their claims?

In my personal opinion what was allowed to happen in that thread was absoutly disgraceful.

There was nothing wrong with posting additional relevant detail to a thread.
Some others got the wrong impression of the intention of the post, there is nothing wrong with that, it happens all the time.

However once Wolf Tone clarifyed his reason for posting, and those others continued to hound him, that was in breach of the charter.

That a mod then backed up those breaking the charter is absoutly disgraceful.

deise go deo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's fine, you are entitled to believe what ever you want, that does not mean you can call someone a lyer in the politics forum without being able to prove it. It says so very clearly in the charter of that forum.

If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable.

So the simple question is, do you think there is some reason why the rules should not apply to you in this case?

Tigger

my contribution

scutterykaks wrote: »

As the leaving cert year draws to an end, the yearly tradition of sixth year pranks begins. The only question is what pranks to pull? Anyone have any ideas or funny stories to share?
Realistic ones by the way....

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Bomb hoax!

take what you will

danbohan

danbohan wrote: »

It means Pb thinks he is

it is ok to think whatever anybody likes , it is another thing to infer or cause doubt on what somebody is despite their denial of it
many people lost their lives in northern Ireland on both sides because somebody believed they were not entirely innocent .

your right it should be parked its going nowhere

Ah for heavens sake.
You can't compare avatars talking to one another in the ether to that.
For heavens sake,if everyone agreed with one another on this site or believed one another it would turn into a notice board.
So rest assured,having been through the mill in this site over the years,it's no biggie.
People think what they think.
Usually those accusing others of being entrenched are also entrenched themselves.

And by the way nobody has called anyone a liar in that thread.
They simply don't appear to believe someone,and such is their right indefatigably.
If they were to accuse some one of lying,then thats a different matter.
The distinction is a well worn path on the forum.

Wolfe Tone

Tigger wrote: »

my contribution





take what you will

Yes, please take an obvious piss take in AH seriously.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah for heavens sake.
You can't compare avatars talking to one another in the ether to that.
For heavens sake,if everyone agreed with one another on this site or believed one another it would turn into a notice board.
So rest assured,having been through the mill in this site over the years,it's no biggie.
People think what they think.
Usually those accusing others of being entrenched are also entrenched themselves.

And by the way nobody has called anyone a liar in that thread.
They simply don't appear to believe someone,and such is their right indefatigably.
If they were to accuse some one of lying,then thats a different matter.
The distinction is a well worn path on the forum.

I think there is a difference between not believing opinions or points of view, that's why we have discussions, not believing a poster over something like this is different.

Why?
We are not the thought police.

Wolfe Tone

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?
We are not the thought police.

Well he should keep said thoughts to himself then.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?
We are not the thought police.

Well obviously he can think it, but putting it down on paper and Boards is increasingly paper as we are often reminded, needs some type of back up and not throwaway comments on AH!

Eg. You said dissident sympathisers/activists shouldn't really be involved in the politics section so that inference is serious, even in a minor way like that.