Car Bomb in Omagh

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

No it doesn't, don't be ridiculous.

Pardon the Godwin but that's like saying "understanding Hitler's motives for taking over Europe" equated to agreeing with his motives. The mind boggles at the intellectual dishonesty on here. I doubt that Wolfetone agrees at all with the murder of that young lad, and neither does the greater Republican movement.

Stop trying to dictate to people on what they do or do not agree with.

Rubbish.
This is 2011.
Issues in NI have been resolved in a way thats been endorsed by 99.9% of the islands people so there can be no understanding of this murder at all.

bmaxi

caseyann wrote: »

So you have inside information it was republicans do you?
As i said jumping to conclusions.

I'm pretty sure it's the correct conclusion.

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

Rubbish.
This is 2011.
Issues in NI have been resolved in a way thats been endorsed by 99.9% of the islands people so there can be no understanding of this murder at all.

My point clearly went over your head. I'm not interested in entertaining such an intellectually void topic of debate. Understanding != Agreement.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

And not once have I disagreed with anyone on the point that this attack was horrific, and morally wrong in every sense. What you're trying to do is badger posters, and dictate how they should or should not discuss a topic. Let the conversation flow, and stop accusing people of agreeing with attacks, when it's quite clear they find the attack in question to be repulsively wrong.

I see avoid the definition of understanding something.
Murders like these are not understandable and people saying they are should be called up on doing so in a civilised democratic society.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

A reality check? Certain elements of the loyalist community have not needed an excuse in the past, other than the fact their victims were catholics. I still believe this was dissident republicans however.

I have to say, I am absoutely amazed you would give me a wikipedia link to the Shankill Butchers who took part in brutal murder during the 70s and 80s. I don't know if you have noticed but it is now 2011 and a lot of things have changed and moved on.


Like I said, as far as loyalists are concerned, the war is over. There is no reason at all (even if there wasn't in the first place in the past) for loyalists to go out and plant bombs to kill Catholics/Republicans. No reason at all.


So posting a link to the Shankill Butchers is possibly the most pointless reference to a point iv seen on here.

These people just can't seem to accept the will of the majority who wish for Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom. The actions from these men are the sort of actions from people who think they lost the war and can't accept it.

caseyann

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's the correct conclusion.

Mistaken if in fact people who call themselves republicans,which in fact they are not.If it was in fact them who carried it out,they are only people who call themselves republicans,and in fact are not as they are at peace.;)
And there is no evidence it was them.

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

I see avoid the definition of understanding something.

Well they do say, ignorance is bliss.

Take for example the recent attacks in Afghanistan on the UN compound. Now as I understand it, they did it because they were infuriated by an American Pastor who burnt a Koran - but under no circumstances do I find merit in their attacks. You see - Understanding the motive for an action does not equate to agreeing with the action. You're clearly trying to bully posters into how to conduct their thoughts. It's badgering at it's finest.

Stop dictating to people on what they do or do not agree with. It's intolerably disingenuous.

OhNoYouDidn't

Deleted User wrote: »

Rubbish.
This is 2011.
Issues in NI have been resolved in a way thats been endorsed by 99.9% of the islands people so there can be no understanding of this murder at all.

But that's self evidently not true. Like it or not, dissidents are on a bit of an up. Badgering posters and accusing them of supporting murder simply for asking why there are still young men and women willing to continue the physical force tradition.

Trying to understand is not condoning, and its infantile to suggest it is

Trying to stifle that reasonable question with nasty insinuations is both intellectual vandalism and borderline fascism.

deise go deo

Deleted User wrote: »

I see avoid the definition of understanding something.
Murders like these are not understandable and people saying they are should be called up on doing so in a civilised democratic society.

Not true at all.

I can Understand why THEY did what they did. I can see their point of view, and understand that to them it justifies what they did.

I also happen to see the situation quite differently to how they do, and disagree quite strongly that their actions were justified.

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

I have to say, I am absoutely amazed you would give me a wikipedia link to the Shankill Butchers who took part in brutal murder during the 70s and 80s. I don't know if you have noticed but it is now 2011 and a lot of things have changed and moved on.

Tell that to this woman or Kevin McDaid.

Spare me the horse-blinkers.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Well they do say, ignorance is bliss.

Take for example the recent attacks in Afghanistan on the UN compound. Now as I understand it, they did it because they were infuriated by an American Pastor who burnt a Koran - but under no circumstances do I find merit in their attacks. You see - Understanding the motive for an action does not equate to agreeing with the action. You're clearly trying to bully posters into how to conduct their thoughts. It's badgering at it's finest.

Nice Deflection .however,you are wrongly using the word.
Frankly thats not understanding,thats reporting.

Stop dictating to people on what they do or do not agree with. It's intolerably disingenuous.

I repeat,understanding the not understandable is appeasement and succour to the perpetrators.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

Tell that to this woman or Kevin McDaid.

Spare me the horse-blinkers.

If Loyalists wanted these people killed, they would be killed. Its that simple. Of course sectarian elements exist in our society. Did you expect it to go away over night? What a naive post.

caseyann

KeithAFC wrote: »

I have to say, I am absoutely amazed you would give me a wikipedia link to the Shankill Butchers who took part in brutal murder during the 70s and 80s. I don't know if you have noticed but it is now 2011 and a lot of things have changed and moved on.


Like I said, as far as loyalists are concerned, the war is over. There is no reason at all (even if there wasn't in the first place in the past) for loyalists to go out and plant bombs to kill Catholics/Republicans. No reason at all.


So posting a link to the Shankill Butchers is possibly the most pointless reference to a point iv seen on here.

These people just can't seem to accept the will of the majority who wish for Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom. The actions from these men are the sort of actions from people who think they lost the war and can't accept it.

Rubbish,if they didn't get partition they would have had war.
1912 - 1920 New Plans for Home Rule with Partition
It was clear that the Ulster Protestants would not accept Home Rule so in order to avoid violence, the British government came up with a new solution. Home Rule with Partition. Home Rule would be introduced in the South but six predominantly Protestant counties in the north would stay a part of the United Kingdom. This solution is largely the cause of the problems in Ireland that exist to this day. Nationalist remain committed to the idea of a united free Ireland, while Protestants are unwilling to accept anything less than partition.

OhNoYouDidn't

Deleted User wrote: »

I repeat,understanding the not understandable is appeasement and succour to the perpetrators.

This is textbook fascism.

You cannot think what I don't want you to think.

Dangerous stuff.

Guys why is there so much talk of the past here?
A son that was going to work was murdered,the day before mothers day by criminal deluded bastards.
This has nothing to do with 1916 or it with this.

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice Deflection .however,you are wrongly using the word.

Now you are dictating as to how I should use a word? Christ almighty.

Let's propose I stated, given that you now take issues as to where in a sentence I use a word:

"I understand why those fanatical Muslims attacked that UN compound. It was because of a US pastor that burnt a Koran. However, I find their actions to be hideously disgusting."

Would you accuse me of agreeing with their attack?

Deleted User wrote: »

I repeat,understanding the not understandable is appeasement and succour to the perpetrators.

I'm afraid you don't decide what the human brain can process to be understandable or not.

KeithAFC

caseyann wrote: »

Rubbish,if they didn't get partition they would have had war.
1912 - 1920 New Plans for Home Rule with Partition
It was clear that the Ulster Protestants would not accept Home Rule so in order to avoid violence, the British government came up with a new solution. Home Rule with Partition. Home Rule would be introduced in the South but six predominantly Protestant counties in the north would stay a part of the United Kingdom. This solution is largely the cause of the problems in Ireland that exist to this day. Nationalist remain committed to the idea of a united free Ireland, while Protestants are unwilling to accept anything less than partition.

What has that got to do with my post in that loyalists got what they wanted in 1998? Dissident republicans think that the loyalist people won the war from 1969 and retained the Union. That is why they are out planting bombs and taking part in sectarian murder.


They can't seem to accept the majority has spoken.

OhNoYouDidn't

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This is textbook fascism.

You cannot think what I don't want you to think.

Dangerous stuff.

I'm not saying don't think it.
I'm not the thought police.
I'm just calling it for what it is,giving succour to murderers.

paky

KeithAFC wrote: »

Like I said, as far as loyalists are concerned, the war is over. There is no reason at all (even if there wasn't in the first place in the past) for loyalists to go out and plant bombs to kill Catholics/Republicans. No reason at all.
QUOTE]

LOL Catholics slash Republicans. I know plenty of catholics who wouldnt dream of voting sinn fein or any other republican party in the north.

you shouldnt tar all catholics with the same brush

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

If Loyalists wanted these people killed, they would be killed. Its that simple. Of course sectarian elements exist in our society. Did you expect it to go away over night? What a naive post.

Kevin McDaid was killed.

I'm unsure as to where my naivity came into the question. Your made the claim that loyalists would have no reason to attack a catholic. I highlighted recent incidents where they have attacked a catholic. I'm not sure if you're able to follow the flow of our discussion.

I never stated that sectarianism did not exist. Infact, I was highlighting that it still very much does exist within both communities.

OhNoYouDidn't

Deleted User wrote: »

Guys why is there so much talk of the past here?
A son that was going to work was murdered,the day before mothers day by criminal deluded bastards.
This has nothing to do with 1916 or it with this.

Because the past is where they derive their self appointed legitimacy for their war.

Every political act has a context.

KeithAFC

paky wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

Like I said, as far as loyalists are concerned, the war is over. There is no reason at all (even if there wasn't in the first place in the past) for loyalists to go out and plant bombs to kill Catholics/Republicans. No reason at all.
QUOTE]

LOL Catholics slash Republicans. I know plenty of catholics who wouldnt dream of voting sinn fein or any other republican party in the north.

you shouldnt tar all catholics with the same brush

Oh i know. I have met plenty of them.

OhNoYouDidn't

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying don't think it.
I'm not the thought police.
I'm just calling it for what it is,giving succour to murderers.

A drug dealer gets shot near you. Your neighbour says 'he owed money to another dealer'. Is that:

a: making sense of why it happened

or b: condoning and giving succour?

You have made your point. No-one agrees with you. Let it go.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

Kevin McDaid was killed.

I'm unsure as to where my naivity came into the question. Your made the claim that loyalists would have no reason to attack a catholic. I highlighted recent incidents where they have attacked a catholic. I'm not sure if you're able to follow the flow of our discussion.

I never stated that sectarianism did not exist. Infact, I was highlighting that it still very much does exist within both communities.

Well the context i was using was on a mass scale, like these dissident rebels seem to be doing. Bobby moffet was a Protestant who got shot by his own people. Still dangerous people but the point is the loyalist people aren't on a campaign like the dissidents.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Now you are dictating as to how I should use a word? Christ almighty.

Let's propose I stated, given that you now take issues as to where in a sentence I use a word:

"I understand why those fanatical Muslims attacked that UN compound. It was because of a US pastor that burnt a Koran. However, I find their actions to be hideously disgusting."

I'm not dictating anything,I'm calling this.

Would you accuse me of agreeing with their attack?

the murder yesterday? no.

I'm afraid you don't decide what the human brain can process to be understandable or not.

As I said,I'm not the thought police,you can think what you like ,published or unpublished.
However,the fact remains,this murder is devoid of any understanding in our agreed new island relationships.

caseyann

KeithAFC wrote: »

What has that got to do with my post in that loyalists got what they wanted in 1998? Dissident republicans think that the loyalist people won the war from 1969 and retained the Union. That is why they are out planting bombs and taking part in sectarian murder.


They can't seem to accept the majority has spoken.

You said it was the peoples choice,no it was not.It was the protestant choice and British government choice,as guess what catholics had no choice.

KeithAFC

caseyann wrote: »

You said it was the peoples choice,no it was not.It was the protestant choice and British government choice,as guess what catholics had no choice.

I said it was the choice of the majority in regards to the GFA. The majority in Northern Ireland support the Union. I ain't talking about back then. It does not matter about then.

OhNoYouDidn't

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

A drug dealer gets shot near you. Your neighbour says 'he owed money to another dealer'. Is that:

a: making sense of why it happened

or b: condoning and giving succour?

you are not comparing like with like.

You have made your point. No-one agrees with you. Let it go.

who is this no one?

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

However,the fact remains,this murder is devoid of any understanding in our agreed new island relationships.

That is not a fact I'm afraid. That is an opinion held by you, that many people have disagreed with.

I repeat - One can understand the motives for an action, but that does not equate to agreeing with the action. It's very simple. Everyone that you have accused of agreeing with this attack has categorically pointed out that they disagree with it. Despite that, you continue to badger them and attempt to dictate how they should or should not conduct their mode of conversation.

OhNoYouDidn't

Deleted User wrote: »

you are not comparing like with like.

How so? You are saying that any cursory glance at WHY this attack happened is condoning the attack. Does that apply to all murders, or just murders around which you don't want people to have an opinion?

Deleted User wrote: »

who is this no one?

No-one. As in no-one else is defending your thought police crusade.

K-9

Bizarre thread, there's a few here who just say black because another poster says white.

We all know why they did it, at this stage it is kind of irrelevant and pointless.

This isn't the 70's or 80's and people can point at recent events or lack of rights or recognition. We have a peace process and elections.

There's a few nut jobs trying to make a name for themselves and that's all there is to it.

As for who it was, we might find out it was a "new" organisation claiming it. What eejit thought Omagh was a good place to do this?

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying don't think it.
I'm not the thought police.
I'm just calling it for what it is,giving succour to murderers.

So by saying one understands why Stalin ordered the purge of his Doctors in 1952, you qualify as a Stalinist/anti-semite.....

I have to say that, even allowing for the emotions being high in the wake of the murder, this is nonsensical rubbish.

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

Bizarre thread, there's a few here who just say black because another poster says white.

We all know why they did it, at this stage it is kind of irrelevant and pointless.

This isn't the 70's or 80's and people can point at recent events or lack of rights or recognition. We have a peace process and elections.

There's a few nut jobs trying to make a name for themselves and that's all there is to it.

As for who it was, we might find out it was a "new" organisation claiming it. What eejit thought Omagh was a good place to do this?

A new organisation? I doubt it, from their POV it was a success, ie their target was murdered and only cops where killed... Disturbingly enough they would have been proud of the attack.

You can be assured that if people other than police where killed we would either have a new group or claims that this was a "black op".

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

That is not a fact I'm afraid. That is an opinion held by you, that many people have disagreed with.

Yet the only understanding of any motive for this murder is a reprehensible belief that murdering police is the way to go.
The lack of fact in that is extremely debatable as it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of the population support governments that introduce laws to imprison these lunatics.

I repeat - One can understand the motives for an action, but that does not equate to agreeing with the action. It's very simple. Everyone that you have accused of agreeing with this attack has categorically pointed out that they disagree with it. Despite that, you continue to badger them and attempt to dictate how they should or should not conduct their mode of conversation.

No,you may dislike my viewpoint on this murder but c'est la vie.
The days of understanding these murderers are well and truly over.
I find it disappointing that it's republican posters fighting for the the continued use of the word understanding in this way here.

I am prepared to meet you somewhat in this part of the discussion if you agree that your understanding is limited to the perpetrators having a wholey mistaken grasp of republicanism and of the public's wants.
If thats where you are coming from with the understanding,both in this example and the afghanistan one,then I agree.

caseyann

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but it has been blamed on dissident republicans.

People in republican heartlands are "seething with anger" over the murder of police constable Ronan Kerr, Gerry Adams has said.
The Sinn Fein President condemned the murder of the 25-year-old Catholic man and said party colleague Martin McGuinness had spoken for mainstream republicans when he met the bereaved family to pass on his condolences

Mr Adams appealed for anyone with information on the attack to come forward, but he said a major effort must be made to ensure the murder, being blamed on dissident republicans opposed to the peace process, is the last killing of its kind.

He said the revulsion at the killing had affected all sections of the community, but he said he had heard strident condemnations from lifelong republicans who believed the continuing violence was futile.
They just see this as a futile action. And some of those are very, very hard-boiled republicans who have been through the hardest part of this struggle over the past 30 or 40 years, who have suffered themselves grievously. They just feel outright anger at what has occurred




Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/adams-republicans-angry-at-murder-15135706.html#ixzz1ITExguM7



Even if these people claim they are if in fact it was them,they are not republicans.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

So by saying one understands why Stalin ordered the purge of his Doctors in 1952, you qualify as a Stalinist/anti-semite.....

I have to say that, even allowing for the emotions being high in the wake of the murder, this is nonsensical rubbish.

No you see,it's a misuse of the term understand,thats what I'm arguing here.
Yes emotions are high but I feel my take on this makes sense.
I want to be absolutely unequivocal in any condemnation of this murder and leave no succour available to the perpetrators whether intended or not.

caseyann

caseyann wrote: »

Even if these people claim they are if in fact it was them,they are not republicans.

Thank you

caseyann

Deleted User wrote: »

Thank you

For what

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet the (..........),then I agree.

Your attempt to hijack the english language for your own ends is rather doomed to failure, I have to point out.

Most of the people here disagreeing with you have expressed condemnation of the dissidents on previous occassions. They have no need to dance to whatever bizarre tune you are attempting to play.

KeithAFC

caseyann wrote: »

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but it has been blamed on dissident republicans.

People in republican heartlands are "seething with anger" over the murder of police constable Ronan Kerr, Gerry Adams has said.
The Sinn Fein President condemned the murder of the 25-year-old Catholic man and said party colleague Martin McGuinness had spoken for mainstream republicans when he met the bereaved family to pass on his condolences

Mr Adams appealed for anyone with information on the attack to come forward, but he said a major effort must be made to ensure the murder, being blamed on dissident republicans opposed to the peace process, is the last killing of its kind.

He said the revulsion at the killing had affected all sections of the community, but he said he had heard strident condemnations from lifelong republicans who believed the continuing violence was futile.
They just see this as a futile action. And some of those are very, very hard-boiled republicans who have been through the hardest part of this struggle over the past 30 or 40 years, who have suffered themselves grievously. They just feel outright anger at what has occurred




Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/adams-republicans-angry-at-murder-15135706.html#ixzz1ITExguM7



Even if these people claim they are if in fact it was them,they are not republicans.

Of course they are republicans. They have republican views, they are militant republicans. That is the difference. Still republicans.

Republicans can't try and hide up the fact that these people are republicans and claim to be doing it for republicans.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

No you see,it's a misuse of the term understand,thats what I'm arguing here.
Yes emotions are high but I feel my take on this makes sense.
I want to be absolutely unequivocal in any condemnation of this murder and leave no succour available to the perpetrators whether intended or not.

I would suggest that the problem is what I've marked in bold.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Your attempt to hijack the english language for your own ends is rather doomed to failure, I have to point out.

Most of the people here disagreeing with you have expressed condemnation of the dissidents on previous occassions. They have no need to dance to whatever bizarre tune you are attempting to play.

Frankly mostly only republican posters have been participating in this thread since I argued my points,so thats the group equivalent of self praise being no praise.
I've never said that any posters agreed with the murder,I'm just being unequivocal and remain steadfast that understanding the motives for this murder is not possible.
I'm afraid,these murderers are not worthy at this stage of calling themselves republicans as irish republicanism has moved well on from their stance.

I would suggest that the problem is what I've marked in bold

I appreciate that what I've highlighted here is awkward as dissidents misguided as they are originate from the republican family mostly probably but really they're not republicans and their goals are so isolated as to need examining on the motivation support equivalent of a pitri dish.

bmaxi

caseyann wrote: »

Mistaken if in fact people who call themselves republicans,which in fact they are not.If it was in fact them who carried it out,they are only people who call themselves republicans,and in fact are not as they are at peace.;)
And there is no evidence it was them.

A conclusion is an inference, not a statement of fact.
From the reports and from previous similar attacks, I infer that "dissident Republicans" carried out this attack. Whether or not they are entitled to call themselves Republicans, is academic.

OhNoYouDidn't

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet the only understanding of any motive for this murder is a reprehensible belief that murdering police is the way to go.

With respect, that is dangerous gibberish. Nasty stuff in fact

Deleted User wrote: »

The lack of fact in that is extremely debatable as it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of the population support governments that introduce laws to imprison these lunatics.

As do all posters on here.

I

Deleted User wrote: »

am prepared to meet you somewhat in this part of the discussion if you agree that your understanding is limited to the perpetrators having a wholey mistaken grasp of republicanism and of the public's wants.
If thats where you are coming from with the understanding,both in this example and the afghanistan one,then I agree.

But who has argued otherwise?

caseyann

Deleted User wrote: »

Frankly mostly only republican posters have been participating in this thread since I argued my points,so thats the group equivalent of self praise being no praise.
I've never said that any posters agreed with the murder,I'm just being unequivocal and remain steadfast that understanding the motives for this murder is not possible.
I'm afraid,these murderers are not worthy at this stage of calling themselves republicans as irish republicanism has moved well on from their stance.I appreciate that what I've highlighted here is awkward as dissidents misguided as they are originate from the republican family mostly probably but really they're not republicans and their goals are so isolated as to need examining on the motivation support equivalent of a pitri dish.

If in fact they are actually the ones to blame in first place(those who claim they are republicans) when obviously they are not and just murderers.
As of now its just blame the Irish.

caseyann

bmaxi wrote: »

A conclusion is an inference, not a statement of fact.
From the reports and from previous similar attacks, I infer that "dissident Republicans" carried out this attack. Whether or not they are entitled to call themselves Republicans, is academic.

There has been bombs like these found up and down the country over,and i do believe they have said the same about them suspected?
So therefore your assumption is nothing more than slander and so is the media and police.Nothing more then assumption and slander.Until it is proven.

deise go deo

Deleted User wrote: »

No you see,it's a misuse of the term understand,thats what I'm arguing here.
Yes emotions are high but I feel my take on this makes sense.
I want to be absolutely unequivocal in any condemnation of this murder and leave no succour available to the perpetrators whether intended or not.

How is someone understanding what their motives were, and knowing the reasons they felt their action was justified, while disagreeing that their action was justified in any way and believeing that they should go to Jail for what they have done, giving them any kind of succour?

K-9

caseyann wrote: »

There has been bombs like these found up and down the country over,and i do believe they have said the same about them suspected?
So therefore your assumption is nothing more than slander and so is the media and police.Nothing more then assumption and slander.Until it is proven.

Slander of the RIRA? Seriously?

deise go deo

K-9 wrote: »

Slander of the RIRA? Seriously?

They should sue.;)

deise go deo

deise go deo wrote:

How is someone understanding what their motives were, and knowing the reasons they felt their action was justified, while disagreeing that their action was justified in any way and believeing that they should go to Jail for what they have done, giving them any kind of succour?

You cannot understand something that doesn't exist.
Simple.
No motivation for this exists at all

@bmaxi To be fair the term disident republican is a term of convenience as much of the media as it is for want of a better way of describing these criminals.
The fact that they have so called political wings who would lose their deposits in elections greys the description even further as those so called political groupings mis use the term republican.