Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What Has Martin McGuinness Ever Done For The Republic of Ireland?

Options
1…1617192122…32

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    hangon wrote: »
    Higgins will be getting my number 1,but he is far from being part of a bad far lot.he was always a defender of the Constitution.

    Don't get me wrong. He's the best of a bad lot, but he would also be a decent enough option even if there were other decent candidates in the race.
    hangon wrote: »
    I have not heard MMG doing either in over ten years, when does the past become the past?

    I heard him on Ray Darcy dodging the questions re the murders by pretending that he had no choice - strangely enough, John Hume had the same choices, and chose wisely. To an unbiased ear, that's making excuses.

    Re the actual question (and assuming that he'd stop the above) the answer is I don't know - when would you consider voting for, say, the leader of a drugs gang which was responsible for murdering 600 innocent Irish people ?


  • Options
    #543
    hangon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭hangon


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    when would you consider voting for, say, the leader of a drugs gang which was responsible for murdering 600 innocent Irish people ?

    I would probably never vote for the leader of a drugs gang per-se. even if a hugh amount of scrutiny had proven he/she had rejected it.
    if you are calling MMG that well that is trying to simplify things down to tabloid Newspaper that would print GOTCHA after killing most onboard the Belgrano as it was steaming away from the Island(s) that also caused many deaths as a result of the 'Empire' claiming land that did not belong to it.

    *cheap shots* see previous posts.


  • Options
    #544
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    hangon wrote: »
    I would probably never vote for the leader of a drugs gang per-se. even if a hugh amount of scrutiny had proven he/she had rejected it.

    OK - now replace "drugs" with "terrorist" and you will see where the rest of us are coming from.
    hangon wrote: »
    if you are calling MMG that

    No. I'm just making you see that if someone does despicable things it's almost impossible to ever vote for them.
    hangon wrote: »
    *cheap shots* see previous posts.

    No cheap shot - just moving the topic away from something you are emotive and biased about to something that you're not, so that you can see how you would react objectively if that were the case.

    And it worked, since you admitted you wouldn't vote for them.

    So why do you expect us to react differently ?


  • Options
    #545
    hangon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭hangon


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    OK - now replace "drugs" with "terrorist" and you will see where the rest of us are coming from
    relax i know where people are coming from on this issue but popping in 'drug dealers' was honestly what you thought was a form of bait?
    So why do you expect us to react differently ?

    because MMG is not a drugs dealer as you well know and somebody wanting to learn would be thrown by that suggestion.............. it seems dirty tactics do not stop with political parties or Independents cronies planting seeds of contempt against a Candidate.


  • Options
    #546
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    hangon wrote: »

    because MMG is not a drugs dealer as you well know and somebody wanting to learn would be thrown by that suggestion.............. it seems dirty tactics do not stop with political parties or Independents cronies planting seeds of contempt against a Candidate.

    That's rubbish! You know well that I wasn't suggesting that he was, and you're just raising that red herring to avoid facing up to the reality that you yourself wouldn't vote for a different type of criminal.

    Your "when will it be forgotten" question has been firmly debunked because you said yourself that you wouldn't ever vote for a serious criminal - even to the point of saying that even if you were convinced he'd changed you still wouldn't vote for them.

    Your own words betrayed your inconsistency and bias. Why should we be urged by you to do something that you wouldn't do yourself ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Ignoring all the past history, the "West Brit" comment was very unpresidential for a true Republic.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #548
    hangon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭hangon


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    That's rubbish!
    It was you that for some reason decided to bring drug dealing into it,it is well known that all the paramilitaries part funded themselves by dealing.
    therefore bringing it up on a specific thread about a specific Candidate was an attempt at being subliminal. IMO.
    You know well that I wasn't suggesting that he was, and was just raising that red herring to avoid facing up to the reality that you yourself wouldn't vote for a different type of criminal.
    Why bring it up at all in the context of this thread?
    when did i call MMG a criminal BTW?
    Your "when will it be forgotten" question has been firmly debunked because you said yourself that you wouldn't ever vote for a serious criminal - even to the point of saying that even if you were convinced he'd changed you still wouldn't vote for them.

    The future of a Country hardly equates to the future of a drugs baron now does it.
    addicts tend to relapse because of the nature of addiction.
    Terrorists/freedom fighters tend not to go back to violence as a method once they renounce it,that is just fact
    Your own words betrayed your inconsistency and bias. Why should we be urged by you to do something that you wouldn't do yourself ?

    inconsistency and bias are leftovers from the 'Troubles' ,there will always be a fear that RIRA might take up the mantle if SF do not get some support,not votes through fear but because they have worked hard to play their part in this uneasy peace.

    I have not urged anybody to vote for a particular candidate,i have said MDH will be getting my number 1 and MMG my number 2,feel free to find a post where i have told anybody how to vote.


  • Options
    #549
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    hangon wrote: »
    It was you that for some reason decided to bring drug dealing into it,it is well known that all the paramilitaries part funded themselves by dealing.
    therefore bringing it up on a specific thread about a specific Candidate was an attempt at being subliminal. IMO.

    I think there's a paranoia and conspiracy theory thread around here somewhere.

    That said DO NOT falsely attribute dirty tactics to me; I have reported your post as a result.
    Why bring it up at all in the context of this thread?

    To get away from any emotive bias and get the point across
    when did i call MMG a criminal BTW?

    You don't need to. His criminal record says it all.

    I have not urged anybody to vote for a particular candidate,i have said MDH will be getting my number 1 and MMG my number 2,feel free to find a post where i have told anybody how to vote.

    You have played down his crimes and challenged people's right to question him in a thread claiming a media bias. Maybe "told" was a bad choice of word, but you are promoting him by trying to infer that the media is being unfair when they're not, and you definitely tried to imply that not forgetting his past was unfair, despite the fact that you yourself wouldn't overlook another criminal's past.

    EDIT :
    it is well known that all the paramilitaries part funded themselves by dealing.

    Did YOU just paint McG as part of a drug dealing gang with THAT statement ?


  • Options
    #550
    Mayo Exile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Mayo Exile


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I now have no idea what you are getting at.

    Ah come on! Yes you do Liam. You still refuse to state whether the IRA was/is (whatever) worse than Al-Qaeda even though you half hinted at it. I've given you links to look at. Why are you finding it so hard to answer?
    If you plant a bomb that kills innocents then you are responsible for the deaths

    Yes, whether deliberate or accidental.
    ......claiming otherwise is like claiming that Al Quaida didn't murder anyone on Sept 11 2001

    Flawed conclusion to your sentence. 9/11 was murder, but your still not allowing for mistakes made in conflicts.
    Just as the planes and pilots murdered people that day,

    Yes.
    the IRA bombs murdered people.

    Off you go again with the generalisations........
    You plant a bomb then the deaths are on your (non) conscience.

    They should be. Everybody has a conscience BTW.
    But maybe the double-standards brigade might examine why they accept the murder of innocents and deaths of "combatants" when they're on "one side" while screaming re those in the reverse scenario.

    Thats a different matter entirely - known as hypocrisy.


  • Options
    #551
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I now have no idea what you are getting at.

    Ah come on! Yes you do Liam. You still refuse to state whether the IRA was/is (whatever) worse than Al-Qaeda even though you half hinted at it. I've given you links to look at. Why are you finding it so hard to answer?

    I said that a prolongued repeated campaign could be viewed as worse than a one-off. If the IRA committed an atrocity and then said "oh crap, innocents died" and stopped, it could be viewed as an actual mistake.

    By not stopping they proved that they couldn't care less.
    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    If you plant a bomb that kills innocents then you are responsible for the deaths

    Yes, whether deliberate or accidental.

    Unless you can accidentally plant a bomb the above is bull.
    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    ......claiming otherwise is like claiming that Al Quaida didn't murder anyone on Sept 11 2001

    Flawed conclusion to your sentence. 9/11 was murder, but your still not allowing for mistakes made in conflicts.

    As I said, that's an awful lot of mistakes.....and forgive me if I don't take the word of murdering thugs.

    Were the IRA really that useless that every one of the civilian deaths is considered a "mistake" ?
    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    the IRA bombs murdered people.

    Off you go again with the generalisations........

    It's a fact, not a generalisation.
    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    You plant a bomb then the deaths are on your (non) conscience.

    They should be. Everybody has a conscience BTW.

    Doubtful. People who murder innocents don't - otherwise they would stop.
    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    But maybe the double-standards brigade might examine why they accept the murder of innocents and deaths of "combatants" when they're on "one side" while screaming re those in the reverse scenario.

    Thats a different matter entirely - known as hypocrisy.

    At least we agree on that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    hangon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭hangon


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I think there's a paranoia and conspiracy theory thread around here somewhere.

    That said DO NOT falsely attribute dirty tactics to me; I have reported your post as a result.
    good for you.
    To get away from any emotive bias and get the point across
    To get away from emotive bias you you went totally off topic to provoke an emotive response.:confused:
    You don't need to. His criminal record says it all.
    Facts are you only had to be a Catholic to get a Criminal record when and were he grew up.
    You have played down his crimes and challenged people's right to question him in a thread claiming a media bias. Maybe "told" was a bad choice of word, but you are promoting him by trying to infer that the media is being unfair when they're not, and you definitely tried to imply that not forgetting his past was unfair, despite the fact that you yourself wouldn't overlook another criminal's past.

    I have not tried to stop people questioning him and have stated he will not be getting my number 1.
    Did YOU just paint McG as part of a drug dealing gang with THAT statement ?

    all the paramilitary orgs got funding through drug dealing,that is the unfortunate truth,at what level it was given the ok i honestly don't know.
    the important point is the peace process is ongoing and shutting SF out will only create a vacuem for others to fill,they are chomping at the bit to prove going down the road of politics was a mistake.


  • Options
    #553
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    hangon wrote: »
    To get away from emotive bias you you went totally off topic to provoke an emotive response.:confused:

    How was I supposed to know that you'd have an OTT emotive response to my using a drugs example ?
    hangon wrote: »
    Facts are you only had to be a Catholic to get a Criminal record when and were he grew up.

    No-one mentioned where he grew up, so that is complete and utter strawmanning.

    He doesn't have a record due to "being a Catholic"

    Is there any point in discussing the topic with you at all ? You know well the convictions I was referring to.
    hangon wrote: »
    I have not tried to stop people questioning him and have stated he will not be getting my number 1.

    I know what you stated, but you are certainly campaigning on here on his behalf, particularly given the above red herring and play-acting.

    hangon wrote: »
    all the paramilitary orgs got funding through drug dealing,that is the unfortunate truth,at what level it was given the ok i honestly don't know.

    That's a yes, then. So despite me not claiming it you're happy to, and yet you still pretended to be offended when you thought I'd claimed it ?
    hangon wrote: »
    the important point is the peace process is ongoing and shutting SF out will only create a vacuem for others to fill,they are chomping at the bit to prove going down the road of politics was a mistake.

    That sounds a bit too like blackmail / a veiled threat to me. We're not "shutting SF out", we're viewing them as unacceptable.

    That's not our fault.


  • Options
    #554
    Mayo Exile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Mayo Exile


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I said that a prolongued repeated campaign could be viewed as worse than a one-off. If the IRA committed an atrocity and then said "oh crap, innocents died" and stopped, it could be viewed as an actual mistake.

    By not stopping they proved that they couldn't care less.

    Honestly I think its a peculiar and unclear response. Ah well.........
    Unless you can accidentally plant a bomb the above is bull.

    No. This is bigger bull. Cruise missiles and LGB's have bombs on the end of them as well. Plenty of accidents happen with them too....
    As I said, that's an awful lot of mistakes.....and forgive me if I don't take the word of murdering thugs.

    Thats your right.
    Were the IRA really that useless that every one of the civilian deaths is considered a "mistake" ?

    You know the answer already I think. MMG has already commented on this.
    It's a fact, not a generalisation

    No. Your opinion.
    At least we agree on that.

    The only thing, I think!


  • Options
    #555
    hangon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭hangon


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    How was I supposed to know that you'd have an OTT emotive response to my using a drugs example ?
    Why did you pick drugs if you were not aware of the fact that the para groupings dealt drugs(may'be it was subliminaly suggested to you as a tactic without you knowing,stranger things have happened)
    No-one mentioned where he grew up, so that is complete and utter strawmanning.
    He doesn't have a record due to "being a Catholic"
    Is there any point in discussing the topic with you at all ? You know well the convictions I was referring to.

    Honest to god Liam have you any idea how the RUC and B Specials treated the Catholic minority which in turn led to the 'siege mentality' that sewed the seeds of the IRA?
    Don't kid yourself that they were born murderer's they were created by oppression,i do not trust any conviction brought against anybody in the minority community.
    we only have to type about it they had to live with it.

    I know what you stated, but you are certainly campaigning on here on his behalf, particularly given the above red herring and play-acting.
    i am not campaigning but i admit the inclusion of MMG fascinates me simply because it is history in the making.
    That sounds a bit too like blackmail / a veiled threat to me. We're not "shutting SF out", we're viewing them as unacceptable.
    i believe there is a conspiracy forum somewhere here Liam!;)

    g'nite!:)


  • Options
    #556
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Mayo Exile wrote: »

    Honestly I think its a peculiar and unclear response. Ah well.........

    It's as clear as can be.
    No. This is bigger bull. Cruise missiles and LGB's have bombs on the end of them as well. Plenty of accidents happen with them too....

    I give up. The bombs were planted and detonated. If they had not been, then there would have been no deaths.
    Thats your right.

    Common sense really.

    You know the answer already I think. MMG has already commented on this.

    "could be" - he still can't bring himself to tell te whole truth but I guess he's slowly getting there.

    No. Your opinion.

    Are you seriously suggesting that IRA bombs didn't kill people ? :confused:

    The only thing, I think!

    Ironically, something else we agree on. Kinda like a "post no bills" poster but hey


  • Options
    #557
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    ..........

    To get away from any emotive bias and get the point across
    ......

    That's a good one.


  • Options
    #558
    Mayo Exile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Mayo Exile


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    It's as clear as can be.

    Impasse i think....
    I give up. The bombs were planted and detonated. If they had not been, then there would have been no deaths.

    A bomb is a bomb is a bomb. Whether dropped, planted, fired etc. Motive key here no?

    "could be" - he still can't bring himself to tell te whole truth but I guess he's slowly getting there.

    Applies to all involved. Gonna take a long time. I'd think he'd argue where "there" finally is.
    Are you seriously suggesting that IRA bombs didn't kill people ? :confused:

    Not at all. Deliberate v accidental again.
    Ironically, something else we agree on. Kinda like a "post no bills" poster but hey

    Agreed.:).


  • Options
    #559
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    I give up. The bombs were planted and detonated. If they had not been, then there would have been no deaths.

    A bomb is a bomb is a bomb. Whether dropped, planted, fired etc. Motive key here no?

    Do you guys get training in deflection ?

    It doesn't matter whether it's dropped fired or planted.

    Motive isn't key, no. The location and targets of the bomb are. You and others claim they didn't target civilians, but 600 deaths suggest otherwise - either that or they were the most careless and useless shower of idiots ever seen.
    "could be" - he still can't bring himself to tell te whole truth but I guess he's slowly getting there.

    Applies to all involved. Gonna take a long time. I'd think he'd argue where "there" finally is.

    Agreed on the first part. His distinction on where "there" is is his business, and disagreement on that and how to get there is a reason not to vote for him.
    Are you seriously suggesting that IRA bombs didn't kill people ? :confused:

    Not at all. Deliberate v accidental again.

    I really don't get this. How is planting a bomb in a shopping centre not deliberately targetting civilians ? By what twisted logic is it "accidental" when they are blown to bits ?

    Here's the point - the bomb shouldn't be there. And it shouldn't be detonated while there are civilians around.

    Anything else is murder. Planned and executed.


  • Options
    #560
    Mayo Exile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Mayo Exile


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    ...........

    We've been through this already.

    You're just recycling the same arguments again and again. I acknowledge your opinion, but dont agree, end of.


  • Options
    #561
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Do you guys get training in deflection ?

    It doesn't matter whether it's dropped fired or planted.

    Motive isn't key, no. The location and targets of the bomb are. You and others claim they didn't target civilians, but 600 deaths suggest otherwise - either that or they were the most careless and useless shower of idiots ever seen.



    Agreed on the first part. His distinction on where "there" is is his business, and disagreement on that and how to get there is a reason not to vote for him.


    I really don't get this. How is planting a bomb in a shopping centre not deliberately targetting civilians ? By what twisted logic is it "accidental" when they are blown to bits ?

    Here's the point - the bomb shouldn't be there. And it shouldn't be detonated while there are civilians around.

    Anything else is murder. Planned and executed.

    @ Liam Byrne. Which part of 'terror campaign' do you not understand?
    This pacifist bull**** is so way of the bloody mark and impossible to debate. You have bought into some Little House On the Prairie International Relations fantasy.
    Show me a war, or insurrection where innocents didn't get killed? You cannot countenance losing control of yourself, how can you understand society losing control??? The rules get broken when the lid comes off.
    Nobody starts out with a lust for innocent blood. If you think that then it is further proof of your misunderstanding of what happened.
    There are no Marquis Of Queensbury rules covering 'terror campaigns'. The North was a chaotic bloodbath with two sides engaged in spreading terror. INNOCENT PEOPLE get killed when somebody engages in that, be it Freedom fighters, Fundamentalists, The US, The UK etc spreading the terror.

    Please get over that fact, it happened, try to concentrate on who stopped it.


    Edit: I forgot, Liam has me on ignore. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    hangon wrote: »
    Facts are you only had to be a Catholic to get a Criminal record when and were he grew up.
    Ah now that's totally disingenuous. I can't look now on my phone but I clearly posted what he was arrested for earlier in this thread. It wasn't for being a catholic.


  • Options
    #563
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Show me a war, or insurrection where innocents didn't get killed? You cannot countenance losing control of yourself, how can you understand society losing control??? The rules get broken when the lid comes off.

    But it wasn't a war or an insurrection, it was a TERRORIST campaign by the Provisional IRA, who took it upon themselves on behalf of the people of Ireland to murder, maim, and destroy at will < and Martin McGuinness was a member, and a cheerleader for said campaign.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    There are no Marquis Of Queensbury rules covering 'terror campaigns'.

    Glad you agree that is was a 'Terrorist campaign', but yet you would vote him in as the President of Down Here!
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Please get over that fact, it happened, try to concentrate on who stopped it.

    What condescending clap trap :rolleyes: Or we could concentrate on who perpetuated the hostilities over thirty years, Who planted the Bombs? Who Murdered at will? Who was the driving force behind the Provisional IRAs campaigh of death & destruction on this island and in Britain? Answer; The Provisional IRA were the ones who deliberately & needlessly took peoples lives away, until they (The Provo's) finally saw the light to take the political route. But the past hasn't gone away you know, and the Provo's did what they did, and McGuinness was part of that Terror campaign (before he put down thew Armalite).

    McGuinness is a spent force in this election anyway, so I don't know why there are so many Threads running on him? There are seven candidates running.


  • Options
    #564
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    LordSutch wrote: »
    But it wasn't a war or an insurrection, it was a TERRORIST campaign by the Provisional IRA, who took it upon themselves on behalf of the people of Ireland to murder, maim, and destroy at will < and Martin McGuinness was a member, and a cheerleader for said campaign.



    Glad you agree that is was a 'Terrorist campaign', but yet you would vote him in as the President of Down Here!



    What condescending clap trap :rolleyes: Or we could concentrate on who perpetuated the hostilities over thirty years, Who planted the Bombs? Who Murdered at will? Who was the driving force behind the Provisional IRAs campaigh of death & destruction on this island and in Britain? Answer; The Provisional IRA were the ones who deliberately & needlessly took peoples lives away, until they (The Provo's) finally saw the light to take the political route. But the past hasn't gone away you know, and the Provo's did what they did, and McGuinness was part of that Terror campaign (before he put down thew Armalite).

    McGuinness is a spent force in this election anyway, so I don't know why there are so many Threads running on him? There are seven candidates running.

    it was a war. to refuse to see that clearly outlines your bias. it was a war by any definition.


  • Options
    #565
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    LordSutch wrote: »

    But it wasn't a war or an insurrection, it was a TERRORIST campaign by the Provisional IRA, who took it upon themselves on behalf of the people of Ireland to murder, maim, and destroy at will < and Martin McGuinness was a member, and a cheerleader for said campaign.

    The strangest thing is that those who claim
    that it was a war and state that that supercedes the morals rules of decency and society are the very ones that then object to the British Army actions the most.

    So apparently even the "different rules apply" is dependent on the colour of glass in the poster's spectacles.

    Absolutely no consistency or treating like-with-like, even when you try to see things as they do.


  • Options
    #566
    KELTICKNIGHTT
    Registered Users Posts: 3,799 ✭✭✭KELTICKNIGHTT


    cardwizzard wrote: »
    I think you might want to do a little research on your numbers pal, you are talking nonsense.

    maybe you should do research
    there isn't a majority vote in favor regardless what nationalists want


  • Options
    #567
    KELTICKNIGHTT
    Registered Users Posts: 3,799 ✭✭✭KELTICKNIGHTT


    dulpit wrote: »
    Nationalist Party Seats in Assembly:
    Sinn Féin: 29
    SDLP: 14

    Total Seats: 108

    43/108 = 39.8%



    :confused:

    do a referendum and see ,still won't get a majority to leave uk


  • Options
    #568
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    maccored wrote: »
    it was a war. to refuse to see that clearly outlines your bias. it was a war by any definition.

    Well yes, of course if you say the troubles were a 'War', then all the PIRA atrocities are all forgiven, (just like that) because in a War atrocities are all part of what happens, and then when the war is over, the slate is wiped clean, and all if forgiven. > how convenient :rolleyes:

    So now we are down to the terminology of War, when is a war a war? and when is a catalogue of atrocities (perpetrated within your own country, and against your own people) a terrorist campaign? My choice being the latter.


  • Options
    #569
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The strangest thing is that those who claim
    that it was a war and state that that supercedes the morals rules of decency and society are the very ones that then object to the British Army actions the most    .

    I was logged out when I copped that one Laim. In answer to your claim - no they aren't! Thats out and out rubbish.

    Get the brits to admit it was war and admit they werent as innocent as they were made out to be and everyone will be happy. what republicans dont like is being tarred as the cause, sole reason and therefore the ones to blame for what went on. they arent. the british need to own up to it being a war and recognise the IRA as combatants in that war - not this terrorist bull**** that gets spouted about.


  • Options
    #570
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Well yes, of course if you say the troubles were a 'War', then all the PIRA atrocities are all forgiven, (just like that) because in a War atrocities are all part of what happens, and then when the war is over, the slate is wiped clean, and all if forgiven. > how convenient :rolleyes:

    So now we are down to the terminology of War, when is a war a war? and when is a catalogue of atrocities (perpetrated within your own country, and against your own people) a terrorist campaign? My choice being the latter.

    eh? treat it like any other war, because thats what it was.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    maccored wrote: »
    eh? treat it like any other war, because thats what it was.

    What, you mean like all the casualties were just part of collateral damage! Ergo, Mr McGuinness was part of legitimate Army (PIRA) who fought a war against a foreign invading army, atrocities were carried out by all sides, and nobody can claim to have the moral high ground, etc etc etc, Ergo: everybody is off the hook, and Mr McGuinness was never part of a terrorist organisation, because the PIRA wasnt a terrorist organisation, it was a true & just army defending the rights of the Irish people, who gave their permission for said army to fight & defend them against the Brits ;)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement