Why do people hate Gerry Adams

The Golden Miller

mynamejeff wrote: »

lol at least the shinner bots support each others posts by attacking anyone who calls them on the nonsense they sprout

but thats old news isnt it

As old as the "shinnerbot" stereotypes and phrases?

lol at least the partitionists support each others posts by attacking anyone who calls them on the nonsense they sprout

LDN_Irish

LDN_Irish wrote: »

But I bet plenty of them would balk at the idea of drug running or complicity in it. Drugs are bizarrely, a massive taboo especially in Ireland...

Again, here in South Kerry, they were not involved in drug running. They were taking a cut from it.

Similarly they were dealing away with gangs like Whitey Bulger's in Boston, who were doing the exact same thing there. They had no moral objection to drugs. And certainly the idea that they were against drugs is simply nonsense. They dealt with drug dealers here, in the States, protected them, killed them...they were kinda up to their eyes.

Do you think they stuck a pin on a map and decided Columbia deserved their military input for the hell of it? They received money from FARC drugs operations. Granted, no FARC guerrillas have landed in front a Garda desk here and made a complaint that has led to a prosecution...

tipptom

mynamejeff wrote: »

I reckon that an invasion would be like a wet dream to you.


or mabey not , keyboard warriors have to courage of a man who murders a housewife and bombs town centers killing children

I reckon if that did happen someone else would have to defend you and your family and then you would condemn them afterwards for using violence.

mynamejeff

The Golden Miller wrote: »

As old as the "shinnerbot" stereotypes and phrases?

lol at least the partitionists support each others posts by attacking anyone who calls them on the nonsense they sprout

im a partitionist because i dont support cowardly child murdering scum am i ?

Label much ?

mynamejeff

tipptom wrote: »

I reckon if that did happen someone else would have to defend you and your family and then you would condemn them afterwards for using violence.

I reckon you have no idea what your talking about,

how did bombing warrington defend Catholics in the north of Ireland.

I ll defend myself thanks i dont need criminals and cowardly little liars and gangsters to do it for me ,

BTW do you know tomwaterford by any chance ?? :pac::pac::pac:

end of the road

mynamejeff wrote: »

how did bombing warrington defend Catholics in the north of Ireland.

it (like the whole mainland bombing campaign) effectively forced britain to the table, as they knew the ira were a deadly force who could strike vital targets at will, wherever, whenever. regardless of any security measures. britain realised the NI situation had to be dealt with via talking and not military means like had been tried for the past couple of decades. they also realised that they should have allowed change to be brought about via peaceful means in the first place, and that the sectarian, paracitic, orange state had to be destroyed for the greater good and should have been from the start, rather then all the slaughtering and the rest they tried in the name of upholding it and keeping NI as a hell hole basket case. now NI is at peace, is prosperous, gets a lot of funding, and is doing well. but the next step of it joining with the south so that we can become the great 32 county sovern republic free from british rule as is meant to be will happen given time, and we will be all the better for it. it will be the making of us.

tipptom

mynamejeff wrote: »

I reckon you have no idea what your talking about,

how did bombing warrington defend Catholics in the north of Ireland.

I ll defend myself thanks i dont need criminals and cowardly little liars and gangsters to do it for me ,

BTW do you know tomwaterford by any chance ?? :pac::pac::pac:

I doubt that.


I would prefer to have GAs or MMcG at my back than you if I wanted the best for my family in that situation.


I reckon you would lay down and take whatever sh*t is thrown at you like you expected men and women in NI to do throughout the generations in their own country and when they do fight back have to listen to the likes of you condemning them from the comfort and safety of your Southern home.


BTW do you know Lord Sutch or any of the rest of the nostalgic dreamers for the good old days by any chance??


People have moved on,Catholics now have a better chance of education, housing and jobs in NI(and they are making good use of it) now ,and the people of your mindset have been pushed to one side in the past where you belong and nothing you say will inflame or will drag us back there(from the safety of your keyboard in your southern home of course) however much you hope it will.

mynamejeff

end of the road wrote: »

it (like the whole mainland bombing campaign) effectively forced britain to the table, as they knew the ira were a deadly force who could strike vital targets at will, wherever, whenever. regardless of any security measures. britain realised the NI situation had to be dealt with via talking and not military means like had been tried for the past couple of decades. they also realised that they should have allowed change to be brought about via peaceful means in the first place, and that the sectarian, paracitic, orange state had to be destroyed for the greater good and should have been from the start, rather then all the slaughtering and the rest they tried in the name of upholding it and keeping NI as a hell hole basket case. now NI is at peace, is prosperous, gets a lot of funding, and is doing well. but the next step of it joining with the south so that we can become the great 32 county sovern republic free from british rule as is meant to be will happen given time, and we will be all the better for it. it will be the making of us.

Apart from a reserve army barracks what made killing chldren in warrington a VITAL target ??

It was a soft target with no risk to the cowards who carried it out the very same as many of the PIRA targets.

In the event that the republic gets lumbered with the 6 counties we will also be lumbered with the crippling cost of funding them. Thanks but no thanks and EOTR from long experience of your previous posts im not going o engage with you

JustTheOne

jack923 wrote: »

You realise the british, Americans and Russians are all responsible for the death of children in recent times. But oh that doesn't matter does it?

Sorry who is this thread about again?

Are you telling me because America do it it somehow makes it acceptable?

What's your point?

JustTheOne

Can someone who is a defender of sf pira here please tell me how killing garda mccabe helped further their cause and protect catholics?

Or kidnapping a horse?

Or how about illegal diesel laundering and dumping toxic chemicals all over our country?

Or killing innocent children?

Or forcing people to drive bombs into army barracks while telling them if they don't do it they will kill their family?

Or actually killing more catholics than any other group or army during the conflict?

How is all this meant to be protecting catholics?

tipptom

JustTheOne wrote: »

Sorry who is this thread about again?

Are you telling me because America do it it somehow makes it acceptable?

What's your point?

Love the way you just put America in there when he also mentioned about the British well known predilection for murdering children while trying to suppress native people rebelling in their own country against British terrorism.


Suppose GAs would have no view on this seeing as he had to live through this in his own country(you didn't) but that wouldn't suit your agenda,would it?

LordSutch

tipptom wrote: »

BTW do you know Lord Sutch or any of the rest of the nostalgic dreamers for the good old days by any chance??

Hello, say what? good old days?

JustTheOne

tipptom wrote: »

Love the way you just put America in there when he also mentioned about the British well known predilection for murdering children while trying to suppress native people rebelling in their own country against British terrorism.


Suppose GAs would have no view on this seeing as he had to live through this in his own country(you didn't) but that wouldn't suit your agenda,would it?

Or Britain.

So are you admitting it's wrong and a cowardly act?

tipptom

JustTheOne wrote: »

Can someone who is a defender of sf pira here please tell me how killing garda mccabe helped further their cause and protect catholics?

Or kidnapping a horse?

Or how about illegal diesel laundering and dumping toxic chemicals all over our country?

Or killing innocent children?

Or forcing people to drive bombs into army barracks while telling them if they don't do it they will kill their family?

Or actually killing more catholics than any other group or army during the conflict?

How is all this meant to be protecting catholics?

A lot of bad sh*t happens wherever your beloved British army have visited their marauding brand of terrorism and murder on weaker nations.

mynamejeff

tipptom wrote: »

I doubt that.


I would prefer to have GAs or MMcG at my back than you if I wanted the best for my family in that situation.


I reckon you would lay down and take whatever sh*t is thrown at you like you expected men and women in NI to do throughout the generations in their own country and when they do fight back have to listen to the likes of you condemning them from the comfort and safety of your Southern home.


BTW do you know Lord Sutch or any of the rest of the nostalgic dreamers for the good old days by any chance??


People have moved on,Catholics now have a better chance of education, housing and jobs in NI(and they are making good use of it) now ,and the people of your mindset have been pushed to one side in the past where you belong and nothing you say will inflame or will drag us back there(from the safety of your keyboard in your southern home of course) however much you hope it will.

thats some pretty silly and presumptive statements there tom but nothing new from the shinnerbots really .

you know nothing about me apart from my statements here so you should really only comment on that right ?

I can happly say i will never look to cowardly criminals like them or any or thier rodent like party flunkies for help or support and i have more respect for myself than that

Which house do you think gerry does hs comforting in the one in derry the one in belfast or the one in donegal or one of the thre in england ? And all on the average industrial wage lol

I remember quite clearly the weekly atrocities by paramilitaries in the 80s and 90s and the only one likely to drag us back into that world are your heros in SF

mynamejeff

tipptom wrote: »

A lot of bad sh*t happens wherever your beloved British army have visited their marauding brand of terrorism and murder on weaker nations.

so not going to answer then no ?

tipptom

JustTheOne wrote: »

Or Britain.

So are you admitting it's wrong and a cowardly act?

Yes,anyone who purposly endangers children in war is a cowardly act and we all know it is acts like these that forces good people against their very nature to strike back with savage acts against terrorist imperialist countries.

Alf Stewart.

JustTheOne wrote: »

Or Britain.

So are you admitting it's wrong and a cowardly act?

Seems the army of GB don't share your sentiments.

Mind you, those lads would have skin in the game, so what would they know, eh?

An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.
The admission is contained in a discussion document released by the Ministry of Defence after a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

The 100 page document analyses in detail the army's role over 37 years.

It focuses on specific operations and gives an overview of its performance.

The six-month study, covering the period 1968-2005, was prepared under the direction of the then chief of general staff, General Sir Mike Jackson.

The document, obtained by the Pat Finucane Centre, points to a number of mistakes, including internment and highlights what lessons have been learnt.

It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

It concedes for the first time that it did not win the battle against the IRA - but claims to have "shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence".

tipptom

mynamejeff wrote: »

thats some pretty silly and presumptive statements there tom but nothing new from the shinnerbots really .

you know nothing about me apart from my statements here so you should really only comment on that right ?

I can happly say i will never look to cowardly criminals like them or any or thier rodent like party flunkies for help or support and i have more respect for myself than that

Which house do you think gerry does hs comforting in the one in derry the one in belfast or the one in donegal or one of the thre in england ? And all on the average industrial wage lol

I remember quite clearly the weekly atrocities by paramilitaries in the 80s and 90s and the only one likely to drag us back into that world are your heros in SF

You lost me there wee man??


Your rethoric is becoming very emotional like a drunk loyalist on burning the Pape night,calm down.


I remember very clearly the weekly atrocities against the Catholic people in their own country in the 80s and 90s by the British government/Army and their police force/loyalists but I guess you don't like to mention that.


The only ones who can take us back to that is people like you who keep regurgitating it long after agreements have been reached and people have moved on.

Alf Stewart.

mynamejeff wrote: »

thats some pretty silly and presumptive statements there tom but nothing new from the shinnerbots really .

you know nothing about me apart from my statements here so you should really only comment on that right ?

I can happly say i will never look to cowardly criminals like them or any or thier rodent like party flunkies for help or support and i have more respect for myself than that

Which house do you think gerry does hs comforting in the one in derry the one in belfast or the one in donegal or one of the thre in england ? And all on the average industrial wage lol

I remember quite clearly the weekly atrocities by paramilitaries in the 80s and 90s and the only one likely to drag us back into that world are your heros in SF

I'm no lover of politicians in general, I think they all talk a load of baloney, and waffle for a living, however I feel I have to pull you up on this statement right here.

Which house do you think gerry does hs comforting in the one in derry the one in belfast or the one in donegal or one of the thre in england ? And all on the average industrial wage lol

I'd be more than interested if you could link me to where you read such a thing as Adams owning a house in Derry, or England.

I know I read somewhere that he owned an ex council house in Belfast, if I recall correctly he purchased it under a long term tenancy agreement with Belfast council. Hardly a kings ransom, and hardly a mansion.

I also believe I read somewhere that he was having some kind of financial difficulties keeping up with the mortgage repayments on the Donegal cottage, if Adams is indeed on the average industrial sage, hardly surprising. It may even have been sold on. Not Sure.

Anyways. If you could provide me with the details on where and when Gerry Adams obtained his impressive property portfolio, id be much obliged.

Cheers.

mynamejeff

tipptom wrote: »

You lost me there wee man??


Your rethoric is becoming very emotional like a drunk loyalist on burning the Pape night,calm down.


I remember very clearly the weekly atrocities against the Catholic people in their own country in the 80s and 90s by the British government/Army and their police force/loyalists but I guess you don't like to mention that.


The only ones who can take us back to that is people like you who keep regurgitating it long after agreements have been reached and people have moved on.

first i was a soft southern keyboard warrior now im a drunk loyalist lol.
Ive told you already tom you dont have any idea who or what i am why do you persist in trying to label me and other dissenting posters ?

Im unsurprising by your inability to understand the clear points i ve already made but its SOP shinnerbot tactic to ignore those isnt it :rolleyes:

if you read back you ll see in said paramilitary atrocities , i didn't specify either side . Murder is murder the side your on doesn't excuse it but you dont understand that do you.

No Im not likely to be the case of the breakdown of government and return to violence in the north regardless of any action i may take. Adams on the other hand ....... we ll just have to see wont we

Samaris

LDN_Irish wrote: »

No, I was addressing the points made in the comment I quoted. There is no evidence that Jean McConville ever administered aid or comfort to a dying British soldier. There's no record of any British soldiers being maimed or killed in the area it's alleged to have happened at any time before her death. I believe that in not wanting to admit that she was an informer, a plausible reason for her being targeted had to be created and her giving aid to a fictional dying British soldier was the reason that was fabricated*. Nobody would have believed (apart from a few posters on here of course) that she was randomly selected for death for no reason at all.

*It does go to show, if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

Right, sorry, I follow now. I'd picked that up completely the wrong way and not read far enough back.

tipptom

mynamejeff wrote: »

first i was a soft southern keyboard warrior now im a drunk loyalist lol.
Ive told you already tom you dont have any idea who or what i am why do you persist in trying to label me and other dissenting posters ?

Im unsurprising by your inability to understand the clear points i ve already made but its SOP shinnerbot tactic to ignore those isnt it :rolleyes:

if you read back you ll see in said paramilitary atrocities , i didn't specify either side . Murder is murder the side your on doesn't excuse it but you dont understand that do you.

No Im not likely to be the case of the breakdown of government and return to violence in the north regardless of any action i may take. Adams on the other hand ....... we ll just have to see wont we

Now Jeff,i think we can all see from Boards that there are plenty of southern keyboard warriors who talk like drunk loyalists.

You neatly just mention paramilitary atrocitys,nothing to address the British gov/army,loyalist police,mi6 atrocitys against Irish Catholics in their own country.


You say murder is murder so I presume that any man who went to the front in WW1 "so that small nations could be free" were murderers as well?

maryishere

end of the road wrote: »

it (like the whole mainland bombing campaign) effectively forced britain to the table, as they knew the ira were a deadly force who could strike vital targets at will, wherever, whenever. regardless of any security measures.

Actually the British govt talked to the PIRA leadership in the early seventies in order to get them to lstop the violence, but the PIRA said the armed struggle would remain until the British government withdrew from N. Ireland / surrendered. It took a few decades and thousands of deaths for the Republicans to realise the futility of terrorism, and to surrender their arms.

Alf Stewart.

maryishere wrote: »

Actually the British govt talked to the PIRA leadership in the early seventies in order to get them to lstop the violence, but the PIRA said the armed struggle would remain until the British government withdrew from N. Ireland / surrendered. It took a few decades and thousands of deaths for the Republicans to realise the futility of terrorism, and to surrender their arms.

Rewrite history often do we?

Alannah Gallagher

He needs to come clean and stop this "I wasn't in the IRA" nonsense.

I wouldn't vote for someone I didn't trust to tell the truth- but then again this rules out everyone else too.

tipptom

Alannah Gallagher wrote: »

He needs to come clean and stop this "I wasn't in the IRA" nonsense.

I wouldn't vote for someone I didn't trust to tell the truth- but then again this rules out everyone else too.

Personally I think he was in the IRA but there may have been some legality's at the time with the British if he did admit he was a member.


Does not bother me if he was or not.

maryishere

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Rewrite history often do we?

Effectively what happened - the terrorists on both sides (PIRA, INLA, UVF etc) had to have their arms destroyed / taken from them. The security services of both states kept theirs.
And yes, the British govt did try to pursuade Gerry and the leadership to stop their bombings, terrorism etc in the early seventies. The Pope even appealed to his followers to stop the violence is his visit to Louth in '79.


Quote: "The first major meeting of 1972 when an IRA delegation including Gerry Adams was flown into London is among the most well known.

But documents released under the 30-year-rule reveal for the first time the details of official reaction at the time - and confirm that Mr Adams had an earlier longer meeting with two officials which had given the government hope of a breakthrough amid conflict."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2601875.stm

tipptom

maryishere wrote: »

Effectively what happened - the terrorists on both sides (PIRA, INLA, UVF etc) had to have their arms destroyed / taken from them. The security services of both states kept theirs.
And yes, the British govt did try to pursuade Gerry and the leadership to stop their bombings, terrorism etc in the early seventies. The Pope even appealed to his followers to stop the violence is his visit to Louth in '79.


Quote: "The first major meeting of 1972 when an IRA delegation including Gerry Adams was flown into London is among the most well known.

But documents released under the 30-year-rule reveal for the first time the details of official reaction at the time - and confirm that Mr Adams had an earlier longer meeting with two officials which had given the government hope of a breakthrough amid conflict."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2601875.stm

Your hilarious.

Conas

People hate Gerry Adams largely because RTE has always been very anti-IRA, anti-Sinn Fein, and the Irish Public have been made absorb this throughout the different decades.

Also the last three hosts of The Late Late show Tubridy, Kenny and Gaybo are West Brit leaning people, who take great joy in bashing the IRA and Gerry Adams at every given opportunity. So people would hate Gerry Adams mainly because they have had to listen to such anti-Sinn Fein rubbish on RTE.
As far as I'm concerned Gerry Adams has no more blood on his hands, than the likes of George Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton all who's actions have caused the deaths of countless innocent people in Iraq, Libya and other parts of the middle-east.
But Tubs and Gaybo wouldn't speak to them the same way they'd speak to Gerry Adams, and everyone knows it too.

tipptom

Conas wrote: »

People hate Gerry Adams largely because RTE has always been very anti-IRA, anti-Sinn Fein, and the Irish Public have been made absorb this throughout the different decades.

Also the last three hosts of The Late Late show Tubridy, Kenny and Gaybo are West Brit leaning people, who take great joy in bashing the IRA and Gerry Adams at every given opportunity. So people would hate Gerry Adams mainly because they have had to listen to such anti-Sinn Fein rubbish on RTE.
As far as I'm concerned Gerry Adams has no more blood on his hands, than the likes of George Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton all who's actions have caused the deaths of countless innocent people in Iraq, Libya and other parts of the middle-east.
But Tubs and Gaybo wouldn't speak to them the same way they'd speak to Gerry Adams, and everyone knows it too.

Oh My,you are in trouble now

Redbishop

Conas wrote: »

People hate Gerry Adams largely because RTE has always been very anti-IRA, anti-Sinn Fein, and the Irish Public have been made absorb this throughout the different decades.

Also the last three hosts of The Late Late show Tubridy, Kenny and Gaybo are West Brit leaning people, who take great joy in bashing the IRA and Gerry Adams at every given opportunity. So people would hate Gerry Adams mainly because they have had to listen to such anti-Sinn Fein rubbish on RTE.
As far as I'm concerned Gerry Adams has no more blood on his hands, than the likes of George Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton all who's actions have caused the deaths of countless innocent people in Iraq, Libya and other parts of the middle-east.
But Tubs and Gaybo wouldn't speak to them the same way they'd speak to Gerry Adams, and everyone knows it too.

But he has blood on his hands?
Seems a likeable enough character, but he isn't a role model at the same time.
Covering up sex crimes is also a despicable shame, no?

Gwynplaine

An Alsatian in a suit.

Two Tone

It's the "all or nothing" stuff I can't relate to. As if admission of any wrongdoing means a compromise of one's overall view.

I would be reasonably briefed on the history of Northern Ireland. I know about the discrimination, segregation, brutality and injustice experienced by catholics after partition, at the hands of the security forces and many unionists/loyalists. I know about the attacks on catholics when they dared to get all uppity and protest against this vileness in the late 60s. I know something had to give - only the most unrealistic and naive would expect them not to defend themselves forcefully, and I know about the behaviour of some of the subsequently drafted-in British army towards civilians, and of vicious loyalist paramilitary squads (in collusion with security forces and supported by "respectable" unionists/loyalists).

However, despite all of the above, the IRA were responsible for the murder of innocents (including members of the communities they claimed to be fighting for) - nothing whatsoever will justify this. Violence by others will not justify this. A person can acknowledge this and still support the nationalist community, and does not deserve to be called a west Brit or whatever nonsense.

Downplaying/justifying IRA violence (and even throwing insults at people who are critical of this violence, as seen earlier in the thread) including the murder of a widow whose children were left to fend for themselves (and they really were - there was feck all support for a bunch of poor catholic kids in the early 70s up there) is dismaying.

KingBrian2

Conas wrote: »

People hate Gerry Adams largely because RTE has always been very anti-IRA, anti-Sinn Fein, and the Irish Public have been made absorb this throughout the different decades.

Also the last three hosts of The Late Late show Tubridy, Kenny and Gaybo are West Brit leaning people, who take great joy in bashing the IRA and Gerry Adams at every given opportunity. So people would hate Gerry Adams mainly because they have had to listen to such anti-Sinn Fein rubbish on RTE.
As far as I'm concerned Gerry Adams has no more blood on his hands, than the likes of George Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton all who's actions have caused the deaths of countless innocent people in Iraq, Libya and other parts of the middle-east.
But Tubs and Gaybo wouldn't speak to them the same way they'd speak to Gerry Adams, and everyone knows it too.

Great way to smear a whole group of notable people.

Alf Stewart.

maryishere wrote: »

Effectively what happened -

Effectively stopped reading here.

Intentionally misleading Waffle or badly misinformed. Take your pick.

KingBrian2

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Effectively stopped reading here.

Intentionally misleading Waffle or badly misinformed. Take your pick.

A little bit of both.:)

Cee-Jay-Cee

Because he's like some sort of mentally challenged twat that just ignores everything around him and blindly lies about his past and is obviously so thick that he thinks people believe him. Everyone knows he's lying, he knows he's lying but he's so incredulously stupid that he just keeps coming out with the same shìté. It's akin to Pablo Escobar coming out and saying he has never been involved in the drug trade.

Yamanoto

Conas wrote: »

People hate Gerry Adams largely because RTE has always been very anti-IRA, anti-Sinn Fein, and the Irish Public have been made absorb this throughout the different decades.

Wanderly Wagon was scripted by NIO securicrats from the mid-70's onwards & Bosco was clearly little more than a puppet of the British establishment.

tipptom

Two Tone wrote: »

It's the "all or nothing" stuff I can't relate to. As if admission of any wrongdoing means a compromise of one's overall view.

I would be reasonably briefed on the history of Northern Ireland. I know about the discrimination, segregation, brutality and injustice experienced by catholics after partition, at the hands of the security forces and many unionists/loyalists. I know about the attacks on catholics when they dared to get all uppity and protest against this vileness in the late 60s. I know something had to give - only the most unrealistic and naive would expect them not to defend themselves forcefully, and I know about the behaviour of some of the subsequently drafted-in British army towards civilians, and of vicious loyalist paramilitary squads (in collusion with security forces and supported by "respectable" unionists/loyalists).

However, despite all of the above, the IRA were responsible for the murder of innocents (including members of the communities they claimed to be fighting for) - nothing whatsoever will justify this. Violence by others will not justify this. A person can acknowledge this and still support the nationalist community, and does not deserve to be called a west Brit or whatever nonsense.

Downplaying/justifying IRA violence (and even throwing insults at people who are critical of this violence, as seen earlier in the thread) including the murder of a widow whose children were left to fend for themselves (and they really were - there was feck all support for a bunch of poor catholic kids in the early 70s up there) is dismaying.

What do you mean all or nothing stuff?


Everybody knows about how some of the IRA actions were wrong and not justified.
GAs and MMcG have been apologising for these wrongs incessantly but people just ignore it or say it was not good enough.


What apologies have you seen from the British or Unionist politicians who caused and fanned the flames of the trouble since partition against the native people simply because they were Irish and Catholic.
Nothing whatsoever will justify that and eventually there becomes a point where good people have to say stop and fight back.
Its happened in every country in the world that the British terrorised.


You don't seem to know anything about the Irish Catholics who were attacked,terrorised and murdered for being just that,Irish Catholics,minding their own business and not even involving themselves in being all uppity about equal rights.


Do you have any idea what that does to people and their children looking on in perpetuity at there grandparents,parents and then themselves being treated like that?


Its absolutely sickening to hear middle class people in the south shouting the odds from the safety of the south about how a damaged and terrorised people in their own country were forced in to fighting back and ensuring that this generation of terrorism of our people will not be allowed to continue and it has by and large been discontinued.


You may be dismayed at people defending informers being shot but you didn't live in these community's under siege.


Everbody knew the results that came with being an informer on their community and there usually was no second warning.

Lt Dan

jack923 wrote: »

The IRA were strongly against drugs an uneducated person like you wouldn't know.
Into a packed shopping area? What are you on about? Fool who doesn't know what he's on about.

Try Manchester 1993, shopping centre ,broad daylight

Conas

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Great way to smear a whole group of notable people.

Those that can see wrong in Gerry Adams, whitewash the crimes of those 'notable' people. Largely because of what's spoon fed to them by the media. RTE say Gerry Adams is bad so automatically he must be bad. He's a great man as far as I'm concerned.

Lt Dan

wokingvoter wrote: »

Strongly against drugs? And I'm a fool!
What happened on the 15 August 1998?

As usual too interested in being outraged , you get your facts ass ways.

15 August 1998? Omagh?

That was the work of the Real IRA and not the Provos. Now if it has to be explained to you the differences then ,frankly, perhaps you should stick to topics that are on your level.

You could try Manchester 1993 however

What had that to do with drugs ?

end of the road

mynamejeff wrote: »

Apart from a reserve army barracks what made killing chldren in warrington a VITAL target ??

It was a soft target with no risk to the cowards who carried it out the very same as many of the PIRA targets.

In the event that the republic gets lumbered with the 6 counties we will also be lumbered with the crippling cost of funding them. Thanks but no thanks and EOTR from long experience of your previous posts im not going o engage with you

the costs are not crippling. we could get e.u. funding to help us, and we would have 2 economic power houses instead of 1 like we have now. they're is no need to get personal with me.

JustTheOne wrote: »

Can someone who is a defender of sf pira here please tell me how killing garda mccabe helped further their cause and protect catholics?

Or kidnapping a horse?

Or how about illegal diesel laundering and dumping toxic chemicals all over our country?

Or killing innocent children?

Or forcing people to drive bombs into army barracks while telling them if they don't do it they will kill their family?

Or actually killing more catholics than any other group or army during the conflict?

How is all this meant to be protecting catholics?

it didn't. however they were different groups and not the provos. the provos did not kill more catholics then the loyalists and ba, and the figures show that more ba + security forces + loyalists were killed.

maryishere wrote: »

Actually the British govt talked to the PIRA leadership in the early seventies in order to get them to lstop the violence, but the PIRA said the armed struggle would remain until the British government withdrew from N. Ireland / surrendered. It took a few decades and thousands of deaths for the Republicans to realise the futility of terrorism, and to surrender their arms.

what you actually mean is . the republicans got almost everything they wanted, hence they put down their arms.
the reality is the PIRA could have continued indefinitely if needed. the british were indeed talking to them but their talks were not one bit meaningful and no concessions were given by the british. britain wanted to keep the sectarian orange state.

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Because he's like some sort of mentally challenged twat that just ignores everything around him and blindly lies about his past and is obviously so thick that he thinks people believe him. Everyone knows he's lying, he knows he's lying but he's so incredulously stupid that he just keeps coming out with the same shìté. It's akin to Pablo Escobar coming out and saying he has never been involved in the drug trade.

they're is no proof that he is or isn't lying. until he is brought before the courts then if he says he wasn't a member of the ira then he wasn't

Two Tone

tipptom wrote: »

What do you mean all or nothing stuff?


Everybody knows about how some of the IRA actions were wrong and not justified.
GAs and MMcG have been apologising for these wrongs incessantly but people just ignore it or say it was not good enough.

Not everyone on this thread is acknowledging these - the person who started the thread was going around shouting down anyone who pointed these out.

What apologies have you seen from the British or Unionist politicians who caused and fanned the flames of the trouble since partition against the native people simply because they were Irish and Catholic.

None - I am not denying that.

Nothing whatsoever will justify that and eventually there becomes a point where good people have to say stop and fight back.
Its happened in every country in the world that the British terrorised

This does not justify Warrington or Enniskillen or Birmingham or Guildford - that is killing of innocents, not fighting back. Two of the lads killed in the Birmingham pub bombing were Irish.

You don't seem to know anything about the Irish Catholics who were attacked,terrorised and murdered for being just that,Irish Catholics,minding their own business and not even involving themselves in being all uppity about equal rights.

How the jumping jeebus can you say I "don't seem to know anything" - as my post quoted by you says: "I know about the discrimination, segregation, brutality and injustice experienced by catholics after partition, at the hands of the security forces and many unionists/loyalists".

Its absolutely sickening to hear middle class people in the south shouting the odds from the safety of the south about how a damaged and terrorised people in their own country were forced in to fighting back and ensuring that this generation of terrorism of our people will not be allowed to continue and it has by and large been discontinued.

This is what I mean by the all or nothing stuff - I outlined how I have an understanding of what was done to catholics and how they were forced to defend themselves... but because I criticise IRA offensives (not defensives) you let that overshadow the rest of what I said. I am not one of those clueless people down here who think all the Troubles were started by the IRA and everything was the IRA and everyone else was innocent. Talk to those, not me, about being revisionist.

You may be dismayed at people defending informers being shot but you didn't live in these community's under siege.


Everbody knew the results that came with being an informer on their community and there usually was no second warning.

I am dismayed at a terribly poor widowed mother of several children being killed and her children left to fend for themselves.

Alf Stewart.

Lt Dan wrote: »

Try Manchester 1993, shopping centre ,broad daylight

Or Croke Park, Dublin, 1920.

Innocent patrons at a football match, open fired on by a British army armoured car.

Fourteen killed. Over sixty injured.

Messy business that war lark.

Lt Dan

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Rewrite history often do we?

The British at some level or other always had an ear of some IRA personnel Adams and McGuinness are on record about this. Contrary to Thatchers public comments, her people, whether she knew or not ,had contact with personnel in the IRA. Sure even Albert was talking to them in Dublin (and Loyalists like David Irvine)

Lt Dan

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Or Croke Park, Dublin, 1920.

Innocent patrons at a football match, open fired on by a British army armoured car.

Fourteen killed. Over sixty injured.

Messy business that war lark.

Whataboutry there. The Tans retaliation after the death of 14 G men that morning was unjustified. But it is laughable to go on a whataboutery of an event that occurred 70 years later while peace process talks were in place

mikeym

The Brits started the Bloodbath not Gerry Adams!

Alf Stewart.

Lt Dan wrote: »

Whataboutry there. The Tans retaliation after the death of 14 G men that morning was unjustified. But it is laughable to go on a whataboutery of an event that occurred 70 years later while peace process talks were in place

Whatabouerry, in a thread about Gerry Adams, that has had everything covered from the catholic church, to Nelson Mandella.

One may like to brush certain events in our history under a shagpile carpet, but then one might ignore the whole reason the IRA ever spawned and existed.

England wanted a war, England got one.

Granted, it wasn't your normal battlefield with a capture the flag emphasis to it, instead it was a long drawn out guerrilla staged warfare that effectively ended in stalemate, both sides reaching compromise.

There were no winners in irelands long conflict.

Unfortunately Ireland's tale is only one of many when it comes to our closest neighbour, and her once insatiable appetite to dominate and rule and maintain its empire.