Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

K-9

Mod:
Please don't comment on any re-regs and especially don't reply to them. We'll get to them within a few hours.

Also we seem to be going over the same, same old stuff about N.I. and not discussing the thread topic at all.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The atrocities were a symptom/result of what caused the conflict. And ANY reasonable assessment will show that it was 70 years of sectarian bigoted government that caused the conflict.
That was not equalled by nationalists and republicans...obviously. (well obvious to any one who knows the detail and history)

Have you a link to the stats for the atrocities in the 70 years you refer to or did you just pluck that statement out of the air...?

For the period of the troubles (1969 onwards) that we were discussing, it's widely known that the organisation that you hold so dear were responsible for more deaths than every other organisation combined but that would (obviously) have been known to you as someone who prides themselves on their knowledge of 'detail and history'...
http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Have you a link to the stats for the atrocities in the 70 years you refer to or did you just pluck that statement out of the air...?

For the period of the troubles (1969 onwards) that we were discussing, it's widely known that the organisation that you hold so dear were responsible for more deaths than every other organisation combined but that would (obviously) have been known to you as someone who prides themselves on their knowledge of 'detail and history'...
http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html

If you don't understand, what was patently obvious, that the atrocities/'period of the troubles' came as the 'result' of something, I will let someone else explain it to you.
It is what partitionists typically want to do, it is what FG FF are doing here with all these families, the attempt to stall the day the real stories come out. And those responsible for letting the lid come off are as much in the spotlight as those who committed atrocities.
Why should we know what happened to Brian Stack if we don't know what happened around Ballymurphy or Dublin/Monaghan?

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't understand, what was patently obvious, that the atrocities/'period of the troubles' came as the 'result' of something, I will let someone else explain it to you.
It is what partitionists typically want to do, it is what FG FF are doing here with all these families, the attempt to stall the day the real stories come out. And those responsible for letting the lid come off are as much in the spotlight as those who committed atrocities.
Why should we know what happened to Brian Stack if we don't know what happened around Ballymurphy or Dublin/Monaghan?

So no link...?

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

So no link...?

I never said that there were any 'atrocities' in the 70 year period, so why would I have to link to them?
Governance was 'atrocious' though and created the pressure pot. The British government underpining it was atrocious as was the Irish government ignoring it (standing by)Are you seriously going to deny that?

You keep denying the cause Billy, there has to be a reason for that. And you have neatly demonstrated what FG FF are attempting to do when they single out a family that fits certain criteria. To get the uninformed to shout and roar that it was all the fault of particular people.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said that there were any 'atrocities' in the 70 year period, so why would I have to link to them?
Governance was 'atrocious' though and created the pressure pot. The British government underpining it was atrocious as was the Irish government ignoring it (standing by)Are you seriously going to deny that?

You keep denying the cause Billy, there has to be a reason for that. And you have neatly demonstrated what FG FF are attempting to do when they single out a family that fits certain criteria. To get the uninformed to shout and roar that it was all the fault of particular people.

Try to focus, you said the 'atrocities' Committed by the other side were not equalled by those committed by the nationalists, you even qualified it by suggesting this 'fact' was based on knowledge of detail and history....

That was not equalled by nationalists and republicans...obviously. (well obvious to any one who knows the detail and history)

I challenged you to produce that 'knowledge and detail' that you refered to, you failed to do this, so it's not unreasonable to suggest your original statement is more founded in rhetoric rather than fact.

I on the other hand provided detail to confirm my original suggestion that the nationalist side were far and away the most bloodthirsty and violent element of the modern day conflict (1969 onwards) with a murder rate of more than twice the total of every other organisation including every Loyalist paramilitary force, the RUC, the UDR and the British Army COMBINED!
While that may be an uncomfortable statistic for some, and shocking for more, it is a verifiable fact which should be obvious to 'anyone who knows detail and history' wouldn't you agree...?

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Try to focus, you said the 'atrocities' Committed by the other side were not equalled by those committed by the nationalists, you even qualified it by suggesting this 'fact' was based on knowledge of detail and history....


I challenged you to produce that 'knowledge and detail' that you refered to, you failed to do this, so it's not unreasonable to suggest your original statement is more founded in rhetoric rather than fact.

I on the other hand provided detail to confirm my original suggestion that the nationalist side were far and away the most bloodthirsty and violent element of the modern day conflict (1969 onwards) with a murder rate of more than twice the total of every other organisation including every Loyalist paramilitary force, the RUC, the UDR and the British Army COMBINED!
While that may be an uncomfortable statistic for some, and shocking for more, it is a verifiable fact which should be obvious to 'anyone who knows detail and history' wouldn't you agree...?

The reason these threads get bogged down is because people like you keep lying about what is said.

I will leave it to others to assess what it is you are attempting to do. I don't understand tbh how you repeatedly get away with cherrypicking a sentence out of somebody's post and pretending that they were saying something else. You repeatedly do this.

Here is the full point I was making. You need to be able to follow a debate/point and not go full postal because you think you read/heard something :

The atrocities were a symptom/result of what caused the conflict. And ANY reasonable assessment will show that it was 70 years of sectarian bigoted government that caused the conflict.
That was not equalled by nationalists and republicans...obviously.

Re; Your point about the statistics of the conflict that resulted from 70 years of sectarian bigoted government since partition.
Statistics can be read in numerous ways. I suspect you won't read this but here it is anyway, a well argued piece on the subject.

http://thepensivequill.am/2011/11/statistics-of-conflict-and-conflict-of.html

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The reason these threads get bogged down is because people like you keep lying about what is said.

You know the drill, link to where I was "lying"..... :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

You know the drill, link to where I was "lying"..... :rolleyes:

You have lied a few times about what I said. I never said there were atrocities committed during 70 years of sectarian bigoted rule. I clearly said 'that was the a cause of the conflict.
I clearly said that 'republicans/nationalists did not equal that' = 70 years of sectarian bigoted governance....'obviously'.

Most recently you also lied about what Adams has said, he never said that, that there was an 'equal measure of hatred and bigotry'. If he did link to it.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Most recently you also lied about what Adams has said, he never said that, that there was an 'equal measure of hatred and bigotry'. If he did link to it.

No, I said he 'more or less' admitted it....

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

No, I said he 'more or less' admitted it....

Where did he do this.
Simple enough link to provide, let others judge what you mean by 'more or less'.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did he do this.
Simple enough link to provide, let others judge what you mean by 'more or less'.

I think everybody is more than familiar with meaning of the phrase 'more or less', you yourself used it in the post directly above mine where you said...

Listen carefully to Ian Paisley in the last months of his life, he more or less admits that it was the sectarian bigoted governance of the statelet that caused it, or was to 'blame and the government that shored it up

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101995573&postcount=794

Or would you like to provide a link to this to 'let others judge what you mean by the phrase...?

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

Please stop taking swipes at each other. If you can't debate civilly please don't post at all.

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

I think everybody is more than familiar with meaning of the phrase 'more or less', you yourself used it in the post directly above mine where you said...




http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101995573&postcount=794

Or would you like to provide a link to this to 'let others judge what you mean by the phrase...?

Here is the link:
http://www.upi.com/Ian-Paisley-Catholics-treated-unfairly-in-1960s-Northern-Ireland/34171389336095/

Here is the interview where he says it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xNHqJB6vI

Treating the members of another religion unfairly and discriminating against them because of religion is 'sectarian'. Sectarianism is 'bigoted'. Therefore it is fair to say that Ian Paisley 'more or less admits that it was sectarian bigoted governance that caused the conflict'.


Now can you show where Adams 'more or less admitted there was bigotry and hatred in equal measures on both sides of the divide...'

I am particularly interested in where he says it was 'equal'.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here is the link:
http://www.upi.com/Ian-Paisley-Catholics-treated-unfairly-in-1960s-Northern-Ireland/34171389336095/

Here is the interview where he says it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xNHqJB6vI

Treating the members of another religion unfairly and discriminating against them because of religion is 'sectarian'. Sectarianism is 'bigoted'. Therefore it is fair to say that Ian Paisley 'more or less admits that it was sectarian bigoted governance that caused the conflict'.


Now can you show where Adams 'more or less admitted there was bigotry and hatred in equal measures on both sides of the divide...'

I am particularly interested in where he says it was 'equal'.

Hmmm, bit of a stretch.... :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Hmmm, bit of a stretch.... :rolleyes:

I'll let people judge for themselves who is backing up what they are saying and who isn't.

FrancieBrady

As this story has almost completely disappeared and yet another family are left in a sad and tragic void.
Has anyone changed their mind on this way of dealing with the past?
To return to the OP is Adams right:

“If the Taoiseach and Micheál Martin are interested in healing the legacy of the past for all families, including the Stacks, the Finucane’s, the families of the Dublin Monaghan bombs and hundreds more, then they could begin by putting in place an International based independent truth recovery process,”

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As this story has almost completely disappeared and yet another family are left in a sad and tragic void.
Has anyone changed their mind on this way of dealing with the past?
To return to the OP is Adams right:

Of course Adams is wrong.

Firstly, not one normal person would ever believe that SF/IRA are capable of telling the truth in respect of the terrorist campaign in the North, which is why there is little point to it.

Secondly, quite a number of the most serious and grievous crimes committed by SF/IRA would have to be left out of the process - Jean McConville, Jerry McCabe, Austin Stack, Mairia Cahill, Aine Adams, Paudie McGahon, kangaroo courts, drug-smuggling, diesel-laundering etc. - because they are either war crimes or outside of the conflict if you use SF's definition of the conflict.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Of course Adams is wrong.

Firstly, not one normal person would ever believe that SF/IRA are capable of telling the truth in respect of the terrorist campaign in the North, which is why there is little point to it.

IRA have done what they said they would do as far as I can see (not to be confused with what you think they should do).
Decommissioned = check
ICLVR = satisfied they have done their best.
Information= given what they have said they would.

'Normal' people may be allowing myths to cloud their judgement, which would not be abnormal?

secondly, quite a number of the most serious and grievous crimes committed by SF/IRA would have to be left out of the process - Jean McConville, Jerry McCabe, Austin Stack, Mairia Cahill, Aine Adams, Paudie McGahon, kangaroo courts, drug-smuggling, diesel-laundering etc. - because they are either war crimes or outside of the conflict if you use SF's definition of the conflict.

Not for you to decide as far as I know. Conflict related is the criteria.