Is it just me or have SF vanished?

maccored

jh79 wrote: »

You're the SF member, so based on your more extensive research why will the same approach work here when it has failed elsewhere?

you claim its the 'same approach'. I disagree.

Explain how you think its the 'same approach'?

blackwhite

maccored wrote: »

you are accusing me of being a liar, and of being gullible. come back to me when you have figured out what the word 'abuse' means.

I've pointed out some direct untruthful claims you've made. Your response is to spin, spin, spin and throw abuse at anyone who dares question you. Same as it always is

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

I've pointed out some direct untruthful claims you've made. Your response is to spin, spin, spin and throw abuse at anyone who dares question you. Same as it always is

no you havent. You called me a liar because I had previously pointed out that the SF 70s was a different SF after the split in 1986.

As for abuse - theres only been one person calling another a liar in this, and it hasnt been me. Then you claim I have anger issues, after your insults.

as I say, it all says more about you than anyone fella. Off you go with your waffling as I dont have to listen to your rubbish.

Bishop of hope

maccored wrote: »

like? you are basically assuming social policies all fail for the same reason.

Sinn Féin started out with the usual radical ideas borne out of trouble, revolution etc etc.
The system is what's wrong, that's why we are as we are etc etc.
But they're gradually softening and leaning to the centre, because these radical policies have been proven to produce nothing but poverty and deprivation.
That's a fact, not a guess.
Economically successful countries that apply radical socialist policies are probably the likes of China, Russia and North Korea and such like.
Forced socialism.
Left to their own devices, most humans are capitalists in nature, that's just the way the human mind works.

blackwhite

maccored wrote: »

no you havent. You called me a liar because I had previously pointed out that the SF 70s was a different SF after the split in 1986.

As for abuse - theres only been one person calling another a liar in this, and it hasnt been me. Then you claim I have anger issues, after your insults.

as I say, it all says more about you than anyone fella. Off you go with your waffling as I dont have to listen to your rubbish.

More lies - I've referred repeatedly to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty referendum, as well as referenda since then - why the need to lie and state I'm talking about the 70s?

Did Sinn Féin campaign for, or against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (you know, the Treaty that founded the EU)?


Or you know - maybe just continue calling anyone who dares disagree with you "loopy" - that'll show everyone what a true SF-believer is really like.

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

More lies - I've referred repeatedly to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty referendum, as well as referenda since then - why the need to lie and state I'm talking about the 70s?

Did Sinn Féin campaign for, or against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (you know, the Treaty that founded the EU)?


Or you know - maybe just continue calling anyone who dares disagree with you "loopy" - that'll show everyone what a true SF-believer is really like.

you got mermory loss or something?

Other than, of course, the times you've lied about SF repeatedly campaigning against joining the EEC and the EU

thats from your earlier waffling when you started accusing me of being a liar _ BEFORE you mentioned any treaties.

And you have the cheek to call me a liar? Caught out there lad.

maccored

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Sinn Féin started out with the usual radical ideas borne out of trouble, revolution etc etc.
The system is what's wrong, that's why we are as we are etc etc.
But they're gradually softening and leaning to the centre, because these radical policies have been proven to produce nothing but poverty and deprivation.
That's a fact, not a guess.
Economically successful countries that apply radical socialist policies are probably the likes of China, Russia and North Korea and such like.
Forced socialism.
Left to their own devices, most humans are capitalists in nature, that's just the way the human mind works.

The minute SF stop representing my own views will be the minute they wont get my vote

blackwhite

maccored wrote: »

you got mermory loss or something?



thats from your earlier waffling when you started accusing me of being a liar _ BEFORE you mentioned any treaties.

And you have the cheek to call me a liar? Caught out there lad.

You're the one who claimed that SF have never campainged against EU membership.

How do you square that circle to the Maastrich Treaty referendum? (never mind all the other ones they've opposed as well).


(here's a mad one for you - posters on here can actually remember what you falsely claimed on other threads as well - shocking I know!)

Keep digging - you'll find Oz eventually

blanch152

RandomViewer wrote: »

Thought Cahill had an affair with her aunts husband and cried wolf when the aunt found out?

I think we have probably now reached the bottom of the sewer that Sinn Fein supporters inhabit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29786451

"Mr Adams told her that some abusers can be so manipulative that some victims "enjoy" the abuse"

That is the level you have sunk to.

jh79

maccored wrote: »

you claim its the 'same approach'. I disagree.

Explain how you think its the 'same approach'?

In general terms, these two countries and SF claim all the ills of their respective countries could be solved by targeting the "elites" (big corporations, the EU, bond markets etc) and that they could be made to pay more without affecting the economy.

SF want to spend, i believe 5 times more than the current government and fund a UI without any increases in taxes or cuts in social welfare.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it abnormal for a party member to be in line and agreement with party policy?

That was the point.

You introduced the 'cult' notion and 'conditions of membership' in more of the ceaseless deflectionary nonsense that goes on about a party that is here to stay. You'll just have to get over that but I accept you probably never will.

I have never met in real life a party member who will defend each and every policy and utterance of their political party.

However, online, I have met more than a few Sinn Fein party members (and indeed self-proclaimed non-members not even supporters of that party) who will defend to the nth degree everything that the party does.

jh79

blanch152 wrote: »

I have never met in real life a party member who will defend each and every policy and utterance of their political party.

However, online, I have met more than a few Sinn Fein party members (and indeed self-proclaimed non-members not even supporters of that party) who will defend to the nth degree everything that the party does.

Funny thing is the only dissent within the party recently was over the 8th leading to the formation of Aontu.

Morally wrong to abort a baby with a fatal fetal abnormality but acceptable to plant a bomb outside shopping center likely full of kids. Go figure.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never supported the IRA campaign of terror. A campaign again, designed to put pressure on what they saw as an occupying force. Also designed to terrorise the Unionist population into relinguishing the sectarian and bigoted control of the state.

From the IRA's point of view and those nationalists that supported them, that campaign of terror did produce results, the British negotiated and the Unionists were forced to relinguish their veto and their control of the state.
The GFA 'protects' nationalists and has delivered to them rights they didn't have prior to it.
That is why the most moderate Unionist party don't like the GFA and tried to reject it and why the most popular Unionist party hate it to it's core.

So the answer to your question is again - yes, sadly. The campaign of terror did protect the interests of nationalists.

I know I'll be accused of whataboutery, but there is nothing unique about the above when war/conflict breaks out. The bombing of Colonge and Dresden were designed to do the exact same thing...sap the resolve and strength of the opposition by terror. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the same thing on a grander scale.

Yes, yes you will because that is what you do when you avoid to answer a simple question. We are onto WWII and the Pacific theatre now... lol!

You have written 4 paragraphs there, but one sentence would have done to answer my question.

In your opinion, how did the murder of a 3 year toddler help the nationalist community?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I have never met in real life a party member who will defend each and every policy and utterance of their political party.

However, online, I have met more than a few Sinn Fein party members (and indeed self-proclaimed non-members not even supporters of that party) who will defend to the nth degree everything that the party does.

I know people online who say they vote for one party and are legendary defenders of another party.

I dont care what you believe about me blanch, all I can do is tell you my view truthfully.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, yes you will because that is what you do when you avoid to answer a simple question. We are onto WWII and the Pacific theatre now... lol!

You have written 4 paragraphs there, but one sentence would have done to answer my question.

In your opinion, how did the murder of a 3 year toddler help the nationalist community?

It didn't help the nationalist community. Why do you keep asking this question?



And as an example of how this works - the 3 Quinn boys were killed when their home was firebombed by loyalists. One of the loyalist killers was convicted for manslaughter, not first degree murder and got 14 years instead of a life sentence for his part in it. Presumably, it wasn't murder because the loyalists didn't actually go to kill the three boys.

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

More lies - I've referred repeatedly to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty referendum, as well as referenda since then - why the need to lie and state I'm talking about the 70s?

Did Sinn Féin campaign for, or against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (you know, the Treaty that founded the EU)?


Or you know - maybe just continue calling anyone who dares disagree with you "loopy" - that'll show everyone what a true SF-believer is really like.

maccored wrote: »

you got mermory loss or something?



thats from your earlier waffling when you started accusing me of being a liar _ BEFORE you mentioned any treaties.

And you have the cheek to call me a liar? Caught out there lad.

blackwhite wrote: »

You're the one who claimed that SF have never campainged against EU membership.

How do you square that circle to the Maastrich Treaty referendum? (never mind all the other ones they've opposed as well).


(here's a mad one for you - posters on here can actually remember what you falsely claimed on other threads as well - shocking I know!)

Keep digging - you'll find Oz eventually

I dont need to dig - you're already hard at it.

You claimed I lied as you had only talked about treaties - when I point out that in fact YOU were lying, then you deflect with the above.

you are right - people can read posts. That means they can also read yours.

All youve been doing is calling me a liar. when you got caught out on that, you start back at the start of the waffling. Stop embarrassing yourself.

maccored

Where is the debate. I note that blanch, blackwhite, marko etc - theres no debate with you people. its just bull****. Lots of makeyuppy stuffs, lots of 'Shinners are x, y and z' even the good old 'lookit me Im trying to be an online bully by calling people names'.

no actual substance though.

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

Where is the debate. I note that blanch, blackwhite, marko etc - theres no debate with you people. its just bull****. Lots of makeyuppy stuffs, lots of 'Shinners are x, y and z' even the good old 'lookit me Im trying to be an online bully by calling people names'.

no actual substance though.

I am going to refrain from responding to the first paragraph of your post, which is simple personal invective.

On the issue of responding in substance, here is a recent exchange with you in respect of the concept of "justifiable homicide".

I note that my posts go into depth, with reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, while your responses are limited to one-liner pronouncements. I will leave it to others to judge the substance.

maccored wrote: »

theres no such thing as 'justifiable homicide'. either murder is murder or people get killed in conflicts - its one or the other. you cant call one death caused by a soldier 'justiifable' yet a soldiers death as 'murder'.

blanch152 wrote: »

This is silly propaganda that ignores international law and conventions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

"Article 2 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention On Human Rights provides that that death resulted from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary":"

Even the European Convention on Human Rights - remember that, Sinn Fein support it - allows for justifiable homicide. Some of the actions (only some) carried out by the security forces in Northern Ireland would be covered by those articles, none of the actions carried out by the IRA are.

So yes, in line with the ECHR, I can call one death caused by a soldier justifiable, yet condemn utterly as murder the death of a soldier.

maccored wrote: »

You need to read Article 2 again. the BA is full of suspects and fugatives.

blackwhite

maccored wrote: »

I dont need to dig - you're already hard at it.

You claimed I lied as you had only talked about treaties - when I point out that in fact YOU were lying, then you deflect with the above.

you are right - people can read posts. That means they can also read yours.

All youve been doing is calling me a liar. when you got caught out on that, you start back at the start of the waffling. Stop embarrassing yourself.

The Maastricht Treaty is about becoming a member of the EU - which replaces the EEC. Sinn Fein campaigned against it. Claiming that they’ve never been opposed to EU membership is a blatant lie - as they campaigned against the referendum to move from EEC membership to EU membership.

Here’s the text of the amendment - that SF campaigned against

4º The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.


About as clear cut an example of campaigning against EU membership as you can get.

So either you’ve no idea what the 11th Amendment to the Irish Constitution actually was about - and made false claims based on that lack of knowledge - or you’re just pushing a falsehood because it suits the current-day SF narrative.


But sure keep the personal attacks and spinning if it makes you feel better.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, yes you will because that is what you do when you avoid to answer a simple question. We are onto WWII and the Pacific theatre now... lol!

You have written 4 paragraphs there, but one sentence would have done to answer my question.

In your opinion, how did the murder of a 3 year toddler help the nationalist community?

Are you blind...

franciebrady wrote:

So the answer to your question is again - yes, sadly.

Bishop of hope

Interesting and sad read here.
There can be no justifying children in any scenario imo.
Jesus the North was hell during the troubles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/children-of-the-troubles-they-took-a-child-off-the-road-put-a-hood-over-his-head-and-killed-him-1.4037704%3fmode=amp

The thing is when you look back at the foundation of this state, every killing committed by an IRA man was murder before we achieved independence.
Every act against British rule was treason.
Everything depends on the final outcome of any conflict.
If we end up with a UI eventually, them murderers and terrorists will be written about differently from then on probably.
Oppression, murder, slavery deprivation, torture and cruelty were yesterday's normals.
The British killed on whims the world over and enacted every unimaginable version of the above on its colonials, including our own country.
All lawful because they made up their laws as they went along and justified it because they were the rulers, with the legitimate army.
Let's not forget that in our judgement of northern Ireland and the crowns version of law.

blanch152

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Interesting and sad read here.
There can be no justifying children in any scenario imo.
Jesus the North was hell during the troubles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/children-of-the-troubles-they-took-a-child-off-the-road-put-a-hood-over-his-head-and-killed-him-1.4037704%3fmode=amp

The thing is when you look back at the foundation of this state, every killing committed by an IRA man was murder before we achieved independence.
Every act against British rule was treason.
Everything depends on the final outcome of any conflict.
If we end up with a UI eventually, them murderers and terrorists will be written about differently from then on probably.
Oppression, murder, slavery deprivation, torture and cruelty were yesterday's normals.
The British killed on whims the world over and enacted every unimaginable version of the above on its colonials, including our own country.
All lawful because they made up their laws as they went along and justified it because they were the rulers, with the legitimate army.
Let's not forget that in our judgement of northern Ireland and the crowns version of law.

Yes, it was hell, but by the time of Sunningdale, it was clear that the British government would not return to a simple majority Unionist government, and that it was only a matter of time and peaceful effort before we would get an agreement.

Unfortunately, the continuing violence ensured that this didn't happen, and for that, the IRA carries a lot of the blame.

Adam9213

RandomViewer wrote: »

Thought Cahill had an affair with her aunts husband and cried wolf when the aunt found out?

Maria Cahill used to be a member of Sinn Fein she came from a staunch republican family it's quite obvious she was mad that the IRA didn't take her side in the inquiry they made into the rape and kill the man she said was responsible.

Cahill was elected National Secretary of the RNU organisation a dissident republican political party opposed to Sinn Fein during 2010 the same year she also went all over the media about her rape allegations.

It's quite clear she's bitter about being a member of Sinn Fein and having such republican connections in her family that the IRA didn't take her side in the matter.

Ironic RTE documentaries about her called , 'A Woman Alone with the IRA' despite her voluntarily being a member of the political wing of the IRA which supported IRA violence, and then complain when she is "alone with the IRA" when she's alone with the IRA because she is basically one IRA member making a claim against another IRA member is a joke, she let herself be used as a weapon by FF/FG to get back at Sinn Fein that much is obvious.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, it was hell, but by the time of Sunningdale, it was clear that the British government would not return to a simple majority Unionist government, and that it was only a matter of time and peaceful effort before we would get an agreement.

Unfortunately, the continuing violence ensured that this didn't happen, and for that, the IRA carries a lot of the blame.

The 'lie down and take it while we wait for Unionists and the British to become democrats' line again.

That's all very well in the utopia up there on the impossible high moral ground. The reality was of course much more stark and different.

Unionism destroyed Sunningdale with the aid of the BA (i.e. the British). To the ordinary Nationalist northern Ireland's future was never darker. They were, in the real world left with an awful choice, lie down or continue to fight for their rights.

Claiming it 'was clear the British were not going to allow Unionist majority rule' is nonsense...that is you mixing up hindsight with the picture at the time. It wasn't in fact and again, reality, until the Anglo Irish Agreement that they finally ended the Unionist veto. Read John Hume.

Adam9213

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, it was hell, but by the time of Sunningdale, it was clear that the British government would not return to a simple majority Unionist government, and that it was only a matter of time and peaceful effort before we would get an agreement.

Unfortunately, the continuing violence ensured that this didn't happen, and for that, the IRA carries a lot of the blame.

The fact that the Irish flag was illegal says a lot about Northern Ireland, IRA members and even ordinary civilians would have their funerals attacked by the army and police just for having the Irish flag on their coffins.

blanch152

Adam9213 wrote: »

Maria Cahill used to be a member of Sinn Fein she came from a staunch republican family it's quite obvious she was mad that the IRA didn't take her side in the inquiry they made into the rape and kill the man she said was responsible.

Cahill was elected National Secretary of the RNU organisation a dissident republican political party opposed to Sinn Fein during 2010 the same year she also went all over the media about her rape allegations.

It's quite clear she's bitter about being a member of Sinn Fein and having such republican connections in her family that the IRA didn't take her side in the matter.

Ironic RTE documentaries about her called , 'A Woman Alone with the IRA' despite her voluntarily being a member of the political wing of the IRA which supported IRA violence, and then complain when she is "alone with the IRA" when she's alone with the IRA because she is basically one IRA member making a claim against another IRA member is a joke, she let herself be used as a weapon by FF/FG to get back at Sinn Fein that much is obvious.

That is a very sick twisted version of the Mairia Cahill story.

Adam9213

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a very sick twisted version of the Mairia Cahill story.

I prefer to call it a more realist version of the Maria Cahill story.

FrancieBrady

Adam9213 wrote: »

I prefer to call it a more realist version of the Maria Cahill story.

You cannot question Mairia Cahill's story, apparently that is 'victim blaming'.

FG and FF completely blanked any discussion of just who Mairia Cahill was at the time. You are entirely correct, she was anti the police, pro the IRA and about to rise to the top of a dissident grouping.
And you are also correct in that she was used by FF and FG and dropped once she passed usefulness, similar to Paul Quinn's family were too.

Adam9213

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot question Mairia Cahill's story, apparently that is 'victim blaming'.

FG and FF completely blanked any discussion of just who Mairia Cahill was at the time. You are entirely correct, she was anti the police, pro the IRA and about to rise to the top of a dissident grouping.
And you are also correct in that she was used by FF and FG and dropped once she passed usefulness, similar to Paul Quinn's family were too.

This is how our politicians speak about high ranking dissident republicans when they make claims against Sinn Fein,

“A force to be reckoned with” – Enda Kenny , Taoiseach, Ireland.

“Incredibly courageous” – First Minister Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland

If she had made claims against anyone other than Sinn Fein her high level involvement in dissident republican organisations, PIRA connections and her Sinn Fein past would all be used as reasons why you can't trust her but since it's about Sinn Fein/IRA no one is bothered.

Not only that she was a high ranking member of a dissident republican organisation at the time which had a strong hatred towards Sinn Fein and the peace process didn't even arouse any suspicion it barely got any attention till a few years later.

Bishop of hope

Adam9213 wrote: »

This is how our politicians speak about high ranking dissident republicans when they make claims against Sinn Fein,

“A force to be reckoned with” – Enda Kenny , Taoiseach, Ireland.

“Incredibly courageous” – First Minister Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland

If she had made claims against anyone other than Sinn Fein her high level involvement in dissident republican organisations, PIRA connections and her Sinn Fein past would all be used as reasons why you can't trust her but since it's about Sinn Fein/IRA no one is bothered.

Not only that she was a high ranking member of a dissident republican organisation at the time which had a strong hatred towards Sinn Fein and the peace process didn't even arouse any suspicion it barely got any attention till a few years later.

That is victim shaming at least if not blaming.
Sometimes you don't help your cause by engaging is such ****e lads.
Maria Cahills, story has been vindicated by both the PSNI and SF.
Marylou even apologised to her for what she had to go through, her and two other women.
Maybe that's not the pretty truth but it's the truth nonetheless.