The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Rumour mill dried up Brendi?

Not even light getting out of SF now Francie, as you well know.

They have ridden out some heavy turbulence recently, watch for a (fake)softening of attitude for a few months, you’ll see more co operation with the ‘Free State’

They’ll leave the 70s and living in the past to bhoys like yersell.

As MLMCD is rumored to have said.. “ Leave the past to those who relish boring folk ad nauseam for months- we will move on”

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Haha, fantastic!
Arguably the greatest Irishman of the latter half of the 20th century labelled a 'failed' politician.

Fabulous idealistic man, no doubt. But a failed politician sadly until he teamed up with Adams. Adams had failed as a politician up to that too BTW

I think you need a long hard look in the mirror there before you can use those words against anyone else Francie. The last comment alone is a good example on that.

You look down your nose at somebody from Dublin getting involved in a fight against British occupation of his own country, when your own party members sailed off to various foreign countries to fight on behalf of other countries interets and TELL ME to look in mirrors???

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lets ignore all those from Mr Duffy's Blueshirts who flocked off to Spain to fight, not to mention those from the south who stupidly gave themselves to Britain's various war efforts eh?

Once again your myopic hypocrisy rings true.

John Hume was a failed politician who arguably made the situation worse at times (the violence against the premature and exclusionary Sunningdale shambles.

He only achieved success when he responded positively to Alex Reid's suggestion he team up with Adams and the Hume-Adams Initiative was born. He deserves credit for that.

Desperate old drivel. Typical SF slanting of history of course.
You need to move with the times as the party has moved on and is apologising for that sort of stuff now Francie.
You're putting yourself in danger of being ostracised from official pr and maybe even censored. They're closing accounts with that sort of sentiment you know.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Not even light getting out of SF now Francie, as you well know.

They have ridden out some heavy turbulence recently, watch for a (fake)softening of attitude for a few months, you’ll see more co operation with the ‘Free State’

They’ll leave the 70s and living in the past to bhoys like yersell.

As MLMCD is rumored to have said.. “ Leave the past to those who relish boring folk ad nauseam for months- we will move on”

Heavy turbulence seemed to come from the row back on the lies told about this affair Brendi.

The old 'heavy' lie sunk the story.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Desperate old drivel. Typical SF slanting of history of course.
You need to move with the times as the party has moved on and is apologising for that sort of stuff now Francie.
You're putting yourself in danger of being ostracised from official pr and maybe even censored. They're closing accounts with that sort of sentiment you know.

Grist to the mill I am not a member then Bish.

What is 'drivel' about what I said? It is bang on the money in my view.

Hume failed to achieve anything until he teamed up with Adams and ignored the rest of the SDLP to do it.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Grist to the mill I am not a member then Bish.

What is 'drivel' about what I said? It is bang on the money in my view.

Hume failed to achieve anything until he teamed up with Adams and ignored the rest of the SDLP to do it.

If you call achieving a goal by peaceful means a failure.
At the end of the day he was there and can look back with no blood on his hands, regardless of whether you can justify the blood or not.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

If you call achieving a goal by peaceful means a failure.
At the end of the day he was there and can look back with no blood on his hands, regardless of whether you can justify the blood or not.

Any of us who call ourselves Irish and who have pride in our sovereignty and freedom has 'blood on our hands' whether you were physically involved or not.
Don't be hypocritical about it. Dying for a cause in 1916 was just as real and savage as it was in 1976.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Grist to the mill I am not a member then Bish.

What is 'drivel' about what I said? It is bang on the money in my view.

Hume failed to achieve anything until he teamed up with Adams and ignored the rest of the SDLP to do it.

A pathetic attempt to rewrite history.

Hume a failed politician?

Of all the drivel on this thread, you have taken the prize for worst drivel with that statement.

It is Stanleyesque in ignoring reality.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A pathetic attempt to rewrite history.

Hume a failed politician?

Of all the drivel on this thread, you have taken the prize for worst drivel with that statement.

It is Stanleyesque in ignoring reality.

All ears. List his achievements.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All ears. List his achievements.

He persuaded a bunch of psychopaths to stop killing people in return for which they got nothing.

A remarkable achievement.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fabulous idealistic man, no doubt. But a failed politician sadly until he teamed up with Adams. Adams had failed as a politician up to that too BTW

Its from the SF playbook. John Hume represents a threat to the revisionist ideology perpetuated by SF, that a man from Derry can try and get Civil Rights the peaceful way, not by killing women and children.

Forgive me if I don't take your word on John Hume seriously.

You look down your nose at somebody from Dublin getting involved in a fight against British occupation of his own country, when your own party members sailed off to various foreign countries to fight on behalf of other countries interets and TELL ME to look in mirrors???

Was Dublin occupied? Is the North still 'occupied'?
The war is over Francie. No one is 'occupied' as you put it.

Are there Blueshirts alive today who went to Spain?
You do know this was near 100 years ago...?
More 'whataboutery'.

Dessie Ellis is a TD in the Dail as of 2020.

Bonniedog

FrancieBrady wrote: »

John Hume was a failed politician who arguably made the situation worse at times (the violence against the premature and exclusionary Sunningdale shambles.

.

Hume was unsuccessful in that when SF adopted the SDLP's acceptance of Partition, his party collapsed.

He was successful in being part of a four pronged political/intelligence effort to neuter the republican movement.

Am intrigued by your description of Sunnngdale. Given that it's constitutional guarantee on Partition differed in no way from GFA, how was it "premature"?

Only difference was that republicans rejected Partition and Stormont in 1973 and in the main accepted it in 1998.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

He persuaded a bunch of psychopaths to stop killing people in return for which they got nothing.

A remarkable achievement.

As I said, his teaming up with Adams was his success. He accepted Adams view that his previous efforts had failed because they didn't include everyone at the table, including Dublin. THat was the initiative that saw an end to the conflict.

Any other achievements that would disprove the theory that he was a failed politician (great man notwithstanding) up to that point...like all politicians in the north and outside. They all failed, that is precisely why we had a conflict/war - they happen when politics fails the world over.

markodaly

Just on John Hume..

Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "John Hume was a political titan; a visionary who refused to believe the future had to be the same as the past."[36] The Dalai Lama said on Twitter: "John Hume's deep conviction in the power of dialogue and negotiations to resolve conflict was unwavering... It was his leadership and his faith in the power of negotiations that enabled the 1998 Good Friday Agreement to be reached. His steady persistence set an example for us all to follow."

If he was a failure, I would love to be one.

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

Hume was unsuccessful in that when SF adopted the SDLP's acceptance of Partition, his party collapsed.

He was successful in being part of a four pronged political/intelligence effort to neuter the republican movement.

Am intrigued by your description of Sunnngdale. Given that it's constitutional guarantee on Partition differed in no way from GFA, how was it "premature"?

Only difference was that republicans rejected Partition and Stormont in 1973 and in the main accepted it in 1998.

Because Unionism wasn't ready to negotiate, sadly and tragically, and because it was exclusionary. It was an attempt to seek a pathway without everyone having a say. One of the reasons why the north went up in flames in the first place.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Just on John Hume..



If he was a failure, I would love to be one.

...and he didn't succeed as a politician until he accepted that everyone had to be at the table.
Many 'visionary' people fail at politics mark.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any of us who call ourselves Irish and who have pride in our sovereignty and freedom has 'blood on our hands' whether you were physically involved or not.
Don't be hypocritical about it. Dying for a cause in 1916 was just as real and savage as it was in 1976.

And nearly all of us are ashamed at the killing that was done in our name since 1969. It is a stain on our reputation.

A State apology to the victims of the PIRA and a clear disassociation from their actions would be a welcome statement.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because Unionism wasn't ready to negotiate, sadly and tragically, and because it was exclusionary. It was an attempt to seek a pathway without everyone having a say. One of the reasons why the north went up in flames in the first place.

That in fairness is horse****.

The IRA/SF had no interest in Sunningdale because it didn't achieve the glorious goal of a UI. The PIRA had zero interest in compromise in those days. Its on the public record from all the leaders. SF/IRA actively tried to scupper it.... only to come back to the table 25 years later and accept the same deal.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

That in fairness is horse****.

The IRA/SF had no interest in Sunningdale because it didn't achieve the glorious goal of a UI. The PIRA had zero interest in compromise in those days. Its on the public record from all the leaders. SF/IRA actively tried to scupper it.... only to come back to the table 25 years later and accept the same deal.

And Unionism ACTUALLY scuppered it. It FAILED mark, is the point.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...and he didn't succeed as a politician until he accepted that everyone had to be at the table.
Many 'visionary' people fail at politics mark.

See, that is why your have your world view. You are blinkered into thinking everything is a war or a battle to be won.

The thing is John Hume would have been OK at having 'failed' at politics as you put it, if it got NI a peace deal and people stopped killing each other.
That is why he was the great man he was, not the type of people in SF today who want to rewrite history in their own pen, largely Adams.

The fact you try and divide everything down to a win or loss is why SF and their types are the biggest hurdles to a UI, and you don't even know it.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

See, that is why your have your world view. You are blinkered into thinking everything is a war or a battle to be won.

The thing is John Hume would have been OK at having 'failed' at politics as you put it, if it got NI a peace deal and people stopped killing each other.
That is why he was the great man he was, not the type of people in SF today who want to rewrite history in their own pen, largely Adams.

The fact you try and divide everything down to a win or loss is why SF and their types are the biggest hurdles to a UI, and you don't even know it.

No argument at all on the 'great man' accolade. But the fact is, his political initiatives all failed until he responded to Alex Reid's suggestion that he sit down with Adams.

Politics failed in NI, that is why it went up in flames.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And Unionism ACTUALLY scuppered it. It FAILED mark, is the point.

Sunningdale wasn't a failure, it stood the test of time and formed the core of the GFA.

It was SF/IRA and extreme unionism who failed the people by their reaction to Sunningdale. Those slow learners, to use a Stanleyesque phrase, took over 20 years to realise it was the only possible deal. If you are looking for failures, look no further than those that killed people for twenty years before accepting the deal that was on the table already.

grayzer75

blanch152 wrote: »

Sunningdale wasn't a failure, it stood the test of time and formed the core of the GFA.

It was SF/IRA and extreme unionism who failed the people by their reaction to Sunningdale. Those slow learners, to use a Stanleyesque phrase, took over 20 years to realise it was the only possible deal. If you are looking for failures, look no further than those that killed people for twenty years before accepting the deal that was on the table already.

lol, you haven't a clue.

It was the LOYALIST general strike under the umbrella of the Ulster Workers Council and the UUUC that brought it to a halt as they had no interest in powersharing with nationalists - it was only the UUP, SDLP and Alliance who signed up for it. The vast majority of protestants / loyalist were absolutely against it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Sunningdale wasn't a failure, it stood the test of time and formed the core of the GFA.

It was SF/IRA and extreme unionism who failed the people by their reaction to Sunningdale. Those slow learners, to use a Stanleyesque phrase, took over 20 years to realise it was the only possible deal. If you are looking for failures, look no further than those that killed people for twenty years before accepting the deal that was on the table already.

Bull****, SUnningdale didn't even include the principle of consent.
There were significant differences, not least who was at the table negotiating it.

FrancieBrady

grayzer75 wrote: »

lol, you haven't a clue.

It was the LOYALIST general strike under the umbrella of the Ulster Workers Council and the UUUC that brought it to a halt as they had no interest in powersharing with nationalists - it was only the UUP, SDLP and Alliance who signed up for it. The vast majority of protestants / loyalist were absolutely against it.

He has to cling to this nonsense. The fact is Sunningdale failed and actually made the situation much worse for many years.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Who is Andrew Dunne?

Honest question. See I don't spend my days travelling Twitter looking for outrage or laughs in this idiotic political meme games that some like to go on about.

As I said, Farrelly brothers stuff.

You were on this site asking this.

markodaly wrote: »

Who is Conor O Driscoll?
Is he the new Roman Shorthall, whose every utterance will be copied and parroted here by the usual crew as if they are an authority on something?

Then literally minutes later (13 minutes later to be precise) you were linking to a blog from some randomer, but the cherry on top for me is you don't even know who Andrew Dunne is, despite linking to his blog.




That blog could have been penned by Dora the explorer for all you knew. I can't take you seriously now, stop it, I can't breathe. :pac:

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

As I said, Farelly brothers stuff.

You were on this site asking this.



Then literally minutes later (13 minutes later to be precise) you were linking to a blog from some randomer, but the cherry on top for me is you don't even know who Andrew Dunne is, despite linking to his blog.




That blog could have been penned by Dora the explorer for all you knew. I can't take you seriously now, stop it, I can't breathe. :pac:

It's like a riot, they are just picking up anything negative and flinging it in desperation now.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's like a riot, they are just picking up anything negative and flinging it in desperation now.

Trump wouldn't be in it, they literally and evidently don't even know what or who they're talking about.

I can't take them seriously when they don't even read past the glossy and sensationalist headlines.

Bonniedog

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Bull****, SUnningdale didn't even include the principle of consent.
.

It did actually. They even held a border poll, something which is about the height of SF ambitions!

Sunningdale, Hillsborough and GFA all included as main proposal that unity would only be on basis of majority within Six counties.

Republicans rejected this, and rejected power sharing in Stormont.

SF accepted both the internal consent and the administration of north as part of UK.

IRA surrendering in 1973 would have appeared more abject than it did in 1990s, but it was still a surrender of the republican position.

Not by calling a ceasefire which was the right thing to do, but following that by the acceptance of Partition. Republican objectives could have been pursued without that and least of all by running the place for them which has been anathema to republicans for 200 years.

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

It did actually. They even held a border poll, something which is about the height of SF ambitions!

Sunningdale, Hillsborough and GFA all included as main proposal that unity would only be on basis of majority within Six counties.

Republicans rejected this, and rejected power sharing in Stormont.

SF accepted both the internal consent and the administration of north as part of UK.

IRA surrendering in 1973 would have appeared more abject than it did in 1990s, but it was still a surrender of the republican position.

Not by calling a ceasefire which was the right thing to do, but following that by the acceptance of Partition. Republican objectives could have been pursued without that and least of all by running the place for them which has been anathema to republicans for 200 years.

Sunningdale failed because Unionists saw the Council Of Ireland as an attempt to bypass the principle of consent, would have been a better way to put my point.

By the time of the GFA, things had reached a stalemate militarily. Call it what you want, surrender or whatever. Personally I am glad that Adams had the power to negotiate and that he and McGuinness had the political skills to bring their side long with them. Credit is not given for that achievement in my opinion. It will in time.