The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

they could have not just gone along with the British line which was pretending that it is just a law and order issue and that it is in fact a civil war. You then make representations to the UN explaining that it is a civil war who would then be required to put pressure on the British Government to actually put trained peacekeepers in there who knew how to police this kind of conflict. The Civil Rights Movement / Bloody Sunday events caught the attention of the world and in particular the US. John Hume used that platform which should have been what the Irish Government should have been doing. JFK had been to Ireland in the early 60s so it wasn't as if there were no connections to be cultivated there.

They cowered and doffed the hat and quite simply and brutally abandoned those people to their fate. They had done it after partition so it was no surprise that they did it again.

Those who knew, knew that the vacuum would be filled and it was filled tragically.
There isn't a government in the world who stood back like that and watched their people getting killed and oppressed that wouldn't be called cowardly.
Jack Lynch's phone call with Edward Heath tells you all you need to know about the simpering hat doffing of the Dublin government. Lynch also lays out what his fears are and it is not 'fear for the people' it is that they will lose power, that is STILL the fear to this day.

The apologetic, and 'sorry to be annoying you' tone is embarrassing and it is quite clear that Dublin was in the habit of allowing Westminister to walk all over them. Part of the 15 minute conversation is here:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/tense-phone-conversation-between-lynch-and-heath-1.344070

end of the road

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, and some resigned for their mistakes, and some brazened it out.

We now know that the attendees at Golfgate broke no law, we also know that the regulations in the North did not permit gatherings at a cemetery other than for a burial. So explain to me again why Michelle and Mary-Lou should not have to resign.

because they followed the rules and gathered for a burial cremation.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They cowered and doffed the hat and quite simply and brutally abandoned those people to their fate. They had done it after partition so it was no surprise that they did it again.

Those who knew, knew that the vacuum would be filled and it was filled tragically.
There isn't a government in the world who stood back like that and watched their people getting killed and oppressed that wouldn't be called cowardly.
Jack Lynch's phone call with Edward Heath tells you all you need to know about the simpering hat doffing of the Dublin government. Lynch also lays out what his fears are and it is not 'fear for the people' it is that they will lose power, that is STILL the fear to this day.

The apologetic, and 'sorry to be annoying you' tone is embarrassing and it is quite clear that Dublin was in the habit of allowing Westminister to walk all over them. Part of the 15 minute conversation is here:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/tense-phone-conversation-between-lynch-and-heath-1.344070

As ever you cling to the Sinn Fein ideology that men with guns is the solution to every problem. Bad as things turned out it would have been far far worse to send in the Irish Army. The 6 counties are and were part of the UK and sending in the Irish Army would have been an absolute disaster, Firstly they would have been swept back across the border in days with pointless loss of life, the Loyalist thug element would become the only voice of unionism, the invasion would have caused the ethnic cleansing you refer to in a way you cannot imagine and the toxin of nationalist hatred so embraced by Sinn Fein/ IRA and their Loyalist thug counterparts would have become the dominant sentiment not only in both communities but in both Countries.

Again seems like they had a choice - and made the correct choice. Do recall that there were calls for UN peacekeepers at various stages and agree that would have been a better choice for all.

As you profess to be such an avid reader you might research how it worked out for others who made the stupid decision you are proposing. How about Kosovo, Crimea, Ukraine.?? Sending in the troops (particularly against a superior enemy) is never anything but a dumb dumb move guaranteeing nothing but dead bodies

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

As ever you cling to the Sinn Fein ideology that men with guns is the solution to every problem. Bad as things turned out it would have been far far worse to send in the Irish Army.

You or I have no way of knowing that.

There were pressures on the British too. Had they used force against a peacekeeping/rescue mission they would have destroyed themselves on the world stage.
They are constrained even now, look at their fear of breaking the GFA even though if they thought they could they'd do it in a heartbeat.

We'll never know, over 3000 people died because they didn't take up the role they were constitutionally mandated to - protect their people even if it meant death.
There was a lot more could have been done before it came to the gun anyhow.

What other self respecting leader, after 13 of his people were shot dead in cold blood on the streets would begin a phone call with 'I am sorry to disturb to you...'.

FFS have some self respect yourself and admit what it was - hat doffing, fearful subservience.

end of the road

Truthvader wrote: »

As ever you cling to the Sinn Fein ideology that men with guns is the solution to every problem. Bad as things turned out it would have been far far worse to send in the Irish Army. The 6 counties are and were part of the UK and sending in the Irish Army would have been an absolute disaster, Firstly they would have been swept back across the border in days with pointless loss of life, the Loyalist thug element would become the only voice of unionism, the invasion would have caused the ethnic cleansing you refer to in a way you cannot imagine and the toxin of nationalist hatred so embraced by Sinn Fein/ IRA and their Loyalist thug counterparts would have become the dominant sentiment not only in both communities but in both Countries.

Again seems like they had a choice - and made the correct choice. Do recall that there were calls for UN peacekeepers at various stages and agree that would have been a better choice for all.

As you profess to be such an avid reader you might research how it worked out for others who made the stupid decision you are proposing. How about Kosovo, Crimea, Ukraine.?? Sending in the troops (particularly against a superior enemy) is never anything but a dumb dumb move guaranteeing nothing but dead bodies

with a refusal by the irish government to take the issue to the UN, and the british unwilling to deal with the issue in a grownup manner, men with guns was the only option to protect the nationalist community from almost certain ethnic cleansing/genocide.
the only way the loyalist thug element were able to do any sort of damage was because of the british government help, and even then they couldn't defeat the IRA + even if the irish army did go to northern ireland the loyalists would still only be able to do the same amount they were only ever able to do.
no way the loyalists would have been able to engage in ethnic cleansing with the IRA about and an irish or foreign peace keeping force at work.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You or I have no way of knowing that.

There were pressures on the British too. Had they used force against a peacekeeping/rescue mission they would have destroyed themselves on the world stage.
They are constrained even now, look at their fear of breaking the GFA even though if they thought they could they'd do it in a heartbeat.

We'll never know, over 3000 people died because they didn't take up the role they were constitutionally mandated to - protect their people even if it meant death.
There was a lot more could have been done before it came to the gun anyhow.

What other self respecting leader, after 13 of his people were shot dead in cold blood on the streets would begin a phone call with 'I am sorry to disturb to you...'.

FFS have some self respect yourself and admit what it was - hat doffing, fearful subservience.

Didn't see them "destroyed on the world stage" in the Falklands.

If they were prepared to trek across the planet to retake some freezing Island against a proper army in 1982 do you really think they wouldn't send a few Para's over on Sealink to protect Northern Ireland. Again a dumb dumb move

Truthvader

end of the road wrote: »

with a refusal by the irish government to take the issue to the UN, and the british unwilling to deal with the issue in a grownup manner, men with guns was the only option to protect the nationalist community from almost certain ethnic cleansing/genocide.
the only way the loyalist thug element were able to do any sort of damage was because of the british government help, and even then they couldn't defeat the IRA + even if the irish army did go to northern ireland the loyalists would still only be able to do the same amount they were only ever able to do.
no way the loyalists would have been able to engage in ethnic cleansing with the IRA about and an irish or foreign peace keeping force at work.

This is provo claptrap of a standard I have yet to see here. Maybe do a bit of reading over the rest of the weekend.

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Didn't see them "destroyed on the world stage" in the Falklands.

If they were prepared to trek across the planet to retake some freezing Island against a proper army in 1982 do you really think they wouldn't send a few Para's over on Sealink to protect Northern Ireland. Again a dumb dumb move

They may have and they might not have. I don't think Wilson would have.
You would have seen massive diplomatic efforts before any action and that is where we could have demanded protections for the Irish people.

The context was different than that which a beleaguered Thatcher found herself in and there was massive diplomatic from world leaders to avoid a war there too remember.
We needed to show clearly we were not going to stand idly by whatever the cost.
That was the pressure we should have been creating however we could.

We send peacekeepers around the world and put our soldiers in peril, but we couldn't muster any defence for our own people.

It is the power swap's greatest shame.

end of the road

Truthvader wrote: »

Didn't see them "destroyed on the world stage" in the Falklands.

If they were prepared to trek across the planet to retake some freezing Island against a proper army in 1982 do you really think they wouldn't send a few Para's over on Sealink to protect Northern Ireland. Again a dumb dumb move

the falklands were about optics, an ailing unpopular prime minister needing to do something if she had any chance of getting elected again.
if they genuinely had any care about the falklands then they wouldn't have cut the protection fleet in the first place and thatcher would have just gone for reelection later on on what she had already done.
it was the 1980s, almost 40 years after the end of WWII, a war was still a good way for someone to get reelected at that time.
so engineer one, win it, get reelected 2 more times.

Truthvader wrote: »

This is provo claptrap of a standard I have yet to see here. Maybe do a bit of reading over the rest of the weekend.

no it's non-provo reality.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They may have and they might not have. I don't think Wilson would have.
You would have seen massive diplomatic efforts before any action and that is where we could have demanded protections for the Irish people.

The context was different than that which a beleaguered Thatcher found herself in and there was massive diplomatic from world leaders to avoid a war there too remember.
We needed to show clearly we were not going to stand idly by whatever the cost.
That was the pressure we should have been creating however we could.

We send peacekeepers around the world and put our soldiers in peril, but we couldn't muster any defence for our own people.

It is the power swap's greatest shame.

OK going no-where on this. You remain convinced that sending the Irish Army over the border would have been a smart move but I remain convinced that it would have been insanely stupid. The only salient outstanding feature being the lingering bitterness you have for the "Free State" parties which continues to inform your political views.

Maybe in the spirit of the GFA you might put it behind you and try to move on. Whatever motivated Jack Lynch, be it craven fear or wise and prudent statecraft he certainly didn't set out to kill and mutilate other people and perhaps, like the local Catholic population, welcomed the arrival of the British Army as a solution

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

OK going no-where on this. You remain convinced that sending the Irish Army over the border would have been a smart move but I remain convinced that it would have been insanely stupid. The only salient outstanding feature being the lingering bitterness you have for the "Free State" parties which continues to inform your political views.

Maybe in the spirit of the GFA you might put it behind you and try to move on. Whatever motivated Jack Lynch, be it craven fear or wise and prudent statecraft he certainly didn't set out to kill and mutilate other people and perhaps, like the local Catholic population, welcomed the arrival of the British Army as a solution

A poster with your record is telling ME to move on??????

Would you away and have a titter of wit and at least a wee bit of self awareness?.

I don't have any bitterness, just a realistic view of what the real concerns of the power swap are and it isn't the people. At one of this nation's darkest hour our leader was afraid of losing power. He even said it out loud, so you may accept that as fact/
Says it all.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A poster with your record is telling ME to move on??????

Would you away and have a titter of wit and at least a wee bit of self awareness?.

I don't have any bitterness, just a realistic view of what the real concerns of the power swap are and it isn't the people. At one of this nation's darkest hour our leader was afraid of losing power. He even said it out loud, so you may accept that as fact/
Says it all.

How have you come to the conclusion that Lynch was afraid of losing power never mind that that fear informed his decision not to take what I would regard as a very very stupid action?

To be honest I am more surprised that Lynch apparently supported banning civil rights marches in the first place and would criticise him for that before criticising him for not indulging in a stupid, doomed and reckless military adventure.

Did Heath sound like he would be happy enough to see Irish troops coming over the border and sit back and do nothing to you? By the sounds of it he was already good with the fact that his troops had murdered 13 civilians because the march was "illegal". The Para's would have been back out like greyhounds for a proper gunfight. Only result; dead people.

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

How have you come to the conclusion that Lynch was afraid of losing power never mind that that fear informed his decision not to take what I would regard as a very very stupid action?

To be honest I am more surprised that Lynch apparently supported banning civil rights marches in the first place and would criticise him for that before criticising him for not indulging in a stupid, doomed and reckless military adventure.

Did Heath sound like he would be happy enough to see Irish troops coming over the border and sit back and do nothing to you? By the sounds of it he was already good with the fact that his troops had murdered 13 civilians because the march was "illegal". The Para's would have been back out like greyhounds for a proper gunfight. Only result; dead people.

Would you do me a favour and go an properly research the period and then come back for discussion. Lynch says in the phone what his concern/fear is.

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My dad was at Burntollet and had the gash of the baton he got hit with until his dying day.
I would have been at Burntollet too had I been old enough.

A lot of the B Specials were hit that day but sure I suppose your father was doing his bit for Ulster

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would you do me a favour and go an properly research the period and then come back for discussion. Lynch says in the phone what his concern/fear is.

Working off the link you sent me with the transcript

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Working off the link you sent me with the transcript

You will notice that I said it was a 'part' of a 15 minute phone conversation.

You are pontificating about a period you plainly dont know about.

You need to research before taking positions. I suggest you read some of the exchanges in the HoC when the civil rights marches were ramping up and around the bsttle snd siege of the Bogside.

In fact take the blinkers off for a while and research the whole period.

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

A lot of the B Specials were hit that day but sure I suppose your father was doing his bit for Ulster

And?

Bishop of hope

Edgware wrote: »

A lot of the B Specials were hit that day but sure I suppose your father was doing his bit for Ulster

Not enough of them.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You will notice that I said it was a 'part' of a 15 minute phone conversation.

You are pontificating about a period you plainly dont know about.

You need to research before taking positions. I suggest you read some of the exchanges in the HoC when the civil rights marches were ramping up and around the bsttle snd siege of the Bogside.

In fact take the blinkers off for a while and research the whole period.

Don't think I need history lessons from a man educated by An Phoblacht. I notice you routinely play the "I suggest you read because you don't know " card when stuck.

Also occurs to me that as the man who retreats to the "It as all wrong" get out when cornered it now emerges that part of your problem is that there was not enough of "it". Maybe a glorious "blood sacrifice" invasion of Newry in 1969 might have satisfied you

blanch152

Truthvader wrote: »

Don't think I need history lessons from a man educated by An Phoblacht. I notice you routinely play the "I suggest you read because you don't know " card when stuck.

Also occurs to me that as the man who retreats to the "It as all wrong" get out when cornered it now emerges that part of your problem is that there was not enough of "it". Maybe a glorious "blood sacrifice" invasion of Newry in 1969 might have satisfied you

Why is it that the terrorism apologists put forward an option of even more violence as the only other option to the violence that occurred?

Is there some underlying sociopathic tendency or are they just brainwashed?

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And?

He must be disappointed to see the rubbish his son spouts

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Don't think I need history lessons from a man educated by An Phoblacht. I notice you routinely play the "I suggest you read because you don't know " card when stuck.

Also occurs to me that as the man who retreats to the "It as all wrong" get out when cornered it now emerges that part of your problem is that there was not enough of "it". Maybe a glorious "blood sacrifice" invasion of Newry in 1969 might have satisfied you

So you get caught out not having basic knowledge of the period so decide to throw some invective at my knowledge?

That's pretty much par for the course here.
Also the stock misrepresentation of what I said which was never anything about an 'invasion'.

Go do your research Truth, it's a fascinating period if you are actually interested and not looking for validation of your bias.

P.S. I don't read An Phoblacht but I doubt they have published the memoirs of Harold Wilson or Jim Callaghan or transcripts from Hansard. Maybe I'm wrong.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Why is it that the terrorism apologists put forward an option of even more violence as the only other option to the violence that occurred?

Is there some underlying sociopathic tendency or are they just brainwashed?

You do realise I am referring to a period before the IRA came on the scene in any major way blanch?

The 'vacumn' in which the fear of your fellow Irish people was so intense they turned on the IRA and taunted them.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you get caught out not having basic knowledge of the period so decide to throw some invective at my knowledge?

That's pretty much par for the course here.
Also the stock misrepresentation of what I said which was never anything about an 'invasion'.

Go do your research Truth, it's a fascinating period if you are actually interested and not looking for validation of your bias.

P.S. I don't read An Phoblacht but I doubt they have published the memoirs of Harold Wilson or Jim Callaghan or transcripts from Hansard. Maybe I'm wrong.

Oh sorry forgot not an "invasion". Irish army would just rock up to the Falls and tell the Paras they were "peacekeepers". Ted Heath would be good with that.

Dumb idea. Dangerous idea. Thank God Jack Lynch was on point

Truthvader

blanch152 wrote: »

Why is it that the terrorism apologists put forward an option of even more violence as the only other option to the violence that occurred?

Is there some underlying sociopathic tendency or are they just brainwashed?

Its the republican fallback position every time. Even now if it looks like they are not getting their way the " endangering the peace process" threat is routinely wheeled out.

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Oh sorry forgot not an "invasion". Irish army would just rock up to the Falls and tell the Paras they were "peacekeepers". Ted Heath would be good with that.

Dumb idea. Dangerous idea. Thank God Jack Lynch was on point

Again the dubious knowledge of the period. Jack marched his men to the border...THEN got cold feet. Jack threatened not 'to stand idly by' but did exactly that.

Wilson actually vocalised his concerns...including the Irish government intervening and what that would mean. He was adamant on not provoking either a civil war or a confrontation with Ireland. Yet he was under massive international pressure to do something to alleviate the plight of nationalists. He considered among other things, independence for NI and explusion of NI from the UK.

Read about the period, the British were not sitting there relishing an Irish incursion. They were in a genuine crisis. Wilson was paranoid about radicalising the south, he knew what it would mean.
That is just some of the context and the pressures, you should read about it, you are woefully under-researched.

There is nothing delivered in the GFA that could not have been delivered in '69 if we had the people's interests genuinely at heart. But we hadn't, FF were afraid to lose power first and foremost. From reading about Wilson and Callaghan's thoughts I think it could have been negotiated with them. Tragically over 3000 people had to die first.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again the dubious knowledge of the period. Jack marched his men to the border...THEN got cold feet. Jack threatened not 'to stand idly by' but did exactly that.

Wilson actually vocalised his concerns...including the Irish government intervening and what that would mean. He was adamant on not provoking either a civil war or a confrontation with Ireland. Yet he was under massive international pressure to do something to alleviate the plight of nationalists. He considered among other things, independence for NI and explusion of NI from the UK.

Read about the period, the British were not sitting there relishing an Irish incursion. They were in a genuine crisis. Wilson was paranoid about radicalising the south, he knew what it would mean.
That is just some of the context and the pressures, you should read about it, you are woefully under-researched.

There is nothing delivered in the GFA that could not have been delivered in '69 if we had the people's interests genuinely at heart. But we hadn't, FF were afraid to lose power first and foremost. From reading about Wilson and Callaghan's thoughts I think it could have been negotiated with them. Tragically over 3000 people had to die first.

3000 people did not "have to die...tragically". In most cases someone made a choice to kill them. Indeed in many cases cruel thugs made a choice to just kill any passing random person. Premeditated murder is not a "tragedy".

"It was all wrong" . A stupid invasion or peacekeeping fantasy would have just added to and expanded the "all"

BluePlanet

Truthvader wrote: »

3000 people did not "have to die...tragically". In most cases someone made a choice to kill them. Indeed in many cases cruel thugs made a choice to just kill any passing random person. Premeditated murder is not a "tragedy".

"It was all wrong" . A stupid invasion or peacekeeping fantasy would have just added to and expanded the "all"

It certainly is a tragedy when it's someone close to you that was the victim.

Truthvader

BluePlanet wrote: »

It certainly is a tragedy when it's someone close to you that was the victim.

"Tragedy" brings with it a sense of inescapable fate which is what I was objecting to.

It plays to the posters here who pretend that people had "no choice" but to defend themselves which is then elevated to an excuse for premeditated acts of both targeted and random acts of subhuman behaviour against innocent people who were not involved in attacking anyone. Plenty of choice but some chose to indulge their most base impulses or to mutilate other people for personal advantage.

blanch152

Truthvader wrote: »

3000 people did not "have to die...tragically". In most cases someone made a choice to kill them. Indeed in many cases cruel thugs made a choice to just kill any passing random person. Premeditated murder is not a "tragedy".

"It was all wrong" . A stupid invasion or peacekeeping fantasy would have just added to and expanded the "all"

The terrorism apologists just don’t see it that way.

We get the nonsense of people not having a choice.