The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

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

We get the nonsense of people not having a choice.

what would your choice be if you had been there blanch152? Count yourself lucky its a question you'll never need to answer

FrancieBrady

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 high moral ground now being climbed onto.

Truth, countries have descended into conflict/war forever and will again. That is reality.
More often than not, that is preventable if those responsible behave with responsibility.
The politics of condemnation never work.

The conflict/war here happened and there are reasons why it happened.

There were 'choices' made before men and women had to make the choice to kill. But your knowledge of that is flaky to say the least as we have seen.

Making sure those choices are never allowed to be made again is part, or a lot of, what the GFA was about.

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

what would your choice be if you had been there blanch152? Count yourself lucky its a question you'll never need to answer

You don't have to have been there to see that many others like John Hume, Seamus Mallon and many many others took a different path. I have spoken to many who tell me the same.

It is only the terrorism apologists who peddle the lie that there was no choice. They can also be identified by their refusal to condemn outright the IRA without having to deflect to the all violence is bad theme.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't have to have been there to see that many others like John Hume, Seamus Mallon and many many others took a different path. I have spoken to many who tell me the same.

It is only the terrorism apologists who peddle the lie that there was no choice. They can also be identified by their refusal to condemn outright the IRA without having to deflect to the all violence is bad theme.

Why would you choose to condemn the violence from one side only? That's a bit sick and revealing tbh.

Hume and Mallon travelled different roads...so what? Not everybody's circumstances were the same...again research how some people lived their lives.

Truthvader

maccored wrote: »

what would your choice be if you had been there blanch152? Count yourself lucky its a question you'll never need to answer

Well for my part I already know 100% that I would not choose to plant a bomb in a crowded pub, shoot someone who was no threat to me going about their business or hold a frightened teenager down while his legs were broken

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The high moral ground now being climbed onto.

Truth, countries have descended into conflict/war forever and will again. That is reality.
More often than not, that is preventable if those responsible behave with responsibility.
The politics of condemnation never work.

The conflict/war here happened and there are reasons why it happened.

There were 'choices' made before men and women had to make the choice to kill. But your knowledge of that is flaky to say the least as we have seen.

Making sure those choices are never allowed to be made again is part, or a lot of, what the GFA was about.

Only "the high moral ground" only in the minds of Sinn Fein /IRA or other criminals. Normal decent behaviour for every one else

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Only "the high moral ground" only in the minds of Sinn Fein /IRA or other criminals. Normal decent behaviour for every one else

Well there is enough commentary on people who live in the luxury of peace. I think most realists would say that they don't know how they would react under an oppressive regime and escalating brutality from the govenment that was supposed to democatic and impartial.

The weight of evidence, the huge weight actually, is that Irish people reacted the exact same way as any oppressed people anywhere.
Of course there were also those who stood idly by and those who climbed up onto moral high ground. Takes all sorts I suppose.
I never lose sight of the fact that there but for the grace of luck go I.
I prefer to work to make sure I am never in a place of little or no choice.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

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

We get the nonsense of people not having a choice.

You support the murder of catholics. You are a terrorist apologist.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

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

We get the nonsense of people not having a choice.

There was no choice.

Odhinn

Truthvader wrote: »

Well for my part I already know 100% that I would not choose to plant a bomb in a crowded pub, shoot someone who was no threat to me going about their business or hold a frightened teenager down while his legs were broken

What would you have done?

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well there is enough commentary on people who live in the luxury of peace. I think most realists would say that they don't know how they would react under an oppressive regime and escalating brutality from the govenment that was supposed to democatic and impartial.

The weight of evidence, the huge weight actually, is that Irish people reacted the exact same way as any oppressed people anywhere.
Of course there were also those who stood idly by and those who climbed up onto moral high ground. Takes all sorts I suppose.
I never lose sight of the fact that there but for the grace of luck go I.
I prefer to work to make sure I am never in a place of little or no choice.

You're obviously not talking about the Northern Ireland troubles, are you? Because if you are, you are totally screwing with reality and the fact that a small minority (within a minority) chose the path of violence and murder!

Most Irish people North & South did not embark on a murderous mission to bomb and kill at will, most Irish people North & South did not feel the need to take up the gun, just the minority (within a minority), Republican & Loyalist alike.

Coillte_Bhoy

Hamsterchops wrote: »

You're obviously not talking about the Northern Ireland troubles, are you? Because if you are, you are totally screwing with reality and the fact that a small minority (within a minority) chose the path of violence and murder!

Most Irish people North & South did not embark on a murderous mission to bomb and kill at will, most Irish people North & South did not feel the need to take up the gun, just the minority (within a minority), Republican & Loyalist alike.

Im no Provo sympathiser but Most Irish people in the South, nah lets call it, all Irish people in the south didnt find themselves trapped in a sectarian state with their very exitance threatened by paramilitaries' and so called sate security forces

Hamsterchops

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Im no Provo sympathiser but Most Irish people in the South, nah lets call it, all Irish people in the south didnt find themselves trapped in a sectarian state with their very exitance threatened by paramilitaries' and so called sate security forces

Most Irish people in NI did not take to killing people, neither did they agree with planting bombs on buses and in pubs. As I said, it was a minority (within a minority) who decided to commit terrorism.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Most Irish people in NI did not take to killing people, neither did they agree with planting bombs on buses and in pubs. As I said, it was a minority (within a minority) who decided to commit terrorism.

Most people don't in any conflict/war...in fact it is a tiny fraction. Not sure what your point is after that.

Hamsterchops

My point is in reaction to #908 + #913.

blanch152

smurgen wrote: »

You support the murder of catholics. You are a terrorist apologist.

A lie, a blatant lie. I have not supported the "murder of catholics", whatever that means.

blanch152

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Im no Provo sympathiser but Most Irish people in the South, nah lets call it, all Irish people in the south didnt find themselves trapped in a sectarian state with their very exitance threatened by paramilitaries' and so called sate security forces

Nobody is saying that you are a Provo sympathiser, but the terrorist apologists claim that all Irish people had no choice and supported the Provos.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The weight of evidence, the huge weight actually, is that Irish people reacted the exact same way as any oppressed people anywhere.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody is saying that you are a Provo sympathiser, but the terrorist apologists claim that all Irish people had no choice and supported the Provos.

Your attempts to make me an apologist are fairly cringe at this stage.

Can you disprove that statement btw?

Almost everywhere there was oppression in the world people rose up eventually against it. It's an inevitable fact of life and the British and Irish governments were well aware of it happening in NI in the late 60's.

Edit: Again the misrepresentation of what I said which I am sure you will now continue to repeat on subsequent threads:

AT NO POINT did I say ALL Irish people had no choice.

blanch152

Odhinn wrote: »

There was no choice.

Because the likes of John Hume, Seamus Mallon and others took another path, away from the violence that the terrorism apologists support, we know that it is a lie that there was no choice.

Factually, there was a choice, taken by men of peace.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Because the likes of John Hume, Seamus Mallon and others took another path, away from the violence that the terrorism apologists support, we know that it is a lie that there was no choice.

Factually, there was a choice, taken by men of peace.

And Hume and Mallon had NO choice but to follow the path they chose.

What is the point you are making? That we are all the same? That we all react in the same way to whatever life throws at us?

Is this some fantasy world you guys live up on the high moral ground?

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And Hume and Mallon had NO choice but to follow the path they chose.

What is the point you are making? That we are all the same? That we all react in the same way to whatever life throws at us?

Is this some fantasy world you guys live up on the high moral ground?

Not really a fantasy world to condemn Terrorism. I'm not 100% sure about you Francie, as you claim not to support terrorism, but yet you seem to have a soft spot for the men of violence, you're a bit fluffy as to whether you support the Provos & their atrocities, or not :cool:

Pro IRA, or not?

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Not really a fantasy world to condemn Terrorism. I'm not 100% sure about you Francie, as you claim not to support terrorism, but yet you seem to have a soft spot for the men of violence, you're a bit fluffy as to whether you support the Provos & their atrocities, or not :cool:

Pro IRA, or not?

It is a nonsense to suggest that because X did something therefore Y should do the same.
I sometimes wonder do these high moral grounders live in the real world.

As to my 'support'. I think it was all wrong from the start and I hold the treachery and criminality of the British gov. ultimately responsible for what happened here.

All of the players were wrong to use violence...all of them in equal measure.

Bishop of hope

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Not really a fantasy world to condemn Terrorism. I'm not 100% sure about you Francie, as you claim not to support terrorism, but yet you seem to have a soft spot for the men of violence, you're a bit fluffy as to whether you support the Provos & their atrocities, or not :cool:

Pro IRA, or not?

Most oppressive regimes are brought to an end, by acts of terror or violence.
We live in a world of oppression and opression is in itself violent and bullying.
It should be no surprise to anyone that the situation in NI resulted in violence.
We are where we are there now seemingly on an equal footing and both sides fighting for their wants in the political arena.
Whether we would or wouldn't be is arguable, we probably would, but the violence that started in the sixties was a sign of the Times and the fact that politically at that time it wouldn't have happened.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

Because the likes of John Hume, Seamus Mallon and others took another path, away from the violence ...............

And what did they get out of it or acheive? SFA.

JohnnyFlash

Odhinn wrote: »

And what did they get out of it or acheive? SFA.

Peace on the island and the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from not blowing up children, protecting rapists, and murdering people based on their religion.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As to my 'support'. I think it was all wrong from the start and I hold the treachery and criminality of the British gov. ultimately responsible for what happened here.

All of the players were wrong to use violence...all of them in equal measure.

And yet the security forces had to use force to stop the men of violence. They hadan no choice but to fight the men of violence. The (PIRA, INLA, UFF, UVF) etc had to be faced up to, and thank God the army did, otherwise things would have been a whole lot worse.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Peace on the island and the warm and fuzzy feeling.

For themselves maybe, but sadly the vast majority of their people didn't see it that way and rewarded those that achieved something for them.

Hume and Mallon failed politically to bring any change on their own.

Odhinn

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Peace on the island and the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from not blowing up children, protecting rapists, and murdering people based on their religion.

Nope. They got absolutely nothing. Not a thing. All gains were made at the negotiating table by SF. The reform of the RUC, flags and symbols, the criminalistation of the UDA, parades etc were all a result of SF.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

And yet the security forces had to use force to stop the men of violence. They hadan no choice but to fight the men of violence. The (PIRA, INLA, UFF, UVF) etc had to be faced up to, and thank God the army did, otherwise things would have been a whole lot worse.

The security forces? You mean the one made up of an army that had to return to barracks, abolish one of it's regiments and the police force that had to be renamed and restructured in disgrace? Those security forces?

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For themselves maybe, but sadly the vast majority of their people didn't see it that way and rewarded those that achieved something for them.

Hume and Mallon failed politically to bring any change on their own.

SF and the IRA enjoyed no popular support during their campaign of sociopathic violence. That false narrative needs to be challenged. Hume and Mallon represented the wishes of the vast majority of Nationalists in Northern Ireland.

Sf supporters might justify child abuse, murder, kneecapping and intimidation in their own head, but trying to convince those of us who have a sense of morality isn’t ever going to work. It’s a waste of time.