The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Odhinn

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.

Is that why they were the main suppliers of arms and intelligence to the UVF, UDA?

end of the road

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.

while their services did good, the reality is that the path they took would and could only work because of a violent defence.
had the nationalist community not stood and faught to protect themselves then politics would have done jot all as they would have been ethnically cleansed at best and completely eradicated at worst.
the issue of northern ireland was never going to be solved by political means while britain refused to grow up and face the reality of what they created.
the fact they were forced to near the end of the conflict is what created the GFA.

blanch152 wrote: »

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

i'm afraid i don't believe you, given your refusal to answer the question as to whether you would if you had information on the dublin and monaghan bombings, report that information to the gardai.

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.

we know it's fact that there was no choice, individuals being in a position to engage some bit politically is not proof against the fact that there was no choice for nationalists but to defend their community.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

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.

Bull, SF grew their support while being shot censored and killed. Fact, and the last person who came up with this theory ran away when I presented the figures that showed their support growing.

It's a bitter pill for some to swallow, but the people know who achieved and who was only interested in the comfy seats and the odd knighthood thrown as a scrap form the table.

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Bull, SF grew their support while being shot censored and killed. Fact, and the last person who came up with this theory ran away when I presented the figures that showed their support growing.

It's a bitter pill for some to swallow, but the people know who achieved and who was only interested in the comfy seats and the odd knighthood thrown as a scrap form the table.

Killed? No one murdered more Nationalists/Catholics during The Troubles than the PIRA. Disappeared for talking to a Protestant, torturing a 15 year mentally disabled boy before shooting him in the head for a harmless comment he made to a IRA psychopath, blowing them up, making them drive cars with bombs in the boot into army barracks.



Those are the lads that so many SF supporters consider heroes.



They wouldn't know the meaning of the word Republican.

Hamsterchops

Odhinn wrote: »

Is that why they were the main suppliers of arms and intelligence to the UVF, UDA?

You're refering to those "bad apples", those bent members of the security forces who colluded with the Loyalist paramilitaries.....

However, the vast majority did their best to confront the bombs, the bullets and the Molotov cocktails head on, and to stand up to and confront the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, and that's what they did. A thankless task for the army who were really a blunt tool used to try and combat the bombers.

end of the road

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 is a tragedy wen it could have been avoided by britain growing up and facing up to and dealing with the reality of the sectarian statelet they created much, much earlier.
and when in 69 trouble began, the irish government seeking a UN peace keeping mission to protect irish nationalists.

Truthvader wrote: »

"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.

nationalists had no choice but to defend themselves, that is established fact, no matter how much you try to deny it, that fact and reality won't change.
the british government and army were against them, the northern irish government and RUC were against them, the irish government didn't care a jot.
in that instance there was no other alternative but to set up a military force and recruit as many soldiers as possible.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

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.

the IRA certainly had substantial support, not always openly, but substantial it was. otherwise they would have not been able to keep going.
now, that might have been different had britain grown up and insured the army behaved, but they didn't and action after action insured more and more recruits for the IRA.
SF also had growing support as they were managing to achieve things slowly but surely.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Killed? No one murdered more Nationalists/Catholics during The Troubles than the PIRA. Disappeared for talking to a Protestant, torturing a 15 year mentally disabled boy before shooting him in the head for a harmless comment he made to a IRA psychopath, blowing them up, making them drive cars with bombs in the boot into army barracks.



Those are the lads that so many SF supporters consider heroes.



They wouldn't know the meaning of the word Republican.

I don't do the hero thing Johnny.

The list above and the atrocities committed by others is why I think it was all wrong from the start.

I am not deluded enough to think that only one side engaged in these acts.

Maybe that is because I have seen with my own eyes what damage it causes.

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't do the hero thing Johnny.

The list above and the atrocities committed by others is why I think it was all wrong from the start.

I am not deluded enough to think that only one side engaged in these acts.

Maybe that is because I have seen with my own eyes what damage it causes.

Do you think a man who was involved in the torture of a child with a mental disability should be given the SF equivalent of a state funeral? A funeral where the leadership described him as a hero.


Is that acceptable? Would you accept that from any other political party?

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

You're refering to those "bad apples", those bent members of the security forces who colluded with the Loyalist paramilitaries.....

However, the vast majority did their best to confront the bombs, the bullets and the Molotov cocktails head on, and to stand up to and confront the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, and that's what they did. A thankless task for the army who were really a blunt tool used to try and combat the bombers.

I was wondering how long it would be before the 'few bad apples' theory got an airing.
The police could not be trusted by almost an entire community.

Truthvader

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.

Still grimly running on with the "no choice" bollockology. A lie

Plus revealing quote from you above

"More often than not, that is preventable if those responsible behave with responsibility."

The same dupicitious cowardice where responsibility for the choices of the criminal thug are transferred to an innocent person who never decided to kill anyone.

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Still grimly running on with the "no choice" bollockology. A lie

Plus revealing quote from you above

"More often than not, that is preventable if those responsible behave with responsibility."

The same dupicitious cowardice where responsibility for the choices of the criminal thug are transferred to an innocent person who never decided to kill anyone.

Can you explain why there was no GFA in place in 69 Truth. Or even when a bodged GFA in the form of Sunningdale was put on the table the Unionists were allowed to bring it down?

Who do you blame for that? Had the British faced down Unionists, as they did when they got sick of them, nobody or very few would have died.

Truthvader

Odhinn wrote: »

What would you have done?

Probably got the f*ck out as quick as I could. Maybe fought back against people actually attacking me. Never murderered and mutilated random people I had never met.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you explain why there was no GFA in place in 69 Truth. Or even when a bodged GFA in the form of Sunningdale was put on the table the Unionists were allowed to bring it down?

Who do you blame for that? Had the British faced down Unionists, as they did when they got sick of them, nobody or very few would have died.

Agree the Unionists dragged down Sunningdale. Agree it was wrong. Agree it was an unfair one sided society. Don't agree there was "no choice' or no solution but to embark on a sick campaign of savagery. Quite clear at this stage that you are 100% Sinn Fein IRA beneath all the spoof and "it was all wrong" drivel. Bottom line; you will continue to promote and support cruel sociopaths while blaming everyone else for the behaviour they chose to indulge in. Bottom line for me Sinn Fein IRA are a dangerous infection riddled with thugs and their apologists and I would live with any other government that does not include them.

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Agree the Unionists dragged down Sunningdale. Agree it was wrong. Agree it was an unfair one sided society. Don't agree there was "no choice' or no solution but to embark on a sick campaign of savagery. Quite clear at this stage that you are 100% Sinn Fein IRA beneath all the spoof and "it was all wrong" drivel. Bottom line; you will continue to promote and support cruel sociopaths while blaming everyone else for the behaviour they chose to indulge in. Bottom line for me Sinn Fein IRA are a dangerous infection riddled with thugs and their apologists and I would live with any other government that does not include them.

No Truth. You need to listen.

I didn't vote for SF in a GE until the previous one. Not until I was personally certain that they were committed to democratic politics.


I always accepted that former members of the IRA would be in SF.

I am a supporter of no particular party and have voted for almost all of them in my time.

The conflict/war is over for SF, long ago IMO.

You continue on visiting your retribution on new members and old. It won't bring anybody back.
One of the things I always agreed with SF on is the toxicity of partition. I have been proved right on that with Brexit and Covid, not to mention the conflict/war it started.
I will continue to ally myself to those working to end it, be that SF, FF or FG etc.

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No Truth. You need to listen.

I didn't vote for SF in a GE until the previous one. Not until I was personally certain that they were committed to democratic politics.

.

They don’t even recognise the legitimacy of the Irish Republic, its constitution, or its defence forces.

You might want to do a refresher on what democratic means.

SF are a party who glorify psychopaths and serial killers, and offer nothing new only cheap and nasty populist nationalism.

It’s amazing how ill informed people are to fall for this.

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No Truth. You need to listen.

I didn't vote for SF in a GE until the previous one. Not until I was personally certain that they were committed to democratic politics.

.

They don’t even recognise the legitimacy of the Irish Republic, its constitution, or its defence forces.

You might want to do a refresher on what democratic means.

SF are a party who glorify psychopaths and serial killers, and offer nothing new only cheap and nasty populist nationalism.

It’s amazing how ill informed people are to fall for this.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

They don’t even recognise the legitimacy of the Irish Republic, its constitution, or its defence forces.

You might want to do a refresher on what democratic means.

SF are a party who glorify psychopaths and serial killers, and offer nothing new only cheap and nasty populist nationalism.

It’s amazing how ill informed people are to fall for this.

When they are 'forcing' you to vote for them Johnny, that is when you can call them or anybody 'undemocratic'.

I see a party doing exactly the same as every body else TBH to garner votes.

You don't HAVE TO vote for them. If you want to see no democracy as regards voting for political parties have a wee time trip back to 50's and 60's on this island. Then you'll know what you are actually talking about instead of blowing tired old cliched smoke.

jm08

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

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.

How do you know that Sinn Fein or the IRA didn't enjoy popular support? You do realise that there was a broadcasting ban by both British & Irish Gov. of any groups that had links to paramilitary organisations and at that stage anyway, there was direct rule from Westminister.

blanch152

Truthvader wrote: »

Agree the Unionists dragged down Sunningdale. Agree it was wrong. Agree it was an unfair one sided society. Don't agree there was "no choice' or no solution but to embark on a sick campaign of savagery. Quite clear at this stage that you are 100% Sinn Fein IRA beneath all the spoof and "it was all wrong" drivel. Bottom line; you will continue to promote and support cruel sociopaths while blaming everyone else for the behaviour they chose to indulge in. Bottom line for me Sinn Fein IRA are a dangerous infection riddled with thugs and their apologists and I would live with any other government that does not include them.

Excellent post, exposing the terrorism apologists.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Excellent post, exposing the terrorism apologists.

One day we will have a normal society and you guys might then stop trying pointlessly to flush out the terrorist sympathisers.

I doubt though.

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One day we will have a normal society and you guys might then stop trying pointlessly to flush out the terrorist sympathisers.

I doubt though.

You live in a normal society, dude.

You’ve just gone so far down the rabbit hole you can’t even see the light anymore.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

You live in a normal society, dude.

You’ve just gone so far down the rabbit hole you can’t even see the light anymore.

I live in a post conflict/war society, returning to normality. If the British don't go completely rogue again.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

Excellent post, exposing the terrorism apologists.

You're a terrorist apologist.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One day we will have a normal society and you guys might then stop trying pointlessly to flush out the terrorist sympathisers.

I doubt though.

Listen, this is a factual definition.

If one indulges in a “there was no choice” lie, when it is clear factually that other people made a different choice, then one is a terrorism apologist. Simple fact, simple definition, just like partitionist is a simple definition.

Similarly, if one refuses to condemn the IRA without invoking “there was wrong on all sides “, one is, by definition, a terrorism apologist. A poster places themselves in the category by what they post.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Listen, this is a factual definition.

If one indulges in a “there was no choice” lie, when it is clear factually that other people made a different choice, then one is a terrorism apologist. Simple fact, simple definition, just like partitionist is a simple definition.

Similarly, if one refuses to condemn the IRA without invoking “there was wrong on all sides “, one is, by definition, a terrorism apologist. A poster places themselves in the category by what they post.

I don't even share your definition of terrorism. Anybody who uses terror is a terrorist. And they were all terrorists.

I know that is why you are silent on collusion until you have to be asked, because you know that makes the above a true statement.

I believe it was all wrong from the very beginning, something you have never said on here.

Don't be climbing up on any high moral ground please.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't even share your definition of terrorism. Anybody who uses terror is a terrorist. And they were all terrorists.

I know that is why you are silent on collusion until you have to be asked, because you know that makes the above a true statement.

I believe it was all wrong from the very beginning, something you have never said on here.

Don't be climbing up on any high moral ground please.

I don’t share your definition of partitionists but I have to live with it.

I have set out a definition of terrorism apologist and I am ok with the fact that you don’t agree, won’t stop me using it when appropriate.

Bishop of hope

The family of Jean McConville are going to sue Gerry Adams and SF it seems.
Depending on the, outcome there could be, a, raft of these civil suits.
But either way some stuff is bound to be washed into the public arena that SF and Adams wouldn't want to hear I think.

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/sinn-fein-and-gerry-adams-face-civil-action-from-jean-mcconvilles-family-39586883.html

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I don’t share your definition of partitionists but I have to live with it.

I have set out a definition of terrorism apologist and I am ok with the fact that you don’t agree, won’t stop me using it when appropriate.

Knock yourself out.
I think the people of Ireland have worked out what FG and partitionists want - some sort of pointless and pathetic hindsight win. Maybe it is the guilt of doing nothing that makes you so disparate.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Knock yourself out.
I think the people of Ireland have worked out what FG and partitionists want - some sort of pointless and pathetic hindsight win. Maybe it is the guilt of doing nothing that makes you so disparate.

Keep living in the dreams of the past, why don't you?

As I keep telling you, nationhood no longer requires territory as recognised by our own Constitution so partitionist is a term of the past along with the old-style xenophobic nationalism of Sinn Fein.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Keep living in the dreams of the past, why don't you?

As I keep telling you, nationhood no longer requires territory as recognised by our own Constitution so partitionist is a term of the past along with the old-style xenophobic nationalism of Sinn Fein.

What foolishness is this now...you are now trying to rewrite the constitution?...says it all.

Tell us this blanch...read the bolded bit about out constitutonal 'firm will', does it sound to you that it is referring to a border poll on physical unity? Because it does to me and any sane person.

Time you let go of this cringeworthy sledgehammering of reality. Constitutionally it is the 'firm will' of this contry to physically unite the two parts. Anyone advocating against that is partitionist by definition.

It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament[a] that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.