The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

McMurphy

padd b1975 wrote: »

She was in FF for the most part.

I would suggest you have a dismal grasp of political history padd. Some might call it talking through ones hoop.

padd b1975

McMurphy wrote: »

I would suggest you have a dismal grasp of political history padd. Some might call it talking through ones hoop.

Weren't the lads on ceasefire for most of her political life?

RandomViewer

smurgen wrote: »

What do you mean? They were the government and they were financing the homes. It's like saying government weren't involved in direct provision.

On direct provision, they've opened up a DP centre in Letterkenny, its right beside Lidl and very near Tesco but the residents must shop in the in-house shop,

McMurphy

padd b1975 wrote: »

Weren't the lads on ceasefire for most of her political life?

Aren't they still on it

From the moment Mary Lou McDonald joined Sinn Féin as a fresh-faced Fianna Fáil defector, she was primed for the position of leader.

In 1998, she abandoned Fianna Fáil after less than a year, shifting her allegiance to Sinn Féin, and now, 20 years later, she is on the cusp of being elected party president.

IRA ceasefire July 1997.....

GFA signed April 10th 1998.

She entered politics with FF the same year as the Provos ceasefire, defects LESS than a year later to the shinners.

Smurgen is spot on.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

What do you mean? They were the government and they were financing the homes.

Not the same as what you said now is it.
U-turn away.

padd b1975

McMurphy wrote: »

Aren't they still on it



IRA ceasefire July 1997.....

GFA signed April 10th 1998.

She entered politics with FF the same year as the Provos ceasefire, defects LESS than a year later to the shinners.

Smurgen is spot on.

IRA ceasefire August 1994...

Ceasefire broken February 1996...

Ceasefire restored July 1997...

Numerous "rogue manoeuvres" and vigilante activities throughout.

RandomViewer

padd b1975 wrote: »

IRA ceasefire August 1994...

Ceasefire broken February 1996...

Ceasefire restored July 1997...

Numerous "rogue manoeuvres" and vigilante activities throughout.

1995-96, phone licences and HepC enquiry, "rogue manoeuvres " indeed

McMurphy

padd b1975 wrote: »

IRA ceasefire August 1994...

Ceasefire broken February 1996...

Ceasefire restored July 1997...

Numerous "rogue manoeuvres" and vigilante activities throughout.

Lol, I see how you would like to pretend you wrote something different to what you actually wrote.

padd b1975 wrote: »

She was in FF for the most part.

She joined FF in 97, and detected to the Shinners less than 12 months later.

padd b1975

McMurphy wrote: »

Lol, I see how you would like to pretend you wrote something different to what you actually wrote.

Not pretending anything Mc.

The IRA were on active service during Mary's political career mostly while she was briefly in FF.

Of course that's open to interpretation as regards what active service actually entails.

Sure what's a few kneecaps/dead Gardai/diesel
washing etc etc etc amongst friends?

blanch152

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/foster-slams-education-authority-job-being-given-to-ira-bomber-paul-kavanagh-40081818.html

On here we have numerous posters defending Sinn Fein crony appointments in Northern Ireland.

"The Department of Education confirmed Peter Weir was preparing a paper to be brought before the Assembly on how political appointments to public bodies are handled."

Isn't it incredibly embarrassing for Sinn Fein that the DUP (yes, the other lot of sectarian bigots) are the ones reforming political appointments in the North following the latest example of brazen Sinn Fein cronyism.

Sinn Fein really like to rub the noses of victims in the dirt, don't they?

hatrickpatrick

Could I make a genuine suggestion, would probably require mod approval in order to avoid being flagged for duplicating a thread but would anyone else be on board with splitting discussion of present day Sinn Fein related news stories into one thread, and discussions of The Troubles, SF's role in them, morality, etc into a separate one? Both discussions are equally fascinating and important to have, but this thread is extremely difficult to follow if you haven't had a chance to check in on it after a couple of days because you're essentially having to keep up with the two separate strands of debate which are entirely intertwined in this format. It's the kind of merged conversation which just doesn't work all that well on the vBulletin format, at least in my view.

Just a thought!

McMurphy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Could I make a genuine suggestion, would probably require mod approval in order to avoid being flagged for duplicating a thread but would anyone else be on board with splitting discussion of present day Sinn Fein related news stories into one thread, and discussions of The Troubles, SF's role in them, morality, etc into a separate one? Both discussions are equally fascinating and important to have, but this thread is extremely difficult to follow if you haven't had a chance to check in on it after a couple of days because you're essentially having to keep up with the two separate strands of debate which are entirely intertwined in this format. It's the kind of merged conversation which just doesn't work all that well on the vBulletin format, at least in my view.

Just a thought!

It's an interesting suggestion Patrick, something I wasn't fully aware of, until I did some research (on the back of Michaél Martins brainfart over the weekend) was the extent of the killings and number of disappeared that went on, under the old IRA, this is the Same IRA FF and FG have absolutely no problems in the world with attending commemorations etc, while they pontificate about the provisionals.

Old IRA disappearances ‘off the scale’ compared with PIRA

The old IRA disappeared almost four times as many people in Cork alone as the Provisional IRA did throughout the whole of the Troubles, new research claims.

A total of 62 people in Cork disappeared in 1920-1922, according to research carried out by Dr Andy Bielenberg, a historian at University College Cork. The equivalent number in the Troubles was 16.

Dr Bielenberg said the figure is based on his research carried out to document all disappearances in the county during the revolutionary period.

He suggested the scale of disappearances involving the old IRA was “off the scale” compared with the Northern Irish Troubles and the practice was the “skeleton in the closet” of the period.

He estimated the total number of people disappeared by the IRA nationwide between 1920 and 1922 to be greater than 100.

He told the West Cork History Festival that the disappearance of so many people was the “darkest aspect of the IRA campaign” and that it challenged the idea that the old IRA was morally superior in its actions to the Provisional IRA.

While a sustained campaign had been made on behalf of the disappeared of the Troubles to recover the bodies, no such campaign was ever started for those who disappeared in the revolutionary period leaving relatives without any place to mourn.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

It's an interesting suggestion Patrick, something I wasn't fully aware of, until I did some research (on the back of Michaél Martins brainfart over the weekend) was the extent of the killings and number of disappeared that went on, under the old IRA, this is the Same IRA FF and FG have absolutely no problems in the world with attending commemorations etc, while they pontificate about the provisionals.

Old IRA disappearances ‘off the scale’ compared with PIRA

it should be at this point remembered,the old ira didnt decommission their weapons


Many were gathered at the dump arms order for use later on....some seeing service during the border campaign of the 50s and more at early days of troubles (most were rusted beyond use tbf,due to poor storage methods)

CrazyFather1

McMurphy wrote: »

It's an interesting suggestion Patrick, something I wasn't fully aware of, until I did some research (on the back of Michaél Martins brainfart over the weekend) was the extent of the killings and number of disappeared that went on, under the old IRA, this is the Same IRA FF and FG have absolutely no problems in the world with attending commemorations etc, while they pontificate about the provisionals.

Old IRA disappearances ‘off the scale’ compared with PIRA

The old, "sure look at what they did so everything we did was ok" excuse.
Baffling

Based on that sure the German's should be walking around killing all over the place, all they have to do is point back and say "sure we are not as bad as the Nazi's"

blanch152

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

The old, "sure look at what they did so everything we did was ok" excuse.
Baffling

Based on that sure the German's should be walking around killing all over the place, all they have to do is point back and say "sure we are not as bad as the Nazi's"

Cultural context is key as I have been saying. WW1 was supposed to be the war that ended all wars but it took the horrors of the Nazi regime and the realisation of the damage that an atom bomb could do for normal people to wake up and realise that war was not a good way to achieve anything. The protests in the 1960s against the Vietnam war showed how this cultural context had changed. So while the post-1916 rebels could claim some affinity with the cultural norms of the times, there is no such excuse for the criminal behaviour of the PIRA.

Essentially, they were different eras with different mores.

grayzer75

blanch152 wrote: »

Essentially, they were different eras with different mores.

That'll probably be your lame excuse for the 9,000 dead in the mother and baby homes too, sweep sweep....

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Essentially, they were different eras with different mores.

My grandfather had the same attitude to killing/wrongdoing as my father did and as do I.

It was always wrong.

Are you saying you parents and grandparents had a different moral attitude to it?

RandomViewer

grayzer75 wrote: »

That'll probably be your lame excuse for the 9,000 dead in the mother and baby homes too, sweep sweep....

FGers still rant about unmarried mothers, what else do you expect from a donkey?

McMurphy

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

The old, "sure look at what they did so everything we did was ok" excuse.
Baffling

Based on that sure the German's should be walking around killing all over the place, all they have to do is point back and say "sure we are not as bad as the Nazi's"

Godwinned the thread - well done.

The point is, how can you pontificate about murdered and disappeared folk, and then attend graveside commemorations for those that took part in murdering and the disappearance of people?

It's either wrong, or it's not wrong. FFG want their cake and eat it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My grandfather had the same attitude to killing/wrongdoing as my father did and as do I.

I am saying that the attitude of society to such things has changed and evolved over time.

16th century Ireland was a brutal place with attitudes to life far different to now. We had public hangings up until the middle of the 19th century.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was always wrong.

But you always defend it.

tipptom

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

The old, "sure look at what they did so everything we did was ok" excuse.
Baffling

Based on that sure the German's should be walking around killing all over the place, all they have to do is point back and say "sure we are not as bad as the Nazi's"

Yeah,sure didnt Angela Merkel give a great speech at the annual Rudolph Hess memorial last Sunday

Jesus the stupid lenghts you people will go to try and hide the FF/FG hypocracy and that its not about the troubles but trying to hold on to political power from the only ones that can take it away from them,who will reveal the real scale of the corruption as sure as Biden will reveal Trumps real scale of corruption when they gain office

Your faux concern about what happend in NI is nauseating

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am saying that the attitude of society to such things has changed and evolved over time.

16th century Ireland was a brutal place with attitudes to life far different to now. We had public hangings up until the middle of the 19th century.

Stop walking backwards from your defensiveness. Are you saying that your immediate forebears - your mother and father, and your grandparents had a different moral outlook on killing...did they think it was ok?

But you always defend it.

A complete and despicable lie.

Killing is ALWAYS wrong.

You get upset when people won't single out specific killing. Which says more about you than anything else.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Stop walking backwards from your defensiveness. Are you saying that your immediate forebears - your mother and father, and your grandparents had a different moral outlook on killing...did they think it was ok?
.

That has zero to do with general societal attitudes. They could have been peaceful hippies long before it was popular or they could have been PIRA criminal thugs ready to kill at the drop of a hat, but the attitude of my immediate forebears has nothing to do with a general point, it is just another rabbit hole of your devising.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That has zero to do with general societal attitudes. They could have been peaceful hippies long before it was popular or they could have been PIRA criminal thugs ready to kill at the drop of a hat, but the attitude of my immediate forebears has nothing to do with a general point, it is just another rabbit hole of your devising.

My grandparents lived through the period and my parents through the early years of the state.

They didn't have 'different mores' to killing than I do.

But clearly yours did or you wouldn't be making generalities like you are.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My grandparents lived through the period and my parents through the early years of the state.

They didn't have 'different mores' to killing than I do.

But clearly yours did or you wouldn't be making generalities like you are.

You only have the evidence of what they told you, in the context of the time that they were speaking to you. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Like I said, the evidence is clear and unequivocal that societal attitudes to violence changed dramatically over the course of the 20th century in all Western civilised democracies.

In some areas where exclusionary nationalism held on - Balkans, certain parts of USA, Northern Ireland - attitudes did not evolve as quick.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

You only have the evidence of what they told you, in the context of the time that they were speaking to you. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Like I said, the evidence is clear and unequivocal that societal attitudes to violence changed dramatically over the course of the 20th century in all Western civilised democracies.

In some areas where exclusionary nationalism held on - Balkans, certain parts of USA, Northern Ireland - attitudes did not evolve as quick.

I dont see any difference between violence now vs 100 years ago

We are nearly as far from bloody sunday,as it was from 1916,as 1916 was roughly same distance again from the famine (also was a mini famine in 1880s,which kickstarted nationlism here)


Yous are all in for ireland involving itself in ww2 and glad to critise it,for not,whats the difference then,with people fighting to free their country

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You only have the evidence of what they told you, in the context of the time that they were speaking to you. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Like I said, the evidence is clear and unequivocal that societal attitudes to violence changed dramatically over the course of the 20th century in all Western civilised democracies.

In some areas where exclusionary nationalism held on - Balkans, certain parts of USA, Northern Ireland - attitudes did not evolve as quick.

Well yours hasn't changed. I haven't ever read you criticise the actions of a colonialist imperial power here on this island. You are selective in the application of your 'morals'.
Plenty did that back in those times too. Still do it. No change in mores that I can see.

My view and the view of my parents was that: it was all wrong from the start.

When you can do that, get back to me with the moralising.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont see any difference between violence now vs 100 years ago

We are nearly as far from bloody sunday,as it was from 1916,as 1916 was roughly same distance again from the famine (also was a mini famine in 1880s,which kickstarted nationlism here)


Yous are all in for ireland involving itself in ww2 and glad to critise it,for not,whats the difference then,with people fighting to free their country

Q: Should Ireland have joined WW2 with the Allies? Yes
Q: Should Ireland have joined the Vietnam War? Absolutely not
Q: Should Ireland have joined the Falklands War? Absolutely not
Q: Should Ireland have invaded Iraq? Absolutely not.
Q: Was there a difference between the justifiable nature of the actions of the IRA in 1916-1921 and the actions of the PIRA in the 1970s? Absolutely yes, there was.
Q: Were the actions of the PIRA justified, even in small measure? Absolutely not.


Times change, societal responses change. History helps us understand that.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Q: Should Ireland have joined WW2 with the Allies? Yes
Q: Should Ireland have joined the Vietnam War? Absolutely not
Q: Should Ireland have joined the Falklands War? Absolutely not
Q: Should Ireland have invaded Iraq? Absolutely not.
Q: Was there a difference between the justifiable nature of the actions of the IRA in 1916-1921 and the actions of the PIRA in the 1970s? Absolutely yes, there was.
Q: Were the actions of the PIRA justified, even in small measure? Absolutely not.


Times change, societal responses change. History helps us understand that.

Im not really seeing any factual difference there...just your personal assertions and trying to browbeat people into supporting them


Whats the difference between killing someone now vs 100 years ago,they still end up dead?

Either you condemn,all violence/freedom fights or not atal,picking and choosing based on personal.whims,leads to sticky situations,like one you find yourself in now



(I will say,its a sticky one for shinners too,condemning dissidents )






Since yous seem ok with joining fight vs the nazis .....should the car bombing by ETA (heavy links to pira type bomb) which took out the sucessor to.blanco,effectively ending facism in spain and western europe be condemned??

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

.just your personal assertions and trying to browbeat people into supporting them

Not trying to browbeat anyone, but if you feel the force of the logic so strongly, maybe you should reflect on what I am saying.

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats the difference between killing someone now vs 100 years ago,they still end up dead?

I never said that there was any difference in the outcome - the person ends up dead. However, I have made clear, and there is abundant evidence to support this, that the societal attitude to violence is different now to what it was 100 years ago.

Deleted User wrote: »

Either you condemn,all violence/freedom fights or not atal,picking and choosing based on personal.whims,leads to sticky situations,like one you find yourself in now

No, not at all. I have said before that violent action can be justified in certain limited circumstances. Firstly, it must have democratic legitimacy at the time. Security forces come under this category. Secondly, there must be reasonable attempts to avoid the use of force. Thirdly, it should be proportionate to the circumstances, and finally, it should be subject to investigation.

Many Garda killings would come under this legitimate use of force, incidents like Bloody Sunday would not, the Gibraltar three would come under legitimate use of force given the intelligence reports. Nothing the PIRA did could be justified using these criteria.