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

McMurphy

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I had two options yesterday
1. Try and have a discussion about a insurance bill with a couple of posters who had clearly no idea about the bill and no intention of discussing it
2. Go spent time with my family

I went with option 2. If that is what you call "run away with your tail between your legs" then yes I am 100% guilty.

You spent the best part of two full days not discussing the insurance bill at all, but opted instead to discuss complete and utter figments of your imagination, that you firstly doubled down on, then when cornered claimed "you were only joking" about.

With a hefty dollop of egg on your face, you then claimed you were looking for reasonable and adult discussion all along, but no-one would engage.

I honestly give up, it's a waste of time and bandwidth.

piplip87

Once again people comparing Collins to the likes of Sands and O'Brien is astoundingly stupid.

The Irish War of Independence had the backing of the Irish people, the candidates stood in the 1919 general election on the basis they would form a government in Dublin. Whatever happened during the War of Independance would be judged after the fact in elections.

While the provos on the other hand believed the Army Council where the legitimate government of Ireland. An unelected one at that. The fact the vast vast majority of the Irish people did not support the armed campaign, many people would be sympathetic towards the Provos until they started blowing up pubs, buses and hotels. Killing children.

Again people will throw up the Civil rights aspect to the armed campaign. Yet they drivers of the civil rights campaign wanted nothing to do with the Provos as they wanted civil rights for all. The Provos ended up taking the right to life away from many. It was never about civil rights for the majority of Provos. Some however did fall of the recruiting tool used by them.

What did the armed campaign achieve ?

Brits out ? NO
A united Ireland ? No
Civil rights?No Hume and Mallon did that.

If anything it set back the opportunity to unite this country by about 40 years.

About all it achieved was a ministerial paycheck and pension for a good few SF ministers up the north.

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I had two options yesterday
1. Try and have a discussion about a insurance bill with a couple of anonymous posters who had clearly no intention of discussing it
2. Go spent time with my family

I went with option 2. If that is what you call "run away with your tail between your legs" then yes I am 100% guilty.

This is just a flagrant lie about what happened yesterday. You got called out on telling lies, and tried to deflect from them.

You have no respect for these forums and no credibility to be 'discussing' anything as a result.

Typical now that you have people piling on to claim you are being 'bullied'.

Hubertj

McMurphy wrote: »

The claim made was that a "commemoration for s terrorist was unacceptable" and the poster questioned the suitability of anyone doing so to be a teacher or work with children FFS, it's right there in the post I quoted.

See the difference here is, that I don't need to fall back on horse shîte claims of things that never happened and then subsequently claim "I was only joking, and people are "attacking me" when said horse shîte is called out" my claims can be backed up and fact checked that's the difference here.


Leo Varadkars selfie with "a terrorist" is infamous at this stage, not because he's posing for a selfie with the great Michael Collins, but because he has been very vocal on "terrorists" throughout his short and dismal leadership. Hence why it was posted.

I can give countless other examples if you want from either of the civil war party's, "commemorating terrorists"



admittedly Leo sprung to mind first and foremost, but that's only because it's Fine Gael Zealots who are the most vocal and hypocritical on the subject (this being the party of gormless morons who cry "terrorists," yet wanted to get an official state commemoration for the black and tans introduced for Christ sake)

Maybe this time you'll have the decency and respect to hang around and discuss this blatant hypocrisy, and not run away with your tail between your legs claiming "you've been attacked" this morning.

You’re trying to compare something which happened about a century ago with a lad carrying a bomb on a bus in London. Good lad.

FrancieBrady

Hubertj wrote: »

You’re trying to compare something which happened about a century ago with a lad carrying a bomb on a bus in London. Good lad.

Were they not real people a century ago? Why would the comparison be wrong?

McMurphy

Hubertj wrote: »

You’re trying to compare something which happened about a century ago with a lad carrying a bomb on a bus in London. Good lad.

The British Government and it's people were presumably ok with attacks on them and it's army back then, and only got outraged in the latter part of the century?

Doesn't sound plausible to me, but if that's the fallacy you wish to cling to, knock yourself out sunshine.

Hubertj

Mad stuff altogether. I’m out.

blanch152

piplip87 wrote: »

Once again people comparing Collins to the likes of Sands and O'Brien is astoundingly stupid.

The Irish War of Independence had the backing of the Irish people, the candidates stood in the 1919 general election on the basis they would form a government in Dublin. Whatever happened during the War of Independance would be judged after the fact in elections.

While the provos on the other hand believed the Army Council where the legitimate government of Ireland. An unelected one at that. The fact the vast vast majority of the Irish people did not support the armed campaign, many people would be sympathetic towards the Provos until they started blowing up pubs, buses and hotels. Killing children.

Again people will throw up the Civil rights aspect to the armed campaign. Yet they drivers of the civil rights campaign wanted nothing to do with the Provos as they wanted civil rights for all. The Provos ended up taking the right to life away from many. It was never about civil rights for the majority of Provos. Some however did fall of the recruiting tool used by them.

What did the armed campaign achieve ?

Brits out ? NO
A united Ireland ? No
Civil rights?No Hume and Mallon did that.

If anything it set back the opportunity to unite this country by about 40 years.

About all it achieved was a ministerial paycheck and pension for a good few SF ministers up the north.

Pretty much 100% accurate.

blanch152

Hubertj wrote: »

You’re trying to compare something which happened about a century ago with a lad carrying a bomb on a bus in London. Good lad.

It is standard practice.

There is a delusional argument that the PIRA were equivalent to the IRA of 1920, with no consideration given to the different circumstances, the different social mores, the democratic legitimacy or the fact that everyone else had moved on.

If it wasn't so nauseating, it would be laughable.

McMurphy

https://twitter.com/PrayForPatrick/status/1362716299051302918?s=19

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is standard practice.

There is a delusional argument that the PIRA were equivalent to the IRA of 1920, with no consideration given to the different circumstances, the different social mores, the democratic legitimacy or the fact that everyone else had moved on.

If it wasn't so nauseating, it would be laughable.

McMurphy has shown already what a ridiculous stance this is - different mores?

McMurphy wrote:

The British Government and it's people were presumably ok with attacks on them and it's army back then,

You don't need to accept the similarities of the IRA, you just need to accept that 'killing for political aims' is the same whenever it was done.

UDAWINNER

RTE giving out to Louise O'Reilly for travelling travelling 30km to a tv3 studio, who do I see right now in a rte studio, only Dara Calleary who is from Mayo.
Biased

Brendan Bendar

Usual interview with MLMCD plenty of name checking, usual anecdotal description of “a woman rang me.....” and nothing else except waffle.

Every interview the same......mostly populist waffle.

Will he tackle her on the Wexford councilors.

No.... and why am I not surprised.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

McMurphy has shown already what a ridiculous stance this is - different mores?


You don't need to accept the similarities of the IRA, you just need to accept that 'killing for political aims' is the same whenever it was done.

No, killing for political aims is not the same whenever it was done.

On that basis, you would equate the 9/11 terrorists with the French resistance to the Nazis.

Your argument is without merit, and not worth any further engagement. It is absurd.

James Brown

Hubertj wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40229735.html

I don’t understand this. Firstly, a family has the right to commemorate the death of a son no matter how or what they might have done.

However, a commemoration for a terrorist is unacceptable. It was supported by Sinn Fein in some form. The Sinn Fein member is a teacher? Suitable to work with children?

how do you think victims of the BA feel on November 11th or every day because what the BA did is celebrated and honoured and collusion with 'terrorists' is shrugged off? You are basically allowing the playing of favourites.

James Brown

piplip87 wrote: »

Once again people comparing Collins to the likes of Sands and O'Brien is astoundingly stupid.

The Irish War of Independence had the backing of the Irish people, the candidates stood in the 1919 general election on the basis they would form a government in Dublin. Whatever happened during the War of Independance would be judged after the fact in elections.

While the provos on the other hand believed the Army Council where the legitimate government of Ireland. An unelected one at that. The fact the vast vast majority of the Irish people did not support the armed campaign, many people would be sympathetic towards the Provos until they started blowing up pubs, buses and hotels. Killing children.

Again people will throw up the Civil rights aspect to the armed campaign. Yet they drivers of the civil rights campaign wanted nothing to do with the Provos as they wanted civil rights for all. The Provos ended up taking the right to life away from many. It was never about civil rights for the majority of Provos. Some however did fall of the recruiting tool used by them.

What did the armed campaign achieve ?

Brits out ? NO
A united Ireland ? No
Civil rights?No Hume and Mallon did that.

If anything it set back the opportunity to unite this country by about 40 years.

About all it achieved was a ministerial paycheck and pension for a good few SF ministers up the north.

Comrade, a chap tried to spin the 'old' 'good' IRA under collins as being more restrained. I showed the poster this wasn't the case. There endeth the 'comparison'.
The rest of your comment is opinion and you are welcome to it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No, killing for political aims is not the same whenever it was done.

On that basis, you would equate the 9/11 terrorists with the French resistance to the Nazis.

Your argument is without merit, and not worth any further engagement. It is absurd.

It's killing for political aims blanch.
You support the political aims of the IRA 100 years ago...that's the only difference.

I.E. you are being hypocritical.

James Brown

Hubertj wrote: »

I have no problem with a teacher being a member of a political party but to think it’s ok to support the commemoration of a bomber....

Every British school teacher does it every year on remembrance day.
You've an issue with politics, which is fine. I wouldn't want a Tory teaching kids, but I'd expect they'd be professional.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

No, killing for political aims is not the same whenever it was done.

On that basis, you would equate the 9/11 terrorists with the French resistance to the Nazis.

Your argument is without merit, and not worth any further engagement. It is absurd.

Actually the US and BA would have more in common with the 9/11 terrorists and the Nazis than the French Resistance.
All attacking, bombing and occupying. The only difference is your politics and if you prefer one over the other.
IMO the IRA would have more in common with the French resistance.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's killing for political aims blanch.
.

Read my post, I never said it wasn't killing for political aims. I just pointed out that killing for political aims is not the same whenever it was done.

blanch152 wrote: »

No, killing for political aims is not the same whenever it was done.

On that basis, you would equate the 9/11 terrorists with the French resistance to the Nazis.

Your argument is without merit, and not worth any further engagement. It is absurd.

What I am saying is that in certain circumstances - democratic legitimacy being the key one - killing for political aim, while regrettable, and needing investigation, is acceptable. Normal security force actions such as most killings committed by Gardai or many actions of the French resistance to the Nazis would be good examples of where killing for political aims is acceptable.

9/11, Brighton bombing, 7/7, Brimingham and Manchester bombs, Dublin and Monaghan bombings, Bloody Sunday, PIRA activity are all examples of killings for political aims which are not acceptable.

You are attempting to impose a form of moral equivalence that doesn't exist.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Read my post, I never said it wasn't killing for political aims. I just pointed out that killing for political aims is not the same whenever it was done.

The dead would disagree, I would imagine.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The dead would disagree, I would imagine.

No death is to be taken lightly, but if you condemned Edward O'Brien as much as you condemn those behind the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, you might have some credibility. However, your false moral equivalence doesn't extend to condemning actions by the IRA.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No death is to be taken lightly, but if you condemned Edward O'Brien as much as you condemn those behind the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, you might have some credibility. However, your false moral equivalence doesn't extend to condemning actions by the IRA.

I have done something YOU have never done. Yet you take the higher moral ground.

I have said consistently that all the violence on this island was wrong from the start and cause of that violence.

I don't condone violence anywhere, be that carpet bombing indiscriminately or leaving a car bomb on a street.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have done something YOU have never done. Yet you take the higher moral ground.

I have said consistently that all the violence on this island was wrong from the start and cause of that violence.

I don't condone violence anywhere, be that carpet bombing indiscriminately or leaving a car bomb on a street.

As I said earlier the man who practically invented carpet bombing gets a knighthood, a man who blew himself up on a bus by accident is the terrorist that shouldn't be commemorated by his family.

rdwight

blanch152 wrote: »

Read my post, I never said it wasn't killing for political aims. I just pointed out that killing for political aims is not the same whenever it was done.




What I am saying is that in certain circumstances - democratic legitimacy being the key one - killing for political aim, while regrettable, and needing investigation, is acceptable. Normal security force actions such as most killings committed by Gardai or many actions of the French resistance to the Nazis would be good examples of where killing for political aims is acceptable.

9/11, Brighton bombing, 7/7, Brimingham and Manchester bombs, Dublin and Monaghan bombings, Bloody Sunday, PIRA activity are all examples of killings for political aims which are not acceptable.

You are attempting to impose a form of moral equivalence that doesn't exist.

Agreed

I wonder if shinners who attribute moral equivalence to Old IRA and PIRA can find any reason not to extend that to CIRA and RIRA?

James Brown

rdwight wrote: »

Agreed

I wonder if shinners who attribute moral equivalence to Old IRA and PIRA can find any reason not to extend that to CIRA and RIRA?

A romanticised view of the past coupled with a party political bias are the only differences between either IRA.

The disident lads and lassies would argue same about themselves I'd imagine. It's a complex world. FG/Lab made one a senator sure.

a very cool kid

It's a tragedy that guy died on the bus. It's negligence that his Republican brothers let him.

CrazyFather1

a very cool kid wrote: »

It's a tragedy that guy died on the bus. It's negligence that his Republican brothers let him.

If he didn't die on the bus how many people would have died if he got to his real target?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have done something YOU have never done. Yet you take the higher moral ground.

I have said consistently that all the violence on this island was wrong from the start and cause of that violence.

I don't condone violence anywhere, be that carpet bombing indiscriminately or leaving a car bomb on a street.

Get off the stage, Francie.

You complain about Rememberance Day, yet you defend the commemoration of Edward O'Brien, a man who was set on blowing up civilians.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Get off the stage, Francie.

You complain about Rememberance Day, yet you defend the commemoration of Edward O'Brien, a man who was set on blowing up civilians.

Sigh.

I don't 'complain about Remembrance Day' blanch, I am consistent about saying clearly and unambiguously that a way HAS to be and will be found for all sides to remember their dead with respect.

My issue with the hypocritical who insist on wearing the poppy on Remembrance Day is with those who do it to taunt. That is wrong when FG do it, FF, The DUP, SF or anyone else does it.

By all means remember your dead but please also REMEMBER your dead may have been the reason mine are dead.