Sinn Fein cancels bomber commemoration

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

I havnt blamed anyone,highlighted circumstances of what happened.....stop reaching for hysterics to shut down debate on subjext you brought in.....is it true that despite having a warrent to seize electronic items,the psni didnt that night??

Where anywhere did i say these were parts of fight for ireland.....your free to critise like...but your assertions are poorly taught out here......like wasnt warringtom and omagh,warnings given (even in omagh,the brits fcuked up and ignored the warning as they had an informer saying it was planned to be keft elsewhere??)

Classic!

Was planting bombs in London legitimate in the fight for Ireland?

Dyr

markodaly wrote: »

SF/PIRA logic.

The killing of 722 innocent civilians by Irish Republicans wasn't, I repeat WASN'T a crime.

Murder isn't a crime folks, because you can tell the Gardai that 'I'm fighting for Ireland'.

the IRA killed 393 civilians, 994 Security forces, 39 Loyalist paramilitaries and 133 Republican paramilitaries. The last figure is the one is you and Blanch like to roll into "Catholics killed by the IRA".

The British killed more civilians than combatants in NI. The IRA killed over twice as many combatants as they did civilians.


I know you tried to weasel word it with the term "Irish Republicans" but even then it doesnt add up to 722, its 545. Maybe you were just looking at sneaking in the amount of civilians killed by loyalist paramilitaries (742) and hoping no one would notice.

You're not very honest are you?

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

your going to have to go again there lad,im at a loss as to what your trying to say?[/QUOTE]

Was planting bombs in London or similar cities in England legitimate in the fight for Ireland's freedom?

markodaly

Bambi wrote: »

You're not very honest are you?

Your figures are incorrect I am afraid!

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean like,the state commerate tom clarke every year at easter as a hero,he was arrested for same?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Whatisthisnow

markodaly wrote: »

A simple yes or no would suffice.

You have gone very quiet on a few threads

Standard practice when Govt are in bother, Airports, Mother and Baby Homes, No Urgency in any plans, leaks and more leaks, ministers under investigation by guards

=

Sinn Fein threads full

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean like....you cant throw toys out of pram and demand specific worded answer,when yous refused 5 times to answer a simple qs regarding online tone

Not sure what you are on about, but the question I have relates to the bomber in question in this thread.

Was planting bombs in London a legitimate tactic for Irelands Freedom, thus not a crime?

James Brown

Gatling wrote: »

Sf lead local authorities failed to collect 90+ million in unpaid rents

Which councils are these and what SF policy is aiding the arrears?
I believe you are either making this up or swallowing spin.

They can visit his grave like everyone who's family members pass away.

In this case he failed in carrying our an act of terror

I'll not tell a family how to mourn their son.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Not sure what you are on about, but the question I have relates to the bomber in question in this thread.

Im suprised you claim not to seen this qs (6th time)

i know the tone of online discussion,is an ongoing concern for you...do you think the government should come out and condemn the abuse his family received here??


Was there ffg members in wicklow/wexford implicated in it?

And should these members be expellled in your view,considering your ongoing concern at tone/content of online doscussion in irish politics?

I feel its most relvent to topic of thread,since this commeration was called off due to online abuse sent to family

Was planting bombs in London a legitimate tactic for Irelands Freedom, thus not a crime?

I feel the state endorses,such a tactic with its reverence of tom clarke.....thus critism by ffg of this young lad for doing same is hypocritixal

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

a large number of those "civilains" were /quote]

Civilians

Gatling

markodaly wrote: »

Your figures are incorrect I am afraid!

Bit of an understatement

"The greatest danger to you if you were a Provisional IRA volunteer was not the RUC or the British Army – it was your own organisation killing you either accidentally or intentionally,” said Prof Kennedy, speaking at the West Cork History Festival in Skibbereen "

markodaly

Gatling wrote: »

Bit of an understatement

"The greatest danger to you if you were a Provisional IRA volunteer was not the RUC or the British Army – it was your own organisation killing you either accidentally or intentionally,” said Prof Kennedy, speaking at the West Cork History Festival in Skibbereen "

Or that the PIRA and their ilk were protecting innocent civilians and Nationalists when they end up killing far more of them, then the British Security services.

This is a case where raw facts come face to face with mythology and legends.

Yurt2

markodaly wrote: »

Or that the PIRA and their ilk were protecting innocent civilians and Nationalists when they end up killing far more of them, then the British Security services.

This is a case where raw facts come face to face with mythology and legends.

Don't be silly, almost all of the Catholic / Nationalist civilian deaths were from Loyalist paramilitaries (and you can chuck in the British security forces there as well in the collusion fog).

I nor anyone else is likely going to want to rank the deaths from the conflict but you're engaging in politically tainted revisionism here suggesting that the IRA were attacking their own communities, it's balderdash.

You lot are seriously silly. You're 'raw facts' are nothing of the sort.

Whatisthisnow

markodaly wrote: »

Or that the PIRA and their ilk were protecting innocent civilians and Nationalists when they end up killing far more of them, then the British Security services.

This is a case where raw facts come face to face with mythology and legends.

The Blueshirts done alot worse. There was a Good Friday Agreement, we agreed to move on.

People on both sides can be upset and remember there past, I havnt heard SF or anybody say they can't

What we do know is Sinn Féin have the under 40s on side and the establishment are ****ting it

Scratchly

Whatisthisnow wrote: »

The Blueshirts done alot worse. There was a Good Friday Agreement, we agreed to move on.

People on both sides can be upset and remember there past, I havnt heard SF or anybody say they can't

What we do know is Sinn Féin have the under 40s on side and the establishment are ****ting it

Is it really the past when people in this thread have said that renewed terrorist attacks will be necessary if there's no border poll?

SF and the terrorist sympathisers in this thread don't just have a romanticised view of the good old days of the IRA. They actually believe that terrorism was and is a legitimate response to the North being occupied.

It's not only the establishment ****ting itself. There's plenty of people who haven't been duped by populist nonsense terrified of the random assortment of idiots that is SF and who think terrorism and targeting civilians is a great idea getting into power.

Yurt2

Scratchly wrote: »

Is it really the past when people in this thread have said that renewed terrorist attacks will be necessary if there's no border poll?

SF and the terrorist sympathisers in this thread don't just have a romanticised view of the good old days of the IRA. They actually believe that terrorism was and is a legitimate response to the North being occupied.

It's not only the establishment ****ting itself. There's plenty of people who haven't been duped by populist nonsense terrified of the random assortment of idiots that is SF and who think terrorism and targeting civilians is a great idea getting into power.

Nobody in this thread has romanticized any actions of the conflict. From the IRA or any other actor.


The populism on this thread isn't coming from where you think it's coming from. You're engaging in it yourself. There's been an astounding amount of sh*t talk on this thread by people who are simply spooked at people voting for SF, you're adding to it.

Scratchly

Yurt! wrote: »

Nobody in this thread has romanticized any actions of the conflict. From the IRA or any other actor.


The populism on this thread isn't coming from where you think it's coming from. You're engaging in it yourself. There's been an astounding amount of sh*t talk on this thread by people who are simply spooked at people voting for SF, you're adding to it.

"Populism: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

Took the liberty of getting the definition for you given you clearly don't don't understand the word.

And its clear from every SF defenders posts that's exactly what SF are. It all comes back to the establishment is afraid of a shakeup etc

I'd forgive the gullibility though. It's easy to be fooled by parties telling you the powers that be are the enemy and they'll fix all your problems. But what I have an issue with is the terrorist support.

And you either haven't read the thread or you're flat out lying. It's full of nonsense like "it's not a crime to fight for Ireland" and "someone had to step up and do what needed to be done" in relation to terrorists planting bombs in London. SF were even trying to commemorate the scumbag who blew himself up.

But most worrying of all is the fact that these people don't just give the IRA a pass for past activity. But they support what was done and would support it again.

Yurt2

Scratchly wrote: »

"Populism: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

Took the liberty of getting the definition for you given you clearly don't don't understand the word.

And its clear from every SF defenders posts that's exactly what SF are. It all comes back to the establishment is afraid of a shakeup etc

I'd forgive the gullibility though. It's easy to be fooled by parties telling you they'll fix all your problems. But what I have an issue with is the terrorist support.

And you either haven't read the thread or you're flat out lying. It's full of nonsense like "it's not a crime to fight for Ireland" and "someone had to step up and do what needed to be done" in relation to terrorists planting bombs in London. SF were even trying to commemorate the scumbag who blew himself up.

But most worrying of all is the fact that these people don't just give the IRA a pass for past activity. But they support what was done and would support it again.

Well that was a yawn of a post.



It's best not to use quotation marks as they're typically used to denote what people actually said.

On the bolded - if you see ethnic cleansing and the denial of basic rights as was happening in the 60s/70s, don't get surprised if there is an uptick in violence. I'll leave you to your hand-wringing about a conflict that's twenty years in the past. But we're in a fully ballot-box democratic era thankfully, with people's basic rights secured.

Ballot box and not Armalite is what the likes of you always wanted apparently, but now you're on a whinge because SF are winning at that game, and are on track to be in government. Part of you actually mourns that the Troubles are gone, because you're left with nothing else to say.

Could anything be more populist when you think about it? The ordinary decent tax-paying Joe vs the nefarious boogeyman SF out to get you and people like you? That's populist rhetoric 101, and you're lathered in it. Take a bath.

Scratchly

Yurt! wrote: »

Well that was a yawn of a post.

It's best not to use quotation marks as they're typically used to denote what people actually said.

So you're embarrassed at not understanding a word and trying to lecture me on the use of quotes to save face? And you even got that wrong! Good lord.

On the bolded - if you see ethnic cleansing and the denial of basic rights as was happening in the 60s/70s, don't get surprised if there is an uptick in violence. I'll leave you to your hand-wringing about a conflict that's twenty years in the past. But we're in a fully ballot-box democratic era thankfully, with people's basic rights secured.

More apologist nonesense. Planting bombs in London and murdering innocent people isn't just an "uptick in violence". It's terrorism. And its not acceptable. Not to any decent person anyway.

Ballot box and not Armalite is what the likes of you always wanted apparently, but now you're on a whinge because SF are winning at that game, and are on track to be in government. Part of you actually mourns that the Troubles are gone, because you're left with nothing else to say.

In a thread about SF commemorating a terrorist where SF supporters talk about terrorists being heroes who stood up to be counted and how it'll be necessary again if there's no border poll you're accusing me of mourning the end of the troubles for saying murdering innocent people isn't justifiable?

I suppose if you're going to support terrorism you have to check reason and logic at the door.

"Could anything be more populist when you think about it? The ordinary decent tax-paying Joe vs the nefarious boogeyman SF out to get you and people like you? That's populist rhetoric 101, and you're lathered in it. Take a bath."

Still struggling with what populism is I see!

Yurt2

Scratchly wrote: »

So you're embarrassed at not understanding a word and trying to lecture me on the use of quotes to save face? And you even got that wrong! Good lord.



More apologist nonesense. Planting bombs in London and murdering innocent people isn't just an "uptick in violence". It's terrorism. And its not acceptable. Not to any decent person anyway.



In a thread about SF commemorating a terrorist where SF supporters talk about terrorists being heroes who stood up to be counted and how it'll be necessary again if there's no border poll you're accusing me of mourning the end of the troubles for saying murdering innocent people isn't justifiable?

I suppose if you're going to support terrorism you have to check reason and logic at the door.

"Could anything be more populist when you think about it? The ordinary decent tax-paying Joe vs the nefarious boogeyman SF out to get you and people like you? That's populist rhetoric 101, and you're lathered in it. Take a bath."

Still struggling with what populism is I see!

Yawnworthy boogyman nonsense.



You Googled populism and copy and pasted the first search result, don't even deny it. Forgive me for not believing you're an expert with a Phd from Sciences Po. There's an entire academic debate about what populism is and isn't and where parties like SF may or may not fit into it. Pasting the first Google search result doesn't cut it when you're attempting to be a smartar*e and the cleverest boy in the room. Everyone knows you're not.

Scratchly

Yurt! wrote: »

Yawnworthy boogyman nonsense.



You Googled populism and copy and pasted the first search result, don't even deny it. Forgive me for not believing you're an expert with a Phd from Sciences Po. There's an entire academic debate about what populism is and isn't and where parties like SF may or may not fit into it. Pasting the first Google search result doesn't cut it when you're attempting to be a smartar*e and the cleverest boy in the room. Everyone knows you're not.

You think I was trying to pull a fast one to present myself as some sort of genius by copying and pasting a basic definition of a word in response to someone who clearly didn't know what it meant ? :pac:

I think it's time for bed.

Yurt2

Scratchly wrote: »

You think I was trying to pull a fast one to present myself as some sort of genius by copying and pasting a basic definition of a word in response to someone who clearly didn't know what it meant ? :pac:

I think it's time for bed.

Nighty night.


Remember, everyone you don't see eye to eye with it is a populist. And a little tip: when you hear someone deploy it in an Irish context, it's usually shorthand for the fact the person saying it is running scared because they're own little political hobby horse is floundering.


Sweet dreams mon petit prince.

Bobeagleburger

How was it established it wasn't suicide? Cctv?

smurgen

I think people need to read the words of Michael d Higgins and get a grip on reality.

“A feigned amnesia around the uncomfortable aspects of our shared history will not help us to forge a better future together,” he says, contrasting British forgetfulness with Ireland’s reflections on its war of independence and partition a century ago.

“I am struck by a disinclination,” he says, “in both academic and journalistic accounts to critique empire and imperialism. Openness to, and engagement in, a critique of nationalism has seemed greater. And while it has been vital to our purposes in Ireland to examine nationalism, doing the same for imperialism is equally important and has a significance far beyond British/Irish relations.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/11/irish-president-michael-d-higgins-critiques-feigned-amnesia-over-british-imperialism

osarusan

Scratchly wrote: »

They actually believe that terrorism was and is a legitimate response to the North being occupied.

The question is how far do you extend that argument.


I don't think too many people have an issue with the PIRA targeting members of the RUC or British Army in Northern Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s. It would be seen as a legitimate course of action against an occupying force.


But a person from Wexford bombing civilians in London in 1996? Does the legitimacy extend that far? There are clearly posters on this thread for whom it does, and for whom the response to and justification of any Republican action whatsoever seems to be that The British started it, they shouldn't have been there in the first place, and I wonder just how much further they would extend that argument.


But I think it's fair to recognise that there is a boundary, and ask where that boundary is, between acceptable and unacceptable action.

jm08

osarusan wrote: »

The question is how far do you extand that argument.


I don't think too many people have an issue with the PIRA targeting members of the RUC or British Army in Northern Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s. It would be seen as a legitimate course of action against an occupying force.

But a person from Wexford bombing civilians in London in 1996? Does the legitimacy extend that far? There are clearly posters on this thread for whom it does, and for whom the response to and justification of any Republican action whatsoever seems to be that The British started it, they shouldn't have been there in the first place, and I wonder just how much further they would extend that argument.

But I think it's fair to recognise that there is a boundary, and ask where that boundary is, between acceptable and unacceptable action.

If the IRA were targetting English civilians, why were they giving out bomb warnings. For example, the London Stock Exchange, they gave a 40 minute warning and no one was killed in it.


Now if you can say that RUC, BA were legitimate targets and civilians were not. Do you think that something like the British Stock Exchange is a legitimate target?


It should be pointed out that a person from Wexford was not killing English people. The bomb went off by accident and he was killed himself. He wasn't a suicide bomber trying to kill English people.

hatrickpatrick

Scratchly wrote: »

"Populism: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

Took the liberty of getting the definition for you given you clearly don't don't understand the word.

And its clear from every SF defenders posts that's exactly what SF are. It all comes back to the establishment is afraid of a shakeup etc

Why is that such a terrible thing? If ordinary people feel their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups, that is solely the fault of those established elite groups. For people to feel that way in a democracy is an indication of democracy gone awry, and it rightly results in democratic shake ups.

The very existence of "elite" groups is itself incompatible with the concept of representative democracy, one of the many problems with how this country is run which many folks who support the status quo simply refuse to acknowledge.

SF wouldn't be surging if people weren't (a) being directly hurt by the policies of the current establishment, and (b) didn't like the alternative SF was presenting. Are we at least agreed on this? And if you disagree, which part of this sentence in particular is the issue?

CrazyFather1

jm08 wrote: »

If the IRA were targetting English civilians, why were they giving out bomb warnings. For example, the London Stock Exchange, they gave a 40 minute warning and no one was killed in it.


Now if you can say that RUC, BA were legitimate targets and civilians were not. Do you think that something like the British Stock Exchange is a legitimate target?


It should be pointed out that a person from Wexford was not killing English people. The bomb went off by accident and he was killed himself. He wasn't a suicide bomber trying to kill English people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bombings
Boots & McDonalds legitimate targets?
One bombs goes off, people try to escape and second bomb is placed to hit those fleeing.
Two children killed. Great success for the PIRA and supporters.

A long list of PIRA bombs here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain

Shops, pubs, hotels, train stations. Legitimate targets?

So please explain to me how the PIRA wasn't targeting civilians?

Mad_maxx

personally i believe the armed campaign in Northern Ireland was inevitable but you do have to wonder what the point of these commemorations are ?

do they do it to annoy unionists ?

you can privately appreciate those who fought against injustice while also accepting that horrendously violent acts were committed and celebrating them publicly long after the conflict is over does nothing to advance relations

jm08

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bombings
Boots & McDonalds legitimate targets?
One bombs goes off, people try to escape and second bomb is placed to hit those fleeing.
Two children killed. Great success for the PIRA and supporters.

There were bomb warnings given. If you are targetting civilians why tell them that a bomb is going to go off?

A day later, an IRA spokesman said that "two precise warnings" had been given "in adequate time", one to the Samaritans and one to Merseyside Police.[7] He added: "You don't provide warnings if it is your intention to kill".[10] Cheshire's assistant chief constable denied there had been a second warning and said:

Yes, a warning was given half-an-hour before, but no mention was made of Warrington. If the IRA think they can pass on their responsibility for this terrible act by issuing such a nonsensical statement, they have sadly underestimated the understanding of the British public.[7]

A long list of PIRA bombs here


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain

Shops, pubs, hotels, train stations. Legitimate targets?

So please explain to me how the PIRA wasn't targeting civilians?

They gave warnings to the Police and Samaritans (both because police were sometimes happy to allow the bombings to happen)!



British establishment targets. For example, pubs were places where British Army personnel hung out. Completely different to Islamic terrorists who are indescrimate in their killings.