Sinn Fein cancels bomber commemoration

Whatisthisnow

markodaly wrote: »

So why leave a bomb in the middle of a packed pub, filled with innocent civilians who have no association with the security forces?
The PIRA 'reasoning' is just an excuse in wonton slaughter.



There you have it, the 722 innocent civilians who were killed by Irish Republicans was just 'collateral' damage.

We had the GFA

Get over it, 99% of people have

markodaly

Bambi wrote: »

You might notice that the Brits and their paramilitaries

If the only way you can try and win the war on 'facts' is by lumping all the British Security Forces in with Loyalist Paramilitaries, then you are losing, losing badly may I add.

The loyalists who killed innocent civilians are equally depraved and reprehensible. I give them no quarter in my condemnation. Yet, there is no one here trying to what about away what they did, as some cover to fight for Ulster.

Sure, to use the same logic, it is not a crime to fight for Ulster, as its not a crime to fight for Ireland.... am I right? So both sides can go kill whomever they want, with some sort of moral cover for their wicked deeds.

Loyalists are not looking for me to vote for them, but I have heard some ex-Loyalists, in the PUP categorically state what they did was just wrong, unequivocally. I have never heard anyone from SF/PIRA admit that, because they are busy asking for votes, revising history and trying to create their own myths and legends, which is ahistorical.

So, that brings us back on topic, where Sinn Fein thought it was a good idea to commemorate a man, who was groomed from a young age to go and kill innocent people. As I said, ISIS learned a trick or two from the Provos.

Niallof9

Deleted User wrote: »

Imo he did



Used he not give warnings,when planting the bomb....bit of an illogical mismomer there in that case to say he wanted on kill innocents imo



Youd be happy for your children to stand by and done nating,when brits blaggarding and terrorising people in ireland....each to their own i guess

Died for Ireland, ffs he did not

Niallof9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It always saddens me that there's such a big debate about this. Targeting civilians is morally reprehensible regardless of the reason and the IRA badly, badly, badly lost its way when this became the modus operandi as opposed to attacking law enforcement, military, and paramilitary targets.

We really shouldn't be debating this. It's also not a zero sum game as I've said many times before - you can support a party or organisation whilst being heavily critical when they f*ck up. I'd argue that this is the healthiest way to support anything. Hell, it's the same situation as with the Story funeral - would love to see SF in government here with other left wing parties, have no problem calling the leadership out for such an unimaginably stupid, dangerous, and above all highly inflammatory decision in attending it.

People shouldn't be afraid to criticise their side where criticism is due. The IRA descended into absolute evil when they started authorising people to go over to England and blow up random commercial spaces full of innocent people going about their day. There's absolutely nothing controversial in that statement and it in no way undermines your status as a loyal Republican if you do so. In fact, I'd argue that not calling out one's own side when they f*ck up is in fact the height of disloyalty - does a good friend allow their friend to do stupid or evil sh!t without calling them out and saying "hey look, that was f*cked up and you really shouldn't be acting like this"?

Its absolutely crazy the way you can disassociate the two parts here. SF was part of the descent into evil if the IRA was.

Its why many many people take issue with SF.

Killing civillians is utterly reprehensible. Until SF makes peace with that fact, apologises and cuts ties loads of people in Ireland will always despise them.

markodaly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It always saddens me that there's such a big debate about this. Targeting civilians is morally reprehensible regardless of the reason and the IRA badly, badly, badly lost its way when this became the modus operandi as opposed to attacking law enforcement, military, and paramilitary targets.

We really shouldn't be debating this. It's also not a zero sum game as I've said many times before - you can support a party or organisation whilst being heavily critical when they f*ck up. I'd argue that this is the healthiest way to support anything. Hell, it's the same situation as with the Story funeral - would love to see SF in government here with other left wing parties, have no problem calling the leadership out for such an unimaginably stupid, dangerous, and above all highly inflammatory decision in attending it.

People shouldn't be afraid to criticise their side where criticism is due. The IRA descended into absolute evil when they started authorising people to go over to England and blow up random commercial spaces full of innocent people going about their day. There's absolutely nothing controversial in that statement and it in no way undermines your status as a loyal Republican if you do so. In fact, I'd argue that not calling out one's own side when they f*ck up is in fact the height of disloyalty - does a good friend allow their friend to do stupid or evil sh!t without calling them out and saying "hey look, that was f*cked up and you really shouldn't be acting like this"?

We may disagree on many things including government/SF policy, but I do respect you as a poster. You at least put some time and effort into your thoughts and I appreciate you calling out the murder of innocent civilians by the PIRA (or anyone really) as what it is. Murder.

If only more SF supporters had your moral courage and fortitude, we would be much better off. It is really disappointing to me that even 22 years after the GFA that many online SF/PIRA supporters cannot even step back and admit that perhaps the PIRA and their ilk went too far, in their indiscriminate tactics of planting bombs in public places, killing innocent people and then not victim-blame afterwards or whatabout away the causes.

If a hardened old IRA man like Tom Barry can admit this about the PIRA, then why can't a new generation who never lifted a finger for 'the cause'?

I guess, the war today is about 'the truth' not bombs or guns. Hence why the internet is full of SF 'soldiers' arguing about Ireland continues the fight for freedom, trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Dyr

markodaly wrote: »

If the only way you can try and win the war on 'facts' is by lumping all the British Security Forces in with Loyalist Paramilitaries, then you are losing, losing badly may I add.

The Loyalist paramilitaries who were supplied with weapons and intelligence by the British security forces, infiltrated by British security forces and had members of the British security forces in their death squads? Those Loyalist paramilitary forces?

Yeah, I wonder where the justification is for lumping them all in together

Even when you exclude the British paramilitaries, the British still killed more civilians than combatants, unlike the provos...but thats the norm for the British.

Its funny though, you never get up on your high horse about the victims of British forces except as an afterthought when someone calls you out on it. Seems odd, that sort of selective moral indignation. Almost like the humanitarianism is just an axe to grid

markodaly

Bambi wrote: »

Yeah, I wonder where the justification is for lumping them all in together

Well, I would take my call from the academics from CAIN, not some random internet poster who has a vested interest in downplaying the deaths caused by Irish Republicans.

The rest of the post is an interesting take on whataboutery and victim-blaming.
If Irish Republicans were fighting to protect nationalists and civilians, from the big bad wolf, why did they kill way more of them?

Honest question!

Dyr

markodaly wrote: »

Well, I would take my call from the academics from CAIN, not some random internet poster who has a vested interest in downplaying the deaths caused by Irish Republicans.

The rest of the post is an interesting take on whataboutery and victim-blaming.
If Irish Republicans were fighting to protect nationalists and civilians, from the big bad wolf, why did they kill way more of them?

Honest question!

My statistics are from CAIN. I'm nost sure how anyone can downplay the amount of civilians killed by the IRA (nice try at moving the goalposts there btw) when the figure is there in black and white

Who's blaming victims? you might want to point out where you're getting that notion from or admit you're just throwing more hyperbolic mud at the wall

Killed way more Nationalists and civilians than what?

Combatants? The statistics showed the IRA did the opposite.

Its just all chaff from you to try keep as many Shinner bashing threads on the front page as possible. I do admire the effort it takes but the volume over quality ratio of your posts is shocking.

markodaly

Bambi wrote: »

My statistics are from CAIN.

Then you will know that CAIN doesn't lump the British Security forces in with Loyalist Paramilitaries, as you do. Hence my point.

Killed way more Nationalists and civilians than what?

British Security forces.
You were way more likely if a Catholic to be killed by Irish Republicans, than the BA. That is just a fact.

Whatisthisnow

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The british literally supplied 80% of intelligence and arms to loyalists and in many cases,loyalist were off duty.security forces


Its a tactic of the british empire everywhere,to.use local militias,why would ni be any different?

Your quiet on other threads

Gatling

markodaly wrote: »

British Security forces.
You were way more likely if a Catholic to be killed by Irish Republicans, than the BA. That is just a fact.

And if you were in the ra you were more likely to be killed by your own stupidity or your mates than the British army.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

We may disagree on many things including government/SF policy, but I do respect you as a poster. You at least put some time and effort into your thoughts and I appreciate you calling out the murder of innocent civilians by the PIRA (or anyone really) as what it is. Murder.

If only more SF supporters had your moral courage and fortitude, we would be much better off. It is really disappointing to me that even 22 years after the GFA that many online SF/PIRA supporters cannot even step back and admit that perhaps the PIRA and their ilk went too far, in their indiscriminate tactics of planting bombs in public places, killing innocent people and then not victim-blame afterwards or whatabout away the causes.

If a hardened old IRA man like Tom Barry can admit this about the PIRA, then why can't a new generation who never lifted a finger for 'the cause'?

I guess, the war today is about 'the truth' not bombs or guns. Hence why the internet is full of SF 'soldiers' arguing about Ireland continues the fight for freedom, trying to justify the unjustifiable.

This is made up though.You are believing your own spin.
Nobody, including SF defend killing civilians. Nor do people here shy away from doing so. Your spin here helps peddle your narrative.
Looking at things from the perspective of others is necessary. Its not defending or engaging in whataboutery. I'm no shinner but you assume many of us are, which is fine but it again helps sell your narrative. Criticism is easier to dismiss if you tell yourself those making it are just biased.
I can see why people needed and supported the IRA. They could not have existed without some level of support. Thats it really.
Having this discussion every few months is pointless especially pretending its not been had before. I can only assume the point is to keep the 'RA discussion going, which is fine too but maybe stop pretending its a new discussion every time.

blanch152

James Brown wrote: »

This is made up though.You are believing your own spin.
Nobody, including SF defend killing civilians. Nor do people here shy away from doing so. Your spin here helps peddle your narrative.
Looking at things from the perspective of others is necessary. Its not defending or engaging in whataboutery. I'm no shinner but you assume many of us are, which is fine but it again helps sell your narrative. Criticism is easier to dismiss if you tell yourself those making it are just biased.
I can see why people needed and supported the IRA. They could not have existed without some level of support. Thats it really.
Having this discussion every few months is pointless especially pretending its not been had before. I can only assume the point is to keep the 'RA discussion going, which is fine too but maybe stop pretending its a new discussion every time.

So you are not able to admit that perhaps the PIRA and their ilk went too far, in their indiscriminate tactics of planting bombs in public places, killing innocent people and then not victim-blame afterwards or whatabout away the causes.

Fair enough, but you could have simply said that.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

I don't think they were targetting civilians because they were giving warnings to the Police and to the Samaritans. I believe they started giving warnings to the Samaritans as well because the Police were letting innocent people getting killed for PR reasons.'.

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely,in yous version of reality,a warning wouldnt even be necessary?

Questions for the two of you, because you're both dancing around this topic and refusing to commit to what you actually think (which is par for the course with people who normally hold views most others would find abhorrent):

a) Are you saying that it is NOT okay to plant a bomb in a public place?
b) Are you also saying that it IS okay to plant a bomb in a public place IF you give a warning beforehand?
c) Finally, are you claiming that, if you do give a warning, then any/all people killed as a result of this bomb that YOU planted are not your responsibility, and that fault lies with the authorities who failed to act on the warning?

Because that's what it looks like from where I'm standing. And that is an absolutely fcuking mental position to take..

James Brown

James Brown wrote: »

T
Nobody, including SF defend killing civilians. Nor do people here shy away from doing so.

There are multiple examples of people in this very thread doing exactly that. Justifying and defending the attempted killing and bombing of innocent civilian people because........well, let's see, because Gorey was under British occupation during Euro '96 or some other bull****.

maccored

Deleted User wrote: »

Questions for the two of you, because you're both dancing around this topic and refusing to commit to what you actually think (which is par for the course with people who normally hold views most others would find abhorrent):

a) Are you saying that it is NOT okay to plant a bomb in a public place?
b) Are you also saying that it IS okay to plant a bomb in a public place IF you give a warning beforehand?
c) Finally, are you claiming that, if you do give a warning, then any/all people killed as a result of this bomb that YOU planted are not your responsibility, and that fault lies with the authorities who failed to act on the warning?

Because that's what it looks like from where I'm standing. And that is an absolutely fcuking mental position to take..

in a conflict, that is what happens. Was it ok to blanket bomb germany during the war? Moral dilemmas all conflicts have - not just this one. Either condemn every action ever taken against people or dont. You cant cherrypick. Its not OK just because a government says it is.

1) You're not either of the two people to whom those questions were directed and
2) you have failed to answer them anyway

So, I'll repeat those questions to your good self, only this time I'd appreciate if you could answer them directly, please. If you're going to hold extremist views, at least have the backbone to stand up and let others know that you hold them:

a) Are you saying that it is NOT okay to plant a bomb in a public place?
b) Are you also saying that it IS okay to plant a bomb in a public place IF you give a warning beforehand?
c) Finally, are you claiming that, if you do give a warning, then any/all people killed as a result of this bomb that YOU planted are not your responsibility, and that fault lies with the authorities who failed to act on the warning?

mynamejeff

poor auld CA, just full to the brim of shinnerbots peddling the same old lies ,
its ok to bomb indiscriminately if a war
its ok to kidnap and execute innocent people accused if informing ,
its ok to beat people to death in sheds because they stood up for them selfs ,
its ok to glorify some scumbag who blew himself up by accident,
peados and rapists are grand long as they are part of the republican family
criminality is ok as long as the party gets its cut

sf ira are closer to a organised crime gang than a political party and will remain so under current leadership and attitudes

Natterjack from Kerry

James Brown wrote: »

Nobody, including SF defend killing civilians.

In a campaign of terrorism, such as that engaged in by SF, the distinction between combatants and civilians does not apply. There was no war. Every killing was simply an act by vicious thugs of unlawful murder. Those who engaged in such murder were the scum of mankind, and to be vilified for eternity.
On the topic of murders by grouping during the troubles, it can be useful to disregard the paramilitaries of both sides that died - it was a good thing, and the world is a better place with out each and all of them. In a sense, it was an improvement to the standard of humanity on the planet, as a by-product of the troubles.

maccored

Deleted User wrote: »

1) You're not either of the two people to whom those questions were directed and
2) you have failed to answer them anyway

So, I'll repeat those questions to your good self, only this time I'd appreciate if you could answer them directly, please. If you're going to hold extremist views, at least have the backbone to stand up and let others know that you hold them:

a) Are you saying that it is NOT okay to plant a bomb in a public place?
b) Are you also saying that it IS okay to plant a bomb in a public place IF you give a warning beforehand?
c) Finally, are you claiming that, if you do give a warning, then any/all people killed as a result of this bomb that YOU planted are not your responsibility, and that fault lies with the authorities who failed to act on the warning?

then in that case, maybe you can answer my question:

is blanket bombing etc acceptable to you?

Its the same moral issue as that you are asking about.

maccored

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

In a campaign of terrorism, such as that engaged in by SF, the distinction between combatants and civilians does not apply. There was no war. Every killing was simply an act by vicious thugs of unlawful murder. Those who engaged in such murder were the scum of mankind, and to be vilified for eternity.
On the topic of murders by grouping during the troubles, it can be useful to disregard the paramilitaries of both sides that died - it was a good thing, and the world is a better place with out each and all of them. In a sense, it was an improvement to the standard of humanity on the planet, as a by-product of the troubles.

didnt your own British Army admit it was a war?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/british-army-paper-illustrates-respect-for-ira-1.948685

It also illustrates that it saw that its "war" was against the IRA ....

but sure you keep digging there.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

1) You're not either of the two people to whom those questions were directed and
2) you have failed to answer them anyway

So, I'll repeat those questions to your good self, only this time I'd appreciate if you could answer them directly, please. If you're going to hold extremist views, at least have the backbone to stand up and let others know that you hold them:

a) Are you saying that it is NOT okay to plant a bomb in a public place?
b) Are you also saying that it IS okay to plant a bomb in a public place IF you give a warning beforehand?
c) Finally, are you claiming that, if you do give a warning, then any/all people killed as a result of this bomb that YOU planted are not your responsibility, and that fault lies with the authorities who failed to act on the warning?

You will never get an answer to your questions as they are not capable of such straight-talking.

They want to be in a position that they haven't denied the IRA yet also look like they condemn all violence. It is speaking out of both sides of the mouth par excellence.

maccored

Deleted User wrote: »

1) You're not either of the two people to whom those questions were directed and
2) you have failed to answer them anyway

So, I'll repeat those questions to your good self, only this time I'd appreciate if you could answer them directly, please. If you're going to hold extremist views, at least have the backbone to stand up and let others know that you hold them:

a) Are you saying that it is NOT okay to plant a bomb in a public place?
b) Are you also saying that it IS okay to plant a bomb in a public place IF you give a warning beforehand?
c) Finally, are you claiming that, if you do give a warning, then any/all people killed as a result of this bomb that YOU planted are not your responsibility, and that fault lies with the authorities who failed to act on the warning?

to answer your questions:

No - I dont find any of them acceptable. I dont find it acceptable that the IRA were forced to fight by a corrupt government which supported the quashing of those who werent of their preferred religions, and who werent deemed 'loyal'.

It ended up in a conflict - so before you continuing pontificating - feel free to show me where any war hasnt resulted in the same kind of atrocities. Otherwise cop on and grow up.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

You will never get an answer to your questions as they are not capable of such straight-talking.

They want to be in a position that they haven't denied the IRA yet also look like they condemn all violence. It is speaking out of both sides of the mouth par excellence.

wrong yet again - I just gave my answer.

Do you support armies like the british army around the world killing people? If you do you are a hypocrite. i dont expect a direct answer from you on that - as we all already know.

grayzer75

blanch152 wrote: »

You will never get an answer to your questions as they are not capable of such straight-talking.

They want to be in a position that they haven't denied the IRA yet also look like they condemn all violence. It is speaking out of both sides of the mouth par excellence.

As opposed to speaking out of both ends like most of the fantasy stuff posted here

maccored

maccored wrote: »

then in that case, maybe you can answer my question:

is blanket bombing etc acceptable to you?

Its the same moral issue as that you are asking about.

No, no. You first. If you think you've some right to demand answers from other people, then you're sorely mistaken. I've already pointed out that most people who hold views like this are afraid to actually say it out loud for others to see. They hide behind this wall of plausible deniability without ever actually coming out and saying what they really feel, because they're normally aware of just how atrocious and hypocritical those view are.

You have backed that up by wading into the debate, pointedly refusing to outline your own views and IMMEDIATELY looking to segue into formal acts of war to try to justify the actions of this bellend who tried to kill a bunch of people going about their daily business and instead was thankfully too thick to do anything beyond blowing himself up.

So, either answer the questions and we can go from there.....or STFU asking questions of others.


Edit: apologies, I hit 'reply' before refreshing the page and I saw your other post

maccored

Deleted User wrote: »

No, no. You first. If you think you've some right to demand answers from other people, then you're sorely mistaken. I've already pointed out that most people who hold views like this are afraid to actually say it out loud for others to see. They hide behind this wall of plausible deniability without ever actually coming out and saying what they really feel, because they're normally aware of just how atrocious and hypocritical those view are.

You have backed that up by wading into the debate, pointedly refusing to outline your own views and IMMEDIATELY looking to segue into formal acts of war to try to justify the actions of this bellend who tried to kill a bunch of people going about their daily business and instead was thankfully too thick to do anything beyond blowing himself up.

So, either answer the questions and we can go from there.....or STFU asking questions of others.


Edit: apologies, I hit 'reply' before refreshing the page and I saw your other post

right - your turn

I see blanch 152 is thanking posts without reading them again

Scratchly

maccored wrote: »

wrong yet again - I just gave my answer.
.

And proved the point. You said its not acceptable then immediately had a whinge about other people criticising it and told them to cop on and grow up.

maccored

Scratchly wrote: »

And proved the point. You said its not acceptable then immediately had a whinge about other people criticising it and told them to cop on and grow up.

reality is wars happen and people get killed. that obviously shot right over your head

The british army and every conflict in the world has resulted in deaths - why should it have been any different in the north? thats why you need to cop on and grow up.

unless of course you try to justify it by saying its ok to kill when the government tells you

mynamejeff

maccored wrote: »

reality is wars happen and people get killed. that obviously shot right over your head

The british army and every conflict in the world has resulted in deaths - why should it have been any different in the north? thats why you need to cop on and grow up.

unless of course you try to justify it by saying its ok to kill when the government tells you

and at the end of "wars" those who commit war crimes should be punished , the murder if innocents and targeting of civilians is a war crime no ??