H Blocks and IRA The Army Council

mike65

Heres something to distract from the present. One of the leading IRA men in the H-Blocks Richard O'rawe who acted as spokesman has writen his account of the 1981 strike and how the IRA army council blocked attempts to bring it to an early conclusion after the British Government had put forward a deal which those leading the stike thought acceptable.

Heres a few extracts.

The only core demand on which there had been little movement was free association. In the end I concluded that, while this was more than a peripheral demand, it was not as important as the clothes and the prison-work issues.

Did these concessions go far enough? Was the glass half-empty or half-full? I thought it was three-quarters full. In fact, the British had gone further than I had considered possible. I felt it was almost too good to be true. I asked myself how the British government would sell this in Westminster. But that was hardly our problem: the proposals were there in black and white, direct from Thatcher’s desk.

After about three hours’ arguing with myself over the pros and cons of the Mountain Climber’s offer, I reached the conclusion that, in all conscience, these proposals formed the basis of a honourable settlement.

Bik agreed, and I was euphoric. It seemed to me that the huge sacrifice of Bobby Sands, Frank Hughes, Raymond McCreesh and Patsy O’Hara had broken the British government — something I hadn’t thought possible. No more hunger strikers would have to die for their beliefs. All that was left was for the IRA army council to rubber-stamp our acceptance of the deal — a matter that Bik and I both considered would be a formality, given that we appeared to have won four of our five demands.

But if we thought the response from the army council would be a formality and that, like us, its members would accept the British offer, we were to be sadly mistaken. On the afternoon of July 6, a message came in from the army council saying it did not think that the Mountain Climber’s proposals provided the basis for a resolution and that more was needed.

The message said that the right to free association was vital to an overall settlement and that its exclusion from the proposals, along with ambiguity on the issue of what constituted prison work, made the deal unacceptable.

Bik and I were shattered. The possibility that the council might reject the proposals had never entered into our calculations. We were convinced that we had achieved a great victory and that the republican movement could present the deal as a momentous triumph; now it appeared that our analysis and optimism had been flawed and premature.

At the time, I believed that the leadership felt we had jumped at the first available set of proposals and clumsily accepted them, when a second and better offer might come from the Mountain Climber. Bik and I attributed almost god-like status to the IRA leadership. We believed that their analysis of our opinion was justified because we thought that, tactically, they were far superior to us.

I nonetheless harboured doubts about the wisdom of their tactics. What if the second offer didn’t come? We would be into a protracted hunger strike, and there was no telling how many would eventually die. I asked myself if it was wise for our leadership to endanger the life of McDonnell — and those queuing up behind him — over whether we were banged up for a couple of hours during the day.

Years later Peter Taylor, in his book Provos, asked: “Why was the hunger strike not settled once six men had died and the substance of the five demands seemed to be on offer?” Taylor, like others, misses the point. His question should have been: why was the hunger strike not settled once four men had died and the substance of the five demands seemed to be on offer? The offer didn’t change; it might have been more placatory in tone, but the fundamentals remained the same.

In fact, the army council did not advocate the ending of the hunger strike until weeks after the 10th man had died, when it was apparent that families would intervene en masse to bring their loved ones off the fast.

I make no apology for saying now that the army council acted in an inexcusable manner. A generous interpretation is that they, or those charged by them with overseeing the hunger strike, disastrously miscalculated on all fronts. A more sceptical view would be that perhaps they didn’t miscalculate at all. Perhaps getting a republican elected in the by-election in Sands’s constituency of Fermanagh/South Tyrone, thus kickstarting the shift away from armed struggle and into constitutional politics, was the real reason they baulked at accepting what appeared to be a very sellable deal.

If that were so, Joe and the five other hunger strikers who died after him were used as cannon fodder. No matter which way one views it, the outside leadership alone, not the prison leadership, took the decision to play brinkmanship with McDonnell’s life. If Bik and I had had our way, Joe and the five comrades who followed him to the grave would be alive today.

and

Adams outlined the army council’s view that we were facing two options: to end the hunger strike without accepting the Mountain Climber’s proposals or to stay on hunger strike, basically hope for the best and pray that at some time in the future the British government would concede to our five demands. He then repeated the army council’s opinion that the Mountain Climber’s proposals did not provide the basis for an honourable settlement.

By presenting us with only two choices, the army council was stating clearly that only implementation of the full five demands was now sufficient to bring an end to the hunger strike. At no time did Adams advise that we stay on hunger strike, but neither did he advocate ending it. Instead, he left the decision to the prison leadership and to those on hunger strike. Adams said that the republican movement would respect any decision we made.

This was now patently a lose-lose situation for us. Adams’s first option — ending the hunger strike without accepting the deal — meant that we would be back to square one, but six of our comrades would have died for nothing. The second option was to continue with the hunger strike and hope for the best — which meant the remaining eight hunger strikers in the camp hospital, and possibly more, were likely to follow them.

What Adams was saying was that only the full five demands would be enough for the army council to countenance advising, or ordering, an end to the hunger strike. There was effectively only one course of action open to us: continue with the strike and hope against hope circumstances might change and the British government would go further. To end the hunger strike now with nothing, and for those six comrades to have died in vain, was inconceivable.

Some have said that Adams and the republican leadership adopted a cynical approach to the crisis, taking the view that the strike should continue at least until Carron was elected to Bobby Sands’s vacant Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat.

At first, my natural republican instincts told me not to open up this potential can of worms, because, were it true, it would lay bare the most appalling vista: that the republican leadership sacrificed hunger strikers’ lives. I take no pleasure in criticising the 1981 IRA army council; in fact it strikes against every tenet of republicanism I have cherished throughout my life. Yet there can be no doubt that the army council called the shots.

A precis is here

the full article is here

My own view? An obvious one, that Adams was ever the cynical politican
before he got elected to office.

Mike.

mycroft

mike65 wrote:

My own view? An obvious one, that Adams was ever the cynical politican
before he got elected to office.

Mike.

I'd tend to agree, the IRA and SF would see the value of the "blood sacrifice" of ten men to be greater than the lives of the six who could have been saved. The were aware of the fine tradition of Pearse who would mislead people and take them to certain death because of the importance of their "blood sacrifice" I can't help wonder how many of the would have walked into the GPO if they knew their leaders knew things would fall apart.

The leaders of the republician movement have always considered the members of their community expendable. Whether it be IRA men rotting in prison or a teenager commiting suicide after a punishment beating, they've on this board or in public announced the death as tragic or unfortunate but then, like pilate, washed their hands and placed the blame at the security services or the british establishment.

AmenToThat

mike65 wrote:

My own view? An obvious one, that Adams was ever the cynical politican
before he got elected to office.

Mike.

My own view?
Growing up under occupation tends to make most people cynical no matter their race, colour or gender.

true

AmenToThat wrote:

My own view?
Growing up under occupation tends to make most people cynical no matter their race, colour or gender.

By occupation you mean under the boot of the RAfia ? The IRA are the people who are the most oppressive influence in Ireland. Who else could abduct , torture and murder a mother of 10 and then have all this declared by their political wing as " not a crime" ? Who else has tarred and feathered, kneecapped and murdered and intimidated and done hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage ( through bombings like the Docklands bombing etc etc ), not to mention being involved in many robberies ( large scale ) , kiddnappings , extortion etc north and south of the border.

FTA69

O Rawe's comments aren't as balck and white as they might seem, he takes a " me and Bik McFarlane" approach to the issue but he fails to mention that Bik McFarlane remains a senior member of the Republican Movement today. If Bik was in the exact same boots as O'Rawe, (and O'Rawe has not condemned Bik at all) why does he hold a contrasting opinion? The fact his opinion was released into the Sunday Times of all papers also begs a few questions.

When Danny Morrison was discussing the aforementioned deal on the phone a prison governor ripped the phone off the wall and evicted Morrison from the prison, hardly the behaviour that one would expect in the midst of a genuine deal is it?

A Dub in Glasgo

This certainly is a strange one. Having read Ten Men Dead and other Hunger Strike books quite a few years ago, this new book from Richard O'Rawe goes against everything that has been written upt to now.

I believe Bik MacFarlane has commented on this new claim

Republicans reject Hunger Strike claims

Widely respected republican Brendan McFarlane, Officer Commanding of the H-Block republican prisoners during the Hunger Strike of 1981, has confirmed that any suggestion that a possible deal to end the Hunger Strike was thwarted by outside intervention before the death of Joe McDonnell is false.

Former republican prisoners' PRO in Long Kesh at the time, Richard O Rawe, today claimed (in a Sunday Times article) that he and IRA prisoners' OC, Brendan 'Bik' McFarlane, had accepted 'concessions' allegedly offered by British Foreign Office figures just before the death on Hunger Strike of IRA Volunteer Joe McDonnell.

Mr O Rawe has written a book, which is, co-incidentally, due for publication tomorrow.

Mr McFarlane, responding to Mr O Rawe's claims, said today: "All of us, particularly the families of the men who died, carry the tragedy and trauma of the Hunger Strikes with us every day of our lives. It was an emotional and deeply distressing time for those of us who were in the H-Blocks and close to the Hunger Strikers.

"However, as the Officer Commanding in the prison at the time, I can say categorically that there was no outside intervention to prevent a deal. The only outside intervention was to try to prevent the Hunger Strike. Once the strike was underway, the only people in a position to agree a deal or call off the Hunger Strike were the prisoners, and particularly the Hunger Strikers themselves.

"The political responsibility for the Hunger Strike and the deaths that resulted from it, both inside and outside the prison, lies with Margaret Thatcher, who reneged on the deal which ended the first Hunger Strike. This bad faith and duplicity lead directly to the deaths of our friends and comrades in 1981".

Sinn Féin MLA for Foyle, Raymond McCartney, who participated in the first Hunger Strike, which lasted for 53 days, said of the claims: "Richard's recollection of events is not accurate or credible. The Hunger Strike was a response to Thatcher's criminalisation campaign, now being revived by Michael McDowell.

"The move to Hunger Strike resulted from the prisoners' decision to escalate the protest after 5 years of beating, starvation and deprivation.

"The leadership of the IRA and of Sinn Féin tried to persuade us not to embark on this course of action. At all times we, the prisoners, took the decisions."

http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/latestnews.htm

FTA69

What is his game exactly? No doubt Anthony McIntyre and his band of merry men will pounce on this anyway. :rolleyes:

mike65

Get two or more republicans discussing thier history and a fight is enevitable.

It seems

Mike.

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

O Rawe's comments aren't as balck and white as they might seem, he takes a " me and Bik McFarlane" approach to the issue but he fails to mention that Bik McFarlane remains a senior member of the Republican Movement today.

What relevance does Bik McFarlane's current status have to the article?

If Bik was in the exact same boots as O'Rawe, (and O'Rawe has not condemned Bik at all)

Why should he condemn him?

why does he hold a contrasting opinion?

The article contains O'Rawe's recollection of the events, I take it McFarlane does'nt concur?.

The fact his opinion was released into the Sunday Times of all papers also begs a few questions.

What kind of questions?

When Danny Morrison was discussing the aforementioned deal on the phone a prison governor ripped the phone off the wall and evicted Morrison from the prison, hardly the behaviour that one would expect in the midst of a genuine deal is it?

How does this revelation impact on the veracity of the article?.

jbkenn

FTA69

What relevance does Bik McFarlane's current status have to the article?

Eh, considering O'Rawe is basically accusing the Army Council of letting the Hunger Strikers die needlessly but negelects to mention that the OC who he claims supported his position on this alledged deal is refuting his allegations today.

Why should he condemn him?

Because Bik is taking the side of those who he is lambasting in his book.

The article contains O'Rawe's recollection of the events, I take it McFarlane does'nt concur?.

Did you read Dubs post at all or were you just determined to fly in without reading anything that has been said?

What kind of questions?

Why would a Republican choose to bad mouth other Republicans through the medium of an anti-Republican rag?

How does this revelation impact on the veracity of the article?.

That if the brits were serious about said deal they wouldn't be preventing senior Republicans from discussing it. Are they acceptable answers to your questions?

Lemming

It's amazing how the flotsam of society will defend with all the tenacity and skill of the tireless rebutter so eagerly.

I have an opinion on this matter: [journal link deleted-Earthman]

And yes, the above quoted articles do not surprise me. The IRA leadership is callous and cynical even with its own followers lives and well-being? Nothign new there. I would question what they believe in and whether or not they really believe what it is they are saying they believe in.

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

Eh, considering O'Rawe is basically accusing the Army Council of letting the Hunger Strikers die needlessly but negelects to mention that the OC who he claims supported his position on this alledged deal is refuting his allegations today.

I read the article in full, looks to me that if O'Rawe's recollection is right, then the Army Council have some serious questions to answer.

Because Bik is taking the side of those who he is lambasting in his book.

I still ask the question, why should he condemn him, obviously they disagree on their recall of events.

Did you read Dubs post at all or were you just determined to fly in without reading anything that has been said?

I was composing my post when he posted

Why would a Republican choose to bad mouth other Republicans through the medium of an anti-Republican rag?

I dont know, you are the Republican, you tell me.

That if the brits were serious about said deal they wouldn't be preventing senior Republicans from discussing it. Are they acceptable answers to your questions?

O'Rawe's article makes no mention of this incident, I have no idea why a prison offical would behave in such an irresponsible fashion.

jbkenn

shltter

it seems to me that if O'rawes account was the same as biks or that given in ten men dead it would not be much of a read
and the suday times would not be that interested in it either

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote:

I have an opinion on this matter: here

Oh dear, someone who is now compiling a list of names.... what are you going to do with that list??

Why don't you challenge some of the 'scum' on that list with regard to the things they say rather than your immature name calling and childish rant :rolleyes:

****ing pissed off


35 odd long years of nothing but murder and mayhem.

What have the IRA & SF brought this island besides the above? Really? What good have they done. I sit here and I look at all the apologists for these ****ing murders and I feel sick reading each single mother****ing scumsucking line of their pathetic ****ing apologist arguments.

F*CK YOU!

You're as bad as the scum who murder, bomb, knee cap, beat to within an inch of life, terrorise, drug deal, and generally carry out all manner of criminal activities. You defend them with this sickening display of how much the sun shines out of their arseholes and how you love to lick at it on an hourly basis.

You are everything that is wrong with this country and should be ashamed to call yourselves human.

So here's the current list (in evolution - there are a few posters I'm not so sure about yet) of those who have spouted terrorist-apologising rhetoric:

irish1
A Dub in Glasgo
FTA69
cdebru
[ Daithí ]
BCB
AmenToThat
SpabSFW
Squaletto
Mad Cyril
Poblachtach

hallelujajordan

i don't know if anyone listened to Richard O' Rawe on 'The Right Hook' last night, but I did and he talked a pretty convinving argument . . .

I think what the so-called republicans who write on this board fail to see . . . and what Adams and co. are hopefully starting to realise is that fair-minded people on both sides of the border are starting to make up their own minds based on the facts they here and the knowledge they have of how an organisation like the IRA works . .

We don't believe the IRA didn't rob the Northern Bank because we know that no other grouping or organisation would be able to carry out this type of crime in the IRA's back yard . .

We don't believe that the IRA didn't do everything it could to cover up and protect the individuals responsible for the killing of Robert Mcartney (and probably continue to do so . . ) and only buckled several weeks after the crime under the weight of public opinion . .

And on this issue, we don't believe that the IRA army council would not have been instrumental in driving the move towards or away from a deal with the British government . . The IRA would not have allowed the prisoners to accept or refuse deals off their own back because the IRA were trying to control and extract maximum political benefit from the hunger strikes . . I believe Richard O Rawe's recollection of events because it makes sense and the alternatives do not. .

A Dub in Glasgo

hallelujajordan wrote:

And on this issue, we don't believe that the IRA army council would not have been instrumental in driving the move towards or away from a deal with the British government . . The IRA would not have allowed the prisoners to accept or refuse deals off their own back because the IRA were trying to control and extract maximum political benefit from the hunger strikes . . I believe Richard O Rawe's recollection of events because it makes sense and the alternatives do not. .

Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. Until it is corroborated, I do not believe him. You believe the uncorroborated word of an ex-'terrorist' because that is what you want to believe not because you find O'Rawe trustworthy and convincing. You would have dismissed his views if it was on anything else other than to confirm your own opinion.

Blub2k4

Lemming wrote:

I have an opinion on this matter: here

Overawed by your own importance a little bit there Lemming?

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Oh dear, someone who is now compiling a list of names.... what are you going to do with that list??

Why don't you challenge some of the 'scum' on that list with regard to the things they say rather than your immature name calling and childish rant :rolleyes:

Oh ... I will be challenging you and your ilk Dub. I just wanted to show the rest of the world what you are and call you for what you are. And there's nothing you can do about it .....

You lot just can't answer questions without trying to say "look over there!!!" before trying to move in a different direction. You and your "politics" are utterly laughable. You called my rant childish? Take a look at the entire stance that you are advocating. Tell me - if it is so right, then why is everyone else - right/left wing & moderates alike - against it vehemently? Why are all the chuckies so vitriolic and utterly cold-hearted in their defense of these "policies"? What are you afraid of that you have to constantly "apologise" for terrorist acts by trying to rationalise them.

You (the republicans) are all full of sh*t. I'm not repulican. I'm not FF/FG/PD/Labour/etc either. I'm anti-bullsh*t and my god do you f*cking reek of it more than anyone else.

Blub2k4

Lemming wrote:

Oh ... I will be challenging you and your ilk Dub. I just wanted to show the rest of the world what you are and call you for what you are. And there's nothing you can do about it .....

You lot just can't answer questions without trying to say "look over there!!!" before trying to move in a different direction. You and your "politics" are utterly laughable. You called my rant childish? Take a look at the entire stance that you are advocating. Tell me - if it is so right, then why is everyone else - right/left wing & moderates alike - against it vehemently? Why are all the chuckies so vitriolic and utterly cold-hearted in their defense of these "policies"? What are you afraid of that you have to constantly "apologise" for terrorist acts by trying to rationalise them.

You (the republicans) are all full of sh*t. I'm not repulican. I'm not FF/FG/PD/Labour/etc either. I'm anti-bullsh*t and my god do you f*cking reek of it more than anyone else.

Good man hunt them all down and expose them, it's good that keyboard warriors like yourself make a difference, hunt them all down and send the branch around. :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote:

Oh ... I will be challenging you and your ilk Dub. I just wanted to show the rest of the world what you are and call you for what you are. And there's nothing you can do about it .....

..... overblown sense of worth springs to mind

You lot just can't answer questions without trying to say "look over there!!!" before trying to move in a different direction. You and your "politics" are utterly laughable. You called my rant childish?

It is and you are saying nothing to make me disbelieve that view

Take a look at the entire stance that you are advocating.

Yes, my entire stance is not to believe O'Rawe without corroboration. What is so wrong with that?

You (the republicans) are all full of sh*t. I'm not repulican. I'm not FF/FG/PD/Labour/etc either. I'm anti-bullsh*t and my god do you f*cking reek of it more than anyone else.

Take a deep breath and lie down for a few moments.... I can see the veins popping out of your temple over here in Glasgow.

Villain

Lemming wrote:

It's amazing how the flotsam of society will defend with all the tenacity and skill of the tireless rebutter so eagerly.

I have an opinion on this matter: here

And yes, the above quoted articles do not surprise me. The IRA leadership is callous and cynical even with its own followers lives and well-being? Nothign new there. I would question what they believe in and whether or not they really believe what it is they are saying they believe in.

Where have I

spouted terrorist-apologising rhetoric

????

I'll send you a PM when I get a chance. But I think you need to go and have a read of my posts in this forum.

Stabshauptmann

In fairness good points have been given as to why this article shouldnt be taken as gospel: The point about the then OC, the phone and whether "an ex-terrorist" qualifies as a good source.
Then there is totall BS about the fact that it was in the Times..

Rationalising and appologising arent the same, in fact the former often falls short of the latter.

TBH shouting **** off / shut up is pointless and childish, you allow yourself to, as you sig so elequently puts it, be draged down to their level and then beat with experience.
I dont like your definition of republican either, it shows a little ignorance. Most people in Ireland are reublican, Bertie is the embodyment of republicanism.

My opinion on the matter, many of the ex-prisoners and their families feel the IRA and Irish government betrayed them.

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

Where have I ????

I'll send you a PM when I get a chance. But I think you need to go and have a read of my posts in this forum.

I agree with most of lemmings list, you show a fascinating level of indoctrination some times

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

It's amazing how the flotsam of society will defend with all the tenacity and skill of the tireless rebutter so eagerly.

I have an opinion on this matter: here

And yes, the above quoted articles do not surprise me. The IRA leadership is callous and cynical even with its own followers lives and well-being? Nothign new there. I would question what they believe in and whether or not they really believe what it is they are saying they believe in.

is the list in order of importance or just random how do i move up the list

will you be updating the list weekly monthly or even daily

can you pm if i slip down the list or god forbid drop off the list

will you be contacting the authorities to hand over this information you have gathered

could this list be construed as being useful to terrorists are you indeed collecting information on behalf of a terrorist group

should i contact a solicitor or would that be over reacting at this stage

Villain

Necromancer wrote:

I agree with most of lemmings list, you show a fascinating level of indoctrination some times

Do you agree that I should be on it?

Lemming

irish1 wrote:

Do you agree that I should be on it?

Yes. You vote for - ergo give tacit support - to a party who are heavily associated with paramilitary violence and all other manner of criminal behaviour and whom show no transparency or accountability in their dealings of such. Even their engagement in poltics is utterly cynical and obviously so. They further "the struggle" in one hand with words whilst waving a gun in the other.

Whilst SF may help get that burnt-out car removed from housing estate 'a', the party is engaged in (at the very least by association although this is suspect) very ugly behaviour at a higher level and there's no getting around that. They condone and support terrorists, murders, criminals & drug-dealers. That's the bottom line. Your vote gives them one more vote to wield power at a higher level.

It's like having your business approached by another business with a proposition and then discovering that it is heavily associated with the mafia. Would you be so keen? In all sane likelihood you'd run a mile. Whilst you might make some money short-term, long-term you have destroyed that which you have worked hard to build.

FTA69

I read the article in full, looks to me that if O'Rawe's recollection is right, then the Army Council have some serious questions to answer.

Exactly, the key word is "if", his own OC (whom he trusts) at the time Bik McFarlane as well as Danny Morrison have stated he is gravely mistaken. Even Ruari Ó Brádaigh who now detests the Provos has stated that it was a decision for the prisoners alone.

I still ask the question, why should he condemn him, obviously they disagree on their recall of events.

That's my point, he gives the impression that him and Bik were both in agreement and they were both overruled by the Army Council but McFarlane has disagreed with his version of events. I would imagine he would condemn Bik for taking the side of those whom he is lambasting but yet he strangely doesn't, it's an inconsistancy in his position.

I was composing my post when he posted

Ok, apologies.

I dont know, you are the Republican, you tell me.

I don't know either, hence me saying it begs a question. Republicans don't normally make allegations of this nature against each other through the conduit of an anti-Republican newspaper.

O'Rawe's article makes no mention of this incident, I have no idea why a prison offical would behave in such an irresponsible fashion.

Exactly, which is why his article is such a one-sided view. Danny Morrison said it happened. Also, prison officials and officers were and are not the nicest of people to say the least.

mike65

One I think important thing to consider is that O'Rawe sems to have distanced himself from the whole provo movement, listening to him he sounds like a socialist rather than a Shinner and is rather appalled at the nouveaux riche mentality of the curent leadership. Others, some of whom have who have contradicted O'Rawe are stil close to the SF inner circle and proberly dont want the boat rocked esp at the moment.

Mike.

[ Daithí ]

Lemming wrote:

Oh ... I will be challenging you and your ilk Dub. I just wanted to show the rest of the world what you are and call you for what you are. And there's nothing you can do about it .....

You lot just can't answer questions without trying to say "look over there!!!" before trying to move in a different direction. You and your "politics" are utterly laughable. You called my rant childish? Take a look at the entire stance that you are advocating. Tell me - if it is so right, then why is everyone else - right/left wing & moderates alike - against it vehemently? Why are all the chuckies so vitriolic and utterly cold-hearted in their defense of these "policies"? What are you afraid of that you have to constantly "apologise" for terrorist acts by trying to rationalise them.

You (the republicans) are all full of sh*t. I'm not repulican. I'm not FF/FG/PD/Labour/etc either. I'm anti-bullsh*t and my god do you f*cking reek of it more than anyone else.

If I've ever some across a good time to use the acronym "ROFLMAO", this is it.

¬_¬

oscarBravo

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

If I've ever some across a good time to use the acronym "ROFLMAO", this is it.

What an insightful contribution.

You still haven't told me what the British are doing in Clonsilla.

[ Daithí ]

So, what's that supposed to mean then?

Implying that I support the IRA?

I've said on this forum that I do not support the IRA or Sinn Féin.

You're generalising. You presume that all Republicans support Sinn Féin. Newsflash: they don't.

oscarBravo wrote:

you're pretty handy at turning the generalisations on and off when the mood takes you.

Hypocrite.

Zing!