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

I’m pretty sure this is a covid thread

Eh no, Haughey was acquitted of the charge or arms smuggling. It was an inept attempt to do so which failed completely. But hey, if you want to accept that being charged with something equals being guilty, there are a whole lot of SF ones I can put up on this thread, which will be on topic, unlike yours.

The Gadaffi connection to Sinn Fein and the PIRA continued up until the very recent past.

"Attacks carried out with Libyan Semtex included the Enniskillen bomb in 1987, the Ballygawley bus bombing in 1988 and about 250 other booby-trap bombings."

The London docklands bombing in 1996 are only 25 years ago, hardly the distant time of history that you claim.

If you don't like me pointing to the dirty association of Sinn Fein with Libya, report me. How all of this relates to Sinn Fein in 2022 is, to take the words of Gerry's Christmas video - they haven't gone away.

Gaddafi was a great man and a friend of Ireland taken down by the British and Americans in collaboration with Western media who claimed he was using mass rape as a weapon of war which amnesty International later denied ever took place.

What's funny? You don't like Gaddafi I'm guessing, I was just quoting amnesty International.

Many people would indeed prefer that a nation's leadership stand up for what's right under all circumstances, regardless of the consequences. "We tolerate human rights abuses by others because life gets harder for us if we don't" is one of the most pathetic arguments used by pro-establishment types. Rather akin in the SF context to "I remained in my job as an RUC officer after it morphed into an enforcement agency for state terrorism because I needed the cash". F*ck that. You align yourself with the paramilitary arm of an illegitimate government, you're just as culpable as those who actually swung the batons or fired the bullets.

You're making the assumption that everyone is a selfish pragmatist who would rather live an easy life than a virtuous one. That doesn't apply to everyone.

For the record, my view on Gaddaffi is f*ck him. Just as with the RUC, the minute you use violence against peaceful protesters or demonstrators, you deserve a bullet yourself. Gaddafi's forces shot people who were marching during the Arab Spring of 2011, that policy constitutes a self-signed death warrant in my view. And the IRA were wrong to ally themselves with a despot like that - his entire rule in office was marked by a ban on political opposition, state-sponsored censorship, etc.

I'll also point out once again that I support what the IRA originally stood for but not what it became. The intentional targeting of civilians, especially when IRA units went to England to carry out bombings, is an appalling stain on our country's history and there is no excuse for it. But contrary to the disdain with which others view the so-called "hierarchy of atrocities", there absolutely is one. This conflict existed only because one side felt that they were morally justified in oppressing the other side for many decades, and in using violence to prevent the oppressed from peacefully protesting their oppression. They will always be the bigger villains in this story for that reason, because regardless of what came afterwards and who committed worse crimes, the basis for the whole conflict is 100% their fault, for choosing to behave in an oppressive, elitist manner.

If I throw the first punch in an unprovoked fight, the rest of the fight is on me. I have always believed that and I always will. I imagine that's a moral principle many others hold as well. If the other person does me a more serious injury in retaliation than I did with my unprovoked assault, it's still on me, because the other person had a reason to punch me, I had no reason to punch them. I'm the bigger asshole in that story, regardless of what happens subsequently. 

Prior to the outbreak of the Troubles, the Unionist side were using violence to oppress the Nationalist side. The Troubles are their fault, not the Nationalists'. If they had chosen to allow the civil rights marches to go ahead - or better yet, never engaged in tribalistic discrimination as a form of government, there would never have been a Troubles at all. That simple fact means that, in my and many others' view, the Unionist side are automatically the bigger villains. Automatically. Because no conflict would have existed if they hadn't been behaving like fascists.

I have produced a newspaper article that states it. If you think the newspaper article is untrue, do your own research.

So not only did SF/PIRA train the people who carried out the Omagh bombing, they also lobbied the government to downplay the risk of dissidents.

100% complicit in my eyes.

A great man indeed....

The PIRA killed more Catholics and civilians than all of the British Security forces, in fact way more.

Planting a bomb in a civilian area is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. SF/PIRA are guilty of many war crimes.

@markodaly and @blanch152 , the three of us entirely agree that the IRA targeting of civilians was an evil abomination which should be utterly condemned. So that's a good starting point of agreement. I'm curious, though - coming at the conflict from the other end, at what point do either of you believe that a state and its security forces can be declared illegitimate and rogue through its own actions in engaging in oppressive and fascist policy, and enforcement thereof?

To ask a more specific question: When the NICRA march was blocked in Duke Street and the RUC began to beat the absolute sh!t out of peaceful protesters, in your opinion was a violent response towards those specific officers justified on that occasion? If someone present had managed to strike back and batter one of the baton wielding cops in the head leaving him a bloody mess, just as he had done to a protester moments before, would that be justified or would you be condemning it as "terrorism"?

What about Bloody Sunday? The individual soldiers who fired the bullets, had someone managed to put a bullet into one of their heads as a response on the day, in your view would that have been justified or would you decry it as terrorism?

I'm honestly just trying to ascertain a rough idea of how much state-mandated violent and brutal oppression of legitimate, peaceful protest you believe a group of people should be expected to tolerate, before it becomes morally ok for them to respond with violence of their own. Clearly you disagree with the vast majority of SF supporters on this issue, that's obviously understood and accepted, but where exactly is your line?

If the British Army were actively machine gunning row after row of protesters, would you still say that anyone who shot one of the soldiers responsible was an unjustified terrorist? Where is the line?

My view is extremely simple as I've outlined in previous pages - the minute a police baton touches the skin of an innocent, peaceful protester, that officer deserves to get the absolute sh!t kicked out of him by the crowd, at the very least. Where is your specific line in these matters?

This is entirely untrue.