HOW WOULD YOU VOTE IN A BORDER POLL?

[ThroughTheLaces]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

[trailer]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

[Angelo]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

What did you think of Mandela, Trailer?

[Applesisapples]

Usual one-sided assessments of a complicated situation. blood on many hands stretching back beyond 1921.

[ThroughTheLaces]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

[trailer]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

Dunno if this is a logical argument given The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation. I don't think anyone can say that the IRA had some good people who were involved. I can't really understand how anyone can stand over what the IRA and it's members did. I often think of the young children murdered, what must their final moments on this earth have been like? The fear in their hearts, the loneliness as their lives slipped away, young innocent children, while a few IRA men hid in a safe house, back slapping one another on a job well done.

But look you have your view and I have mine.

[Angelo]

So Trailer thinks Mandela was a monster.

[ThroughTheLaces]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

Dunno if this is a logical argument given The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation. I don't think anyone can say that the IRA had some good people who were involved. I can't really understand how anyone can stand over what the IRA and it's members did. I often think of the young children murdered, what must their final moments on this earth have been like? The fear in their hearts, the loneliness as their lives slipped away, young innocent children, while a few IRA men hid in a safe house, back slapping one another on a job well done.

But look you have your view and I have mine.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison as you're simply defending the statement that he was a mass murderer simply because he was an IRA member yet has no convictions for murder, let alone mass murder. But apparently having a significant prison sentence means you must be a mass murderer. I did not know that until now. Every day's a school day.

You've gone off down a road that no one asked you to. I've agreed with you on the incidents you have named, and nobody in their right mind would disagree. Your emotional description of innocent people losing their lives adds nothing to the debate and doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

I can't imagine there was anybody slapping each other on the back for a 'job well done' that involved innocent children, or others.

All of your theatrics can be equally applied to the young children who's lives slipped away at the hands of the British Army. Nobody is clean in this and to pretend otherwise is deluded.

I do have my view and you do have yours. I'll continue to refrain from calling people mass murderers whilst you'll coninue to justify it, regardless of evidence.

We're different like that.

[trailer]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

Dunno if this is a logical argument given The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation. I don't think anyone can say that the IRA had some good people who were involved. I can't really understand how anyone can stand over what the IRA and it's members did. I often think of the young children murdered, what must their final moments on this earth have been like? The fear in their hearts, the loneliness as their lives slipped away, young innocent children, while a few IRA men hid in a safe house, back slapping one another on a job well done.

But look you have your view and I have mine.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison as you're simply defending the statement that he was a mass murderer simply because he was an IRA member yet has no convictions for murder, let alone mass murder. But apparently having a significant prison sentence means you must be a mass murderer. I did not know that until now. Every day's a school day.

You've gone off down a road that no one asked you to. I've agreed with you on the incidents you have named, and nobody in their right mind would disagree. Your emotional description of innocent people losing their lives adds nothing to the debate and doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

I can't imagine there was anybody slapping each other on the back for a 'job well done' that involved innocent children, or others.

All of your theatrics can be equally applied to the young children who's lives slipped away at the hands of the British Army. Nobody is clean in this and to pretend otherwise is deluded.

I do have my view and you do have yours. I'll continue to refrain from calling people mass murderers whilst you'll coninue to justify it, regardless of evidence.

We're different like that.

My point is that Bobby Storey was a person of significant influence in the IRA, this is widely accepted.
From this article https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/bobby-storey-the-ira-s-planner-and-enforcer-who-stayed-in-the-shadows-1.4292981
Studying his history, Storey, who was the IRA's director of intelligence in the eyes of those who knew that world well, was "a planner, operator and an enforcer"
What was he planning? Birthday Parties? Easter Egg Hunts? Fancy Dress competitions?

The IRA committed mass murder which is widely accepted. I don't think any of those who were members of the IRA can then claim they weren't involved in those events. It's the Nuremberg defence.

[ThroughTheLaces]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

Dunno if this is a logical argument given The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation. I don't think anyone can say that the IRA had some good people who were involved. I can't really understand how anyone can stand over what the IRA and it's members did. I often think of the young children murdered, what must their final moments on this earth have been like? The fear in their hearts, the loneliness as their lives slipped away, young innocent children, while a few IRA men hid in a safe house, back slapping one another on a job well done.

But look you have your view and I have mine.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison as you're simply defending the statement that he was a mass murderer simply because he was an IRA member yet has no convictions for murder, let alone mass murder. But apparently having a significant prison sentence means you must be a mass murderer. I did not know that until now. Every day's a school day.

You've gone off down a road that no one asked you to. I've agreed with you on the incidents you have named, and nobody in their right mind would disagree. Your emotional description of innocent people losing their lives adds nothing to the debate and doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

I can't imagine there was anybody slapping each other on the back for a 'job well done' that involved innocent children, or others.

All of your theatrics can be equally applied to the young children who's lives slipped away at the hands of the British Army. Nobody is clean in this and to pretend otherwise is deluded.

I do have my view and you do have yours. I'll continue to refrain from calling people mass murderers whilst you'll coninue to justify it, regardless of evidence.

We're different like that.

My point is that Bobby Storey was a person of significant influence in the IRA, this is widely accepted.
From this article https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/bobby-storey-the-ira-s-planner-and-enforcer-who-stayed-in-the-shadows-1.4292981
Studying his history, Storey, who was the IRA's director of intelligence in the eyes of those who knew that world well, was "a planner, operator and an enforcer"
What was he planning? Birthday Parties? Easter Egg Hunts? Fancy Dress competitions?

The IRA committed mass murder which is widely accepted. I don't think any of those who were members of the IRA can then claim they weren't involved in those events. It's the Nuremberg defence.

Feel free to come back to me with any evidence. Anything at all. An opinion piece with 'anonymous sources' is not evidence.

If you feel justified to call somebody a mass murderer with no basis then continue doing so. It won't lose me any sleep. Just thought I would point out that its probably not something anyone should do.

Then again he did have a significant prison sentence. Obviously a mass murderer on that basis alone.

I'll continue to not call people mass murderers without evidence, you continue to do the opposite. We're both happy.

Although you've now taken it to another level of insinuating that every single member of the IRA is a mass murderer. (See Catholic Church analogy)

[Snapchap]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

Dunno if this is a logical argument given The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation. I don't think anyone can say that the IRA had some good people who were involved. I can't really understand how anyone can stand over what the IRA and it's members did. I often think of the young children murdered, what must their final moments on this earth have been like? The fear in their hearts, the loneliness as their lives slipped away, young innocent children, while a few IRA men hid in a safe house, back slapping one another on a job well done.

But look you have your view and I have mine.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison as you're simply defending the statement that he was a mass murderer simply because he was an IRA member yet has no convictions for murder, let alone mass murder. But apparently having a significant prison sentence means you must be a mass murderer. I did not know that until now. Every day's a school day.

You've gone off down a road that no one asked you to. I've agreed with you on the incidents you have named, and nobody in their right mind would disagree. Your emotional description of innocent people losing their lives adds nothing to the debate and doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

I can't imagine there was anybody slapping each other on the back for a 'job well done' that involved innocent children, or others.

All of your theatrics can be equally applied to the young children who's lives slipped away at the hands of the British Army. Nobody is clean in this and to pretend otherwise is deluded.

I do have my view and you do have yours. I'll continue to refrain from calling people mass murderers whilst you'll coninue to justify it, regardless of evidence.

We're different like that.

My point is that Bobby Storey was a person of significant influence in the IRA, this is widely accepted.
From this article https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/bobby-storey-the-ira-s-planner-and-enforcer-who-stayed-in-the-shadows-1.4292981
Studying his history, Storey, who was the IRA's director of intelligence in the eyes of those who knew that world well, was "a planner, operator and an enforcer"
What was he planning? Birthday Parties? Easter Egg Hunts? Fancy Dress competitions?

The IRA committed mass murder which is widely accepted. I don't think any of those who were members of the IRA can then claim they weren't involved in those events. It's the Nuremberg defence.

You'll have no problem at all in stating that Michael Collins, James Connolly and or indeed as Angelo suggests, Nelson Mandela, were just mass murderers too then?

[trailer]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

Dunno if this is a logical argument given The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation. I don't think anyone can say that the IRA had some good people who were involved. I can't really understand how anyone can stand over what the IRA and it's members did. I often think of the young children murdered, what must their final moments on this earth have been like? The fear in their hearts, the loneliness as their lives slipped away, young innocent children, while a few IRA men hid in a safe house, back slapping one another on a job well done.

But look you have your view and I have mine.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison as you're simply defending the statement that he was a mass murderer simply because he was an IRA member yet has no convictions for murder, let alone mass murder. But apparently having a significant prison sentence means you must be a mass murderer. I did not know that until now. Every day's a school day.

You've gone off down a road that no one asked you to. I've agreed with you on the incidents you have named, and nobody in their right mind would disagree. Your emotional description of innocent people losing their lives adds nothing to the debate and doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

I can't imagine there was anybody slapping each other on the back for a 'job well done' that involved innocent children, or others.

All of your theatrics can be equally applied to the young children who's lives slipped away at the hands of the British Army. Nobody is clean in this and to pretend otherwise is deluded.

I do have my view and you do have yours. I'll continue to refrain from calling people mass murderers whilst you'll coninue to justify it, regardless of evidence.

We're different like that.

My point is that Bobby Storey was a person of significant influence in the IRA, this is widely accepted.
From this article https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/bobby-storey-the-ira-s-planner-and-enforcer-who-stayed-in-the-shadows-1.4292981
Studying his history, Storey, who was the IRA's director of intelligence in the eyes of those who knew that world well, was "a planner, operator and an enforcer"
What was he planning? Birthday Parties? Easter Egg Hunts? Fancy Dress competitions?

The IRA committed mass murder which is widely accepted. I don't think any of those who were members of the IRA can then claim they weren't involved in those events. It's the Nuremberg defence.

Feel free to come back to me with any evidence. Anything at all. An opinion piece with 'anonymous sources' is not evidence.

If you feel justified to call somebody a mass murderer with no basis then continue doing so. It won't lose me any sleep. Just thought I would point out that its probably not something anyone should do.

Then again he did have a significant prison sentence. Obviously a mass murderer on that basis alone.

I'll continue to not call people mass murderers without evidence, you continue to do the opposite. We're both happy.

Although you've now taken it to another level of insinuating that every single member of the IRA is a mass murderer. (See Catholic Church analogy)

The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation who's sole aim was to remove Britain from Ireland by force. I don't get the comparison if I'm honest.

[Angelo]

Great to see trailer squirming here.

There's a real toxicity to his views on here and no harm at all for everyone to see how hollow and cynical a poster he is.

[michaelg]

Is there any actual possibility of discussion on how a potential new Ireland might look, or is that not possible without a frank honest discussion on the past?

The fantasy of a glorious "new" Ireland is based on the fantastical premise that Unionists will simply fall in and accept it

I dare say some Protestant Unionists had this same fantasy about Irish Catholics in the six counties

Some will accept it

Many will not

And thus the six counties are destined to always be afflicted with division and turmoil

Doesn't matter which jurisdiction they're under, they will always be afflicted because it's a classic territorial dispute where one section of the population believes it is an inherent state of nature for the territory which makes up the six counties to be part of one state

And another section of the population believes it is an inherent state of nature for the territory which makes up the six counties to be part of a different state

You can't square that, somebody has to lose

The only alternative is that people learn to forget about Irish nationalism and British nationalism and think about forging a society that works for all

The majority of voters in the six counties vote for parties for whom that is not a priority

The best thing that could happen to NI is for every union Jack and tricolour in the place to be burned

Your conclusion only leaves one loser though. Us as per standard. It reads of accept your lot northern nationalists, maybe this is not your intention.

When competing nationalisms divide a society everybody loses

What's your solution?

A functioning society is more important than fwegs

Good man. Fwegs? My solution is lay out how an all island health system would look, how education would look, taxation, housing. How are a minority incorporated and given absolute equality. What fwegs and emblems would look like. Giving those whose culture is orangism and parades etc assurances this can continue in a safe manner. East West copereration. What's yours ? The status quo?
.

My solution is that people in NI vote out the extremists on both sides and elect people who will work together to create an equal society

A united Ireland will come when it's ready to come

And it's not remotely ready to come yet

What will happen is that as the sabre rattling about a border poll ramps up, the extremists on both sides will benefit more and more because both sides will retreat more and more into competing nationalisms

Irish nationalists will retreat towards SF, British nationalists will retreat towards the DUP

The centre, whatever is there of it, will not hold

Vote out the DUP and SF and elect SDLP, Alliance, PBP and moderate Unionists

Sorry Sid, I don't know from where you hail but you are posting facile errant nonsense that shows no understanding of the 6 counties or the experience of nationalists in a hostile state. There is a reason why SF are so popular and it has to do with their effective delivery on the ground for people in need. The SDLP had years of a head start but ignored working class communities. Alliance is built on the highly effective foundation of Naomi Long, and a soft unionism that does not like the DUP or the UUP which is now DUP Lite.

Having said all of that and not to totally forget my lived experience I want to see a civilised conversation that does not harp back to the perceived injustices of the past. Nationalists are capable for doing that, our problem is a rump of unionism that sees any change as sellout.

Not sure if 'Nationalists are capable for doing that', when some posters on here are referring back to the Plantation of Ulster.

[ThroughTheLaces]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

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


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

Dunno if this is a logical argument given The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation. I don't think anyone can say that the IRA had some good people who were involved. I can't really understand how anyone can stand over what the IRA and it's members did. I often think of the young children murdered, what must their final moments on this earth have been like? The fear in their hearts, the loneliness as their lives slipped away, young innocent children, while a few IRA men hid in a safe house, back slapping one another on a job well done.

But look you have your view and I have mine.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison as you're simply defending the statement that he was a mass murderer simply because he was an IRA member yet has no convictions for murder, let alone mass murder. But apparently having a significant prison sentence means you must be a mass murderer. I did not know that until now. Every day's a school day.

You've gone off down a road that no one asked you to. I've agreed with you on the incidents you have named, and nobody in their right mind would disagree. Your emotional description of innocent people losing their lives adds nothing to the debate and doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

I can't imagine there was anybody slapping each other on the back for a 'job well done' that involved innocent children, or others.

All of your theatrics can be equally applied to the young children who's lives slipped away at the hands of the British Army. Nobody is clean in this and to pretend otherwise is deluded.

I do have my view and you do have yours. I'll continue to refrain from calling people mass murderers whilst you'll coninue to justify it, regardless of evidence.

We're different like that.

My point is that Bobby Storey was a person of significant influence in the IRA, this is widely accepted.
From this article https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/bobby-storey-the-ira-s-planner-and-enforcer-who-stayed-in-the-shadows-1.4292981
Studying his history, Storey, who was the IRA's director of intelligence in the eyes of those who knew that world well, was "a planner, operator and an enforcer"
What was he planning? Birthday Parties? Easter Egg Hunts? Fancy Dress competitions?

The IRA committed mass murder which is widely accepted. I don't think any of those who were members of the IRA can then claim they weren't involved in those events. It's the Nuremberg defence.

Feel free to come back to me with any evidence. Anything at all. An opinion piece with 'anonymous sources' is not evidence.

If you feel justified to call somebody a mass murderer with no basis then continue doing so. It won't lose me any sleep. Just thought I would point out that its probably not something anyone should do.

Then again he did have a significant prison sentence. Obviously a mass murderer on that basis alone.

I'll continue to not call people mass murderers without evidence, you continue to do the opposite. We're both happy.

Although you've now taken it to another level of insinuating that every single member of the IRA is a mass murderer. (See Catholic Church analogy)

The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation who's sole aim was to remove Britain from Ireland by force. I don't get the comparison if I'm honest.

That's fine, forget the analogy. There is a lot more to that post that you've conveniently decided to ignore, instead solely responding to four bracketed words.

But that's fine too I suppose. It's who you are.

Bear with me for a more detailed response, I will need a while to read through all the evidence you've sent through.