Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[sid waddell]

What was sectarian in Stanley's comments? Kilmichael was an operation against murdering Auxilliary bastards. Narrow Water was an operation against murdering Parachute Regiment bastards.

I didn't say the comments were sectarian in and of themselves

I said Sinn Fein and Stanley glorify a campaign which had sectarian murder as an integral part

Which they did

You call the Auxiliaries and the Paras "murdering bastards"

As forces, I wouldn't disagree

But so were the PIRA murdering bastards

How does it feel to live in the freedom won for you by violent republicans standing up against the most despicable murdering empire in history that makes Hitler, Stalin and Mao look like amateurs. You are the epitome of a West Brit. Deluded arsehole.

Did you not get the memo? Blowing up British soldiers and executing them by the side of the road is only morally acceptable pre-partition. Sectarianism only ever existed in the northern state and the IRA 1970 onwards were waging a sectarian war in a bid to kill all Protestants.

Seriously though, the hypocrisy among some people is astonishing and would make most unionists blush.

How is it not hypocritical that Sinn Fein supporters believe it was acceptable for the PIRA to murder civilians, but not acceptable for anybody else?

This is the central hypocrisy that sustains Sinn Fein to this day

[sid waddell]

Why wouid any northern nationalist care about comparing FF FG to SF, is that people's only defence against SF incompetence on here?

I don't like parties that stood back and enabled a loyalist pogrom and British state forces terrorise the nationalist community then use victims of the troubles to score political points against their opponents.

It's nasty and cynical and insulting to northern nationalists.

Would you ever devalve hi, honestly it doesn't matter to us, it's just a manufactured ploy to gain power in South. Get with the facts , ROI is a really good country on a world stage, yes the west Brits are dicks but Shinners wouid destroy Irish economic gains. The truth is bitter sometimes

If Sinn Fein want to call people "west Brits", they shouldn't then complain when people then brand them as sectarian murderers or Trumpists

Two can play that game

If the Trumpist, sectarian murderers don't complain but in turn call those other people "sectarian murderers who became west brits", where do we go from there?

But in the Dail, only Sinn Fein are still glorifying a campaign of which sectarian murder was an integral part

Nobody else is

Therefore it's totally legitimate to call Sinn Fein glorifiers of sectarian murder, especially after comments like that of Stanley and David Cullinane

Sinn Fein are the people who have put politics in the Republic down this road

If you're happy to give it, don't complain when you have to take it

I say this as somebody who voted no. 1 for Sinn Fein in 2011 and 2016

Reading your sectarian comments, I'm surprised you were even allowed to vote.

What on earth is sectarian about my comments?

You're resorting to lying, now

One can only presume that you think being against sectarian murder is actually sectarian now? 

Applying your standard would make John Hume "sectarian"

Hint: When in a hole, don't dig deeper

[Itchy]

What was sectarian in Stanley's comments? Kilmichael was an operation against murdering Auxilliary bastards. Narrow Water was an operation against murdering Parachute Regiment bastards.

100%

And sorry sid, calling something what it is is not name calling in my book.

Well if you're to take the literal interpretation of what a west Brit is - which you invite the reader to do - it would refer to somebody from the western part of Britain, for example, Wales

But if you're being literal - which you say you are - when you call people born and bred in Ireland "west Brits", the only explanation for that would be that you actually believe Ireland is part of Britain

Which would be incredibly ironic

But of course in reality it's just a pathetic, childish slur against Irish people whose opinions you don't like but who you don't have the smarts to actually argue against

You don't have to like anybody's opinions, fine, but argue properly against them, because by doing nothing other than calling those people stupid names, you actually give them the moral high ground and unintentionally afford them a credibility you simultaneously deny to yourself

"childish" That would imply I am a child, but in fact I am an adult in my 40s.
"Stupid", That would imply I am lack intelligence, but I have a degree and a masters and work as a manager in a medical device company.

You should concentrate on debating and not throwing around these slurs sir. It totally belittles the really clever arguments you make on the use of the English language and your incredible knowledge of Geography will be wasted if you don't improve the delivery of your arguments.

Childish - "of, like, appropriate to a child"

Which calling people "west Brits" is

I didn't call you "stupid" - I said calling people "west Brits" when you can't argue against the points of other people, is stupid

Which it is

Ironically with that post - because you show you're unable
i) to distinguish between something being childish, and being a child
ii) something being stupid and somebody being stupid...

well, it should be obvious, shouldn't it?

Did you have a basic English language comprehension failing - or maybe it was a deliberate, performative comprehension failing?

Your argument is that because you have a Masters degree and work as a manager in a medical device company (well done on that) that it proves you are an intelligent commentator on Irish politics and history

It definitely doesn't and your posts here have been the opposite of intelligent commentary

Let's just stop comparing the size of our dicks Sid and just agree you are a sad little west brit.

[sid waddell]

What was sectarian in Stanley's comments? Kilmichael was an operation against murdering Auxilliary bastards. Narrow Water was an operation against murdering Parachute Regiment bastards.

100%

And sorry sid, calling something what it is is not name calling in my book.

Well if you're to take the literal interpretation of what a west Brit is - which you invite the reader to do - it would refer to somebody from the western part of Britain, for example, Wales

But if you're being literal - which you say you are - when you call people born and bred in Ireland "west Brits", the only explanation for that would be that you actually believe Ireland is part of Britain

Which would be incredibly ironic

But of course in reality it's just a pathetic, childish slur against Irish people whose opinions you don't like but who you don't have the smarts to actually argue against

You don't have to like anybody's opinions, fine, but argue properly against them, because by doing nothing other than calling those people stupid names, you actually give them the moral high ground and unintentionally afford them a credibility you simultaneously deny to yourself

"childish" That would imply I am a child, but in fact I am an adult in my 40s.
"Stupid", That would imply I am lack intelligence, but I have a degree and a masters and work as a manager in a medical device company.

You should concentrate on debating and not throwing around these slurs sir. It totally belittles the really clever arguments you make on the use of the English language and your incredible knowledge of Geography will be wasted if you don't improve the delivery of your arguments.

Childish - "of, like, appropriate to a child"

Which calling people "west Brits" is

I didn't call you "stupid" - I said calling people "west Brits" when you can't argue against the points of other people, is stupid

Which it is

Ironically with that post - because you show you're unable
i) to distinguish between something being childish, and being a child
ii) something being stupid and somebody being stupid...

well, it should be obvious, shouldn't it?

Did you have a basic English language comprehension failing - or maybe it was a deliberate, performative comprehension failing?

Your argument is that because you have a Masters degree and work as a manager in a medical device company (well done on that) that it proves you are an intelligent commentator on Irish politics and history

It definitely doesn't and your posts here have been the opposite of intelligent commentary

Let's just stop comparing the size of our dicks Sid and just agree you are a sad little west brit.

You're doing a superb job of proving my point about you and other Sinn Fein supporters here - how you resort to name calling when you don't have the ability to debate

The above post is a classic example

Thanks for doing that

[Angelo]

What was sectarian in Stanley's comments? Kilmichael was an operation against murdering Auxilliary bastards. Narrow Water was an operation against murdering Parachute Regiment bastards.

100%

And sorry sid, calling something what it is is not name calling in my book.

Well if you're to take the literal interpretation of what a west Brit is - which you invite the reader to do - it would refer to somebody from the western part of Britain, for example, Wales

But if you're being literal - which you say you are - when you call people born and bred in Ireland "west Brits", the only explanation for that would be that you actually believe Ireland is part of Britain

Which would be incredibly ironic

But of course in reality it's just a pathetic, childish slur against Irish people whose opinions you don't like but who you don't have the smarts to actually argue against

You don't have to like anybody's opinions, fine, but argue properly against them, because by doing nothing other than calling those people stupid names, you actually give them the moral high ground and unintentionally afford them a credibility you simultaneously deny to yourself

"childish" That would imply I am a child, but in fact I am an adult in my 40s.
"Stupid", That would imply I am lack intelligence, but I have a degree and a masters and work as a manager in a medical device company.

You should concentrate on debating and not throwing around these slurs sir. It totally belittles the really clever arguments you make on the use of the English language and your incredible knowledge of Geography will be wasted if you don't improve the delivery of your arguments.

Childish - "of, like, appropriate to a child"

Which calling people "west Brits" is

I didn't call you "stupid" - I said calling people "west Brits" when you can't argue against the points of other people, is stupid

Which it is

Ironically with that post - because you show you're unable
i) to distinguish between something being childish, and being a child
ii) something being stupid and somebody being stupid...

well, it should be obvious, shouldn't it?

Did you have a basic English language comprehension failing - or maybe it was a deliberate, performative comprehension failing?

Your argument is that because you have a Masters degree and work as a manager in a medical device company (well done on that) that it proves you are an intelligent commentator on Irish politics and history

It definitely doesn't and your posts here have been the opposite of intelligent commentary

Let's just stop comparing the size of our dicks Sid and just agree you are a sad little west brit.

You're doing a superb job of proving my point about you and other Sinn Fein supporters here - how you resort to name calling when you don't have the ability to debate

The above post is a classic example

Thanks for doing that

You do a good job of proving other's peoples views about you.

[red hander]

What was sectarian in Stanley's comments? Kilmichael was an operation against murdering Auxilliary bastards. Narrow Water was an operation against murdering Parachute Regiment bastards.

I didn't say the comments were sectarian in and of themselves

I said Sinn Fein and Stanley glorify a campaign which had sectarian murder as an integral part

Which they did

You call the Auxiliaries and the Paras "murdering bastards"

As forces, I wouldn't disagree

But so were the PIRA murdering bastards

How does it feel to live in the freedom won for you by violent republicans standing up against the most despicable murdering empire in history that makes Hitler, Stalin and Mao look like amateurs. You are the epitome of a West Brit. Deluded arsehole.

It was quite predictable that a Sinn Fein supporter would leap in and try to lessen the crimes of Hitler

A sort of Up the RA Godwin's Law

You didn't address the point - I called the PIRA murdering bastards, but clearly you disagree

You disagree that those who murdered the workmen at Kingsmills and Joanne Mathers and the people at Enniskillen and the members of the Irish Collie Club and Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry and the people buying fish on the Shankill Road were murdering bastards

That signifies at least some degree of agreement with those murders

In short, the attitude of Sinn Fein supporters on this forum is: murdering civilians is just fine, as long as our lads did it

Lessen the crimes of Hitler? Jesus wept, what a pathetic take on what I said. I am merely pointing out that more people died under the British Empire than under Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and you turn me into a Nazi. BTW, who invented the concentration camp?

[sid waddell]

Lessen the crimes of Hitler? Jesus wept, what a pathetic take on what I said. I am merely pointing out that more people died under the British Empire than under Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and you turn me into a Nazi. BTW, who invented the concentration camp?

If you're going to attempt to lessen the crimes of Hitler, as you did - expect to get pulled up on it!

I didn't turn you into a Nazi - you brought the Nazis up in an attempt to lessen their crimes - Sinn Fein and their supporters certainly don't seem to have a problem with Nazi dog whistles - as can be seen from Mary Lou McDonald honoring a Nazi collaborator in Sean Russell

It's very curious

And reasonable people would say, utterly pathetic

[red hander]

Lessen the crimes of Hitler? Jesus wept, what a pathetic take on what I said. I am merely pointing out that more people died under the British Empire than under Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and you turn me into a Nazi. BTW, who invented the concentration camp?

If you're going to attempt to lessen the crimes of Hitler, as you did - expect to get pulled up on it!

I didn't turn you into a Nazi - you brought the Nazis up in an attempt to lessen their crimes - Sinn Fein and their supporters certainly don't seem to have a problem with Nazi dog whistles - as can be seen from Mary Lou McDonald honoring a Nazi collaborator in Sean Russell

It's very curious

And reasonable people would say, utterly pathetic

You really are a deluded fool. Your argument is the only thing that is utterly pathetic.

[sid waddell]

Lessen the crimes of Hitler? Jesus wept, what a pathetic take on what I said. I am merely pointing out that more people died under the British Empire than under Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and you turn me into a Nazi. BTW, who invented the concentration camp?

If you're going to attempt to lessen the crimes of Hitler, as you did - expect to get pulled up on it!

I didn't turn you into a Nazi - you brought the Nazis up in an attempt to lessen their crimes - Sinn Fein and their supporters certainly don't seem to have a problem with Nazi dog whistles - as can be seen from Mary Lou McDonald honoring a Nazi collaborator in Sean Russell

It's very curious

And reasonable people would say, utterly pathetic

You really are a deluded fool. Your argument is the only thing that is utterly pathetic.

Again, personal abuse from a Shinner - but never arguments

Thanks

Like shooting fish in a barrel - metaphorically speaking, of course

As opposed to shooting real people, which Shinners prefer!

[red hander]

Lessen the crimes of Hitler? Jesus wept, what a pathetic take on what I said. I am merely pointing out that more people died under the British Empire than under Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and you turn me into a Nazi. BTW, who invented the concentration camp?

If you're going to attempt to lessen the crimes of Hitler, as you did - expect to get pulled up on it!

I didn't turn you into a Nazi - you brought the Nazis up in an attempt to lessen their crimes - Sinn Fein and their supporters certainly don't seem to have a problem with Nazi dog whistles - as can be seen from Mary Lou McDonald honoring a Nazi collaborator in Sean Russell

It's very curious

And reasonable people would say, utterly pathetic

You really are a deluded fool. Your argument is the only thing that is utterly pathetic.

Again, personal abuse from a Shinner - but never arguments

Thanks

Like shooting fish in a barrel - metaphorically speaking, of course

As opposed to shooting real people, which Shinners prefer!

[Snapchap]

In short, the attitude of Sinn Fein supporters on this forum is: murdering civilians is just fine, as long as our lads did it

Who said that murdering civilians was fine?

If anything, the prevailing attitude among Free Staters like yourself is that it murdering civilians is morally repugnant when the Provos did it, but that the Old IRA either didn't murder civilians/ murdered very few civilians or that it's just not cool to go around reminding anybody about when the Old IRA murdered civilians.

The reality is that if you are happy to present the Provos campaign as a sectarian murder rampage, then it's just laughably hypocritical and plaint sanctimonious codology to view the Old IRA campaign as anything different. That's the reality that Free Staters need to come to terms with.

[sid waddell]

In short, the attitude of Sinn Fein supporters on this forum is: murdering civilians is just fine, as long as our lads did it

Who said that murdering civilians was fine?

If anything, the prevailing attitude among Free Staters like yourself is that it murdering civilians is morally repugnant when the Provos did it, but that the Old IRA either didn't murder civilians/ murdered very few civilians or that it's just not cool to go around reminding anybody about when the Old IRA murdered civilians.

The reality is that if you are happy to present the Provos campaign as a sectarian murder rampage, then it's just laughably hypocritical and plaint sanctimonious codology to view the Old IRA campaign as anything different. That's the reality that Free Staters need to come to terms with.

But murdering civilians was a central, integral component of the PIRA's campaign, that's just a fact

And now we're being asked to forget that

War is a last resort, right? And it can really only be morally justified when there is a chance of victory or some sort of negotiated settlement that gets you most of what you want

The old IRA at least saw that, they had a chance of victory or some sort of negotiated settlement to get what they wanted, but even then, they stopped in the summer of 1921 because they couldn't justify the continuing toll on the people 

I think you can issue a plausible moral justification for violence from 1969 to some nebulous point in the early 1970s

But when in the 1970s did it become obvious that the PIRA had no chance of achieving what they wanted through war?

Very early, I would suggest

Like, in 1973 or 1974 it was already obvious they had no hope whatsoever of achieving a united Ireland through violence

Yet they continued until 1997 - that's at least 23 or 24 years of totally futile violence

That's totally morally indefensible

And at the end of it all, it produced pretty much nothing - nothing that couldn't have been produced by peace - the PIRA lost, inevitably, they were always going to lose, because they did not have the support of the people

So there is a moral difference in terms of the totality of the campaigns, though of course the old IRA committed acts which were utterly abhorrent - and the moral case for the old IRA's war was questionable at best

Also, if one is to justify Warrenpoint or any number of booby trap car bombs which killed RUC officers, one should therefore logically justify the murder of Ronan Kerr or the attempted murder and serious maiming of Peadar Heffron

Because they too were effectively "Crown Forces" - when you get down to brass tacks, that's what the PSNI are - Crown Forces

Yet Sinn Fein condemn these murders and attempted murders of PSNI officers - seems a tacit admission that the decades of identical murders and attempted murders they supported was all for nowt, doesn't it

There was a former IRA guy in the Spotlight series last year, Tommy Gorman, who broke down when he asked himself the question, "what was it all for, what was it all about?", "I could have done better things, it was a waste of time and a waste of life"

That's exactly what it was, a waste of time and a waste of life for a fever dream of murdering for the oul' sod - blood and soil, with the emphasis very much on the blood

It's at 55:35 here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WAbc0Go5RA&ab_channel=SluggerO%27Toole

[Snapchap]

But murdering civilians was a central, integral component of the PIRA's campaign, that's just a fact

And therein lies the central lie upon which you base your entire hypocrisy. The overwhelmimg majority of PIRA operations were directed against British security force personnel/infrastructure and against commercial targets where no life was lost. The sort of small scale daily attacks that didn't make headlines in the Free State. It's already been pointed out here that the Old IRA actually killed a higher proportion of civilians. Just consider the absolute savagery with which the Old IRA pursued a campaign of disappearing victims (most of whom were innocent). Somewhere between 100 and 200 people. Numbers that absolutely dwarf the number disappeared by the Provos in a fraction of the time. So like I say, hypocritical bull. The savagery of the Old IRA campaign is excusable to you. It doesn't matter to you how many civilians they killed or disappeared. When presented with the reality of what they did, the best you can do is come out with "yeah but it was a shorter war". Gold medal standard mental gymnastics.

The other key lie in your waffle is that the PIRA campaign stopped being justified "some time in the seventies". But of course, it's very easy for a sanctimonious Free State p***k to believe such when he/she wasn't getting harrased and abused on the roadsides on literally a daily basis by the British State, well into the 90s. You never experienced the sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach when you saw the red torch of UDR patrol wagging your car to stop on a quiet road at night and not knowing if you would still be alive on the other side of it. To Free Staters, that is probably (to borrow a phrase) "just another northerner sob story" but to people like me it was the psycologically traumatic reality of going about daily life in this part of the world, well into the 1990's. No doubt your reality of living through the conflict was hearing what your Section 31 state censored media decided it was OK to tell you about; and now, years later, you are just unable to countenance the possibility that your notion of truth in relation to the conflict could be compromised having been informed about it by said censored media. Your argument also patently ignores the reality that were it not for the IRA campaign, the level of peace and equality we have today simply wouldn't exist and was not available to achieve "sometime in the seventies". It's often been said that the Brits had to be bombed to the negotiating table but that's not just something people say glibly. The fact is that the bombing of Canary Wharf literally only happened because the John Major government was refusing to take attempts at talks in any way seriously.John Major wasn't PM in the seventies.

[general_lee]

Wow wow wow. Easy on the facts there Snapchap. Freestaters don't like them and chose to ignore them

[tiempo]

But murdering civilians was a central, integral component of the PIRA's campaign, that's just a fact

And therein lies the central lie upon which you base your entire hypocrisy. The overewhelmimg majority of PIRA operations were directed against British security force personnel/infrastructure and against commercial targets where no life was lost. The sort of small scale daily attacks that didn't make headlines in the Free State. It's already been pointed out here that the Old IRA actually killed a higher proportion of civilians. Just consider the absolute savagery with which the Old IRA pursued a campaign of disappearing victims (most of whom were innocent). Somewhere between 100 and 200 people. Numbers that absolutely dwarf the number disappeared by the Provos in a fraction of the time. So like I say, hypocritical bull. The savagery of the Old IRA campaign is excusable to you. It doesn't matter to you how many civilians they killed or disappeared. When presented with the reality of what they did, the best you can do is come out with "yeah but it was a shorter war". Gold level standard mental gymnastics.

The other key lie in your waffle is that the PIRA campaign stopped being justified "some time in the seventies". But of course, it's very easy for a sanctimonious Free State p***k to believe such when he/she wasn't getting harrased and abused on the roadsides on literally a daily basis by the British State, well into the 90s. You never experienced the sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach when you saw the red torch of UDR patrol wagging your car to stop on a quiet road at night and not knowing if you would still be alive on the other side of it. To Free Staters, that is probably (to borrow a phrase) "just another northerner sob story" but to people like me it was the psycologically traumatic reality of going about daily life in this part of the world, well into the 1990's. No doubt your reality of living through the conflict was hearing what your Section 31 state censored media decided it was OK to tell you about; and now, years later, you are just unable to countenance the possibility that your notion of truth in relation to the conflict could be compromised having been informed about it by said censored media. Your argument also patently ignores the reality that were it not for the IRA campaign, the level of peace and equality we have today simply wouldn't exist and was not available to achieve "sometime in the seventies". It's often been said that the Brits had to be bombed to the negotiating table but that's not just something people say glibly. The fact is that the bombing of Canary Wharf literally only happened because the John Major government was refusing to take attempts at talks in any way seriously.John Major wasn't PM in the seventies.

Superb post

The red torch, yes there was a totally sinister feeling when approaching it and to this day it resonates, will have to be mindful today for the peace the republican movement has delivered for the 6co's while also moving us inexorably towards reunification in spite of the Free State quislings