Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[sid waddell]

But I bet anything calling Richard Mulcahy a sectarian killer wouldn't get you thrown out of Fine Gael

I bet anything calling Slab Murphy such would get you thrown out of Sinn Fein

This is the level of idiocy you deal in.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fine-gael-council-candidate-dylan-hutchinson-confronted-by-jennifer-carroll-macneill-over-derogatory-snapchat-post-zh5vmg9hv

Don't let facts get in the way of you exposing yourself as a dimwit.

Ooh, personal abuse now

The Sinn Fein way

Wise up, you called me a fascist I wasn't fully on board the Biden bandwagon and said the 88 in my username stood for Heil Hitler or some crap.. So take that dung somewhere else.

You support fascist policies in relation to the US

You laughed at children being caged and separated from their parents and your rhetoric was consistently pro-Trump

Therefore calling you a supporter of fascism is a statement of fact - not personal abuse

And a supporter of fascism is a fascist

Own it

I never laughed at children in cages...what??
I said they were sanctioned by Obama, which is true.
Muting you now because you arent worth engaging with.

Separation was not sanctioned under Obama, but also I am not here to defend the serious failings that happened under Obama

You did laugh

The way you cloaked it was "I'm laughing at the people who will be angered if Trump wins"

But the people who would have been angered had Trump won, including me, would have been angry precisely because it would have meant a continuation of things like forced child separation which has resulted in the deaths of children

So you think being angered at forced child separation is funny

The way you frame your laughing is the classic way a fascist coward cloaks an utterly abhorrent opinion

[Angelo]

But I bet anything calling Richard Mulcahy a sectarian killer wouldn't get you thrown out of Fine Gael

I bet anything calling Slab Murphy such would get you thrown out of Sinn Fein

This is the level of idiocy you deal in.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fine-gael-council-candidate-dylan-hutchinson-confronted-by-jennifer-carroll-macneill-over-derogatory-snapchat-post-zh5vmg9hv

Don't let facts get in the way of you exposing yourself as a dimwit.

Ooh, personal abuse now

The Sinn Fein way

Wise up, you called me a fascist I wasn't fully on board the Biden bandwagon and said the 88 in my username stood for Heil Hitler or some crap.. So take that dung somewhere else.

You support fascist policies in relation to the US

You laughed at children being caged and separated from their parents and your rhetoric was consistently pro-Trump

Therefore calling you a supporter of fascism is a statement of fact - not personal abuse

And a supporter of fascism is a fascist

Own it

I never laughed at children in cages...what??
I said they were sanctioned by Obama, which is true.
Muting you now because you arent worth engaging with.

Separation was not sanctioned under Obama, but also I am not here to defend the serious failings that happened under Obama

You did laugh

The way you cloaked it was "I'm laughing at the people who will be angered if Trump wins"

But the people who would have been angered had Trump won, including me, would have been angry precisely because it would have meant a continuation of things like forced child separation which has resulted in the deaths of children

So you think being angered at forced child separation is funny

The way you frame your laughing is the classic way a fascist coward cloaks an utterly abhorrent opinion

Weren't or aren't you also a big fan of that beast Bill Clinton?

Y

[sid waddell]

Sorry but it was exactly how the argument started

More revisionism

Unfortunately for you this time, there a written record.

The thing started with some typical moralising over a tweet from Brian Stanley regarding Kilmichael and Narrow Water

Stanley was glorifying the actual acts

There is no glory in such acts

None at all

Sure then there's nothing to stop the glorification of the Brighton bomb

[Franko]

"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"

This is a direct quote from you a couple of days back.

Can you please use your powers of critical thinking to show me how this does not apply to FG, given the recent glorification of Richard Mulcahy on their official twitter account?

Take it up with Fine Gael

I've never voted Fine Gael in me life and never will, I've no time for them

But I bet anything calling Richard Mulcahy a sectarian killer wouldn't get you thrown out of Fine Gael

I bet anything calling Slab Murphy such would get you thrown out of Sinn Fein

Interesting.

I wouldn't be sure, on either front.

Some evidence to support both assertions would be useful in this instance

It comes back to the central question I asked last week

Can you be a member of Sinn Fein and believe that in broad terms, the PIRA campaign was wrong, and that the SDLP's approach was correct?

No, I don't think you can

You can certainly be a member of Fine Gael and believe the War of Independence was not justified

The central raison d'etre of Sinn Fein is the revisionism that the 28 year PIRA campaign was justified

In that respect it's a single issue party

Fine Gael isn't a single issue party

None of this is evidence

I haven't a clue whether or not you'd get thrown out.

But I'm not the one making the assertions.

Also - lol at the line in bold

"On this single issue they are a sigle issue party" 

[sid waddell]

"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"

This is a direct quote from you a couple of days back.

Can you please use your powers of critical thinking to show me how this does not apply to FG, given the recent glorification of Richard Mulcahy on their official twitter account?

Take it up with Fine Gael

I've never voted Fine Gael in me life and never will, I've no time for them

But I bet anything calling Richard Mulcahy a sectarian killer wouldn't get you thrown out of Fine Gael

I bet anything calling Slab Murphy such would get you thrown out of Sinn Fein

Interesting.

I wouldn't be sure, on either front.

Some evidence to support both assertions would be useful in this instance

It comes back to the central question I asked last week

Can you be a member of Sinn Fein and believe that in broad terms, the PIRA campaign was wrong, and that the SDLP's approach was correct?

No, I don't think you can

You can certainly be a member of Fine Gael and believe the War of Independence was not justified

The central raison d'etre of Sinn Fein is the revisionism that the 28 year PIRA campaign was justified

In that respect it's a single issue party

Fine Gael isn't a single issue party

None of this is evidence

I haven't a clue whether or not you'd get thrown out.

But I'm not the one making the assertions.

Also - lol at the line in bold

"On this single issue they are a sigle issue party" 

But Sinn Fein are effectively a single issue party

Everything is completely secondary to a united Ireland and the justification and rehabilitation of the PIRA

You know full well it's the case that any Sinn Fein candidate who criticises the likes of Slab Murphy would be out

That you can't admit this highlights an essential dishonesty in your position

[Snapchap]

Sorry but this whole argument started because people like yourself objected to the notion that there was a different way for Northern Catholics/Nationalists to advance their cause other than a 28 year campaign of violence of which sectarian slaughter was an integral part
But there was, it would not have been instant, it would not have been easy, but had peace been the modus operandi, they would have achieved everything that's there now, and likely a lot quicker

It might not have been instant? You have repeatedly said "early 70's" and have even suggested by 1972. You keep saying there was another way but you steadfastly and conveniently refuse to outline the steps. I keep asking you how nationalists could have peacefully achieved by 1972 what the international pressure of the whole world couldn't achieve. "I don't know, they just could have" doesn't really cut it I'm afraid. Bear in mind too, that unionism refused to even share power with the electoral representatives of peaceful nationalism until the 1990's. So what on earth makes you think they'd have been happy to have done so any sooner, let alone in the early 1970's ffs?

They had essential righteousness and justice on their side - but that went out the window when the PIRA started bombing and shooting

So the IRA campaign meant the plight of nationalists in the six counties was no longer righteous? Interesting take, that one.

Claudy and Bloody Friday were exactly the wrong responses to Bloody Sunday

Didn't I already say they were unjustifiable? All justifiable military campaigns contain unjustifiable actions within it. Read about the Old IRA campaign sometime, why don't you?

Funny you mention the refugees because I bet anything you saw that the other day on the "censored" RTE website (RTE is the virus, remember) - reporting by Kevin Myers,

You'd make a poor gambler. I didn't see any report on the RTÉ website. I'm old enough to have lived through the events you heard about on a Section 31 censored media.

Step i) in a peaceful campaign: not bombing people, especially civilians, to death

That would have been a very good start

Step i) in the PIRA's campaign was bomb, shoot and maim

Step i) was repeated over and over and over until 1997

As I suspected. You can't. Again, unionism wouldn't even share power with peaceful nationalism until in to the 90's. To think that they'd have done so by 1972, without grounding that claim in any form of logical reasoning whatsoever, is just laughable.

[sid waddell]

Sorry but this whole argument started because people like yourself objected to the notion that there was a different way for Northern Catholics/Nationalists to advance their cause other than a 28 year campaign of violence of which sectarian slaughter was an integral part
But there was, it would not have been instant, it would not have been easy, but had peace been the modus operandi, they would have achieved everything that's there now, and likely a lot quicker

It might not have been instant? You have repeatedly said "early 70's" and have even suggested by 1972. You keep saying there was another way but you steadfastly and conveniently refuse to outline the steps. I keep asking you how nationalists could have peacefully achieved by 1972 what the international pressure of the whole world couldn't achieve. "I don't know, they just could have" doesn't really cut it I'm afraid. Bear in mind too, that unionism refused to even share power with the electoral representatives of peaceful nationalism until the 1990's. So what on earth makes you think they'd have been happy to have done so any sooner, let alone in the early 1970's ffs?

They had essential righteousness and justice on their side - but that went out the window when the PIRA started bombing and shooting

So the IRA campaign meant the plight of nationalists in the six counties was no longer righteous? Interesting take, that one.

Claudy and Bloody Friday were exactly the wrong responses to Bloody Sunday

Didn't I already say they were unjustifiable? All justifiable military campaigns contain unjustifiable actions within it. Read about the Old IRA campaign sometime, why don't you?

Funny you mention the refugees because I bet anything you saw that the other day on the "censored" RTE website (RTE is the virus, remember) - reporting by Kevin Myers,

You'd make a poor gambler. I didn't see any report on the RTÉ website. I'm old enough to have lived through the events you heard about on a Section 31 censored media.

Step i) in a peaceful campaign: not bombing people, especially civilians, to death

That would have been a very good start

Step i) in the PIRA's campaign was bomb, shoot and maim

Step i) was repeated over and over and over until 1997

As I suspected. You can't. Again, unionism wouldn't even share power with peaceful nationalism until in to the 90's. To think that they'd have done so by 1972, without grounding that claim in any form of logical reasoning whatsoever, is just laughable.

I never said they would have done so by 1972 - but nice straw man to argue against

Now go and argue against the non-existent poster who claimed that

[Snapchap]

Sorry but it was exactly how the argument started

More revisionism

Unfortunately for you this time, there a written record.

The thing started with some typical moralising over a tweet from Brian Stanley regarding Kilmichael and Narrow Water

Stanley was glorifying the actual acts

There is no glory in such acts

None at all

Sure then there's nothing to stop the glorification of the Brighton bomb

Quote the bit where he glorified either Narrow Water or Kilmichael, like a good man. In reality, he described the both as a "pity for everyone".

[Look-Up!]

The total denial of the media and governments as to what was happening also fuelled the anger and sense of inequality. The dogs on the street knew British security forces were in collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries but to say this to most people from the Free State until only very recently they would laugh in your face. To say it to an English person they would have you committed. Media spin is a powerful thing.

Utter nonsense

People in the Republic long believed there was Loyalist/British collusion, especially as the single most devastating event of the entire Troubles took place in the Republic

Ah so the Dublin bombing was a hot topic now, not swept under the carpet. Sorry, my mistake.

Let me guess, the bastions of truth keeping people informed with accurate and free information in the relentless pursuit of justice. The BBC and RTE?

Your assertion is simply wrong

The Dublin government caved as regards pushing to find out the real truth of the bombings

But pretty much everybody down here believed there was British involvement from the get go

Open to correction but as far as I remember it was an ITV documentary in 1993 that contained the first real substantiation of this

The carping about BBC and RTE from Shinners is reminiscent of the Gembots

All yis are missing is an "RTE is the virus" avatar

BBC and RTE both had and have plenty of faults but yis sound like Celtic supporters going on about freemasons, yis sound nuts

Not in my experience. Even today if you stopped 10 random people in a southern Irish town and asked them what the B Specials were they wouldn't have a clue. You'd do better on the Dublin bombings (due to only recent publicity) but to describe the media and government response as anything other than a total whitewash would be extremely disingenuous. Some ITV documentary when the troubles were almost over, which would have limited viewership down South anyway, is stretching it to say we were all informed from the get go.

Not sure what the rest of your post is about. Maybe you think I'm someone else but I'd have little sympathy for the flak that comes government and media way. There is simply no appetite from media or government to get justice for those families. No pressure or awkward questions for politicians to deal with. In fact the hypocrisy was nauseating to see media or government trip over themselves in the rush when people like Paisley (most blood on hands from troubles) or Unionist politicians came to town, whether it be fawning over them on some Gay Byrne show or giving them a standing ovation in government buildings.

[sid waddell]

Sorry but it was exactly how the argument started

More revisionism

Unfortunately for you this time, there a written record.

The thing started with some typical moralising over a tweet from Brian Stanley regarding Kilmichael and Narrow Water

Stanley was glorifying the actual acts

There is no glory in such acts

None at all

Sure then there's nothing to stop the glorification of the Brighton bomb

Quote the bit where he glorified either Narrow Water or Kilmichael, like a good man. In reality, he described the both as a "pity for everyone".

Well if they were "a pity for everybody" are you now saying he regrets them?

Has Stanley ever shouted "Up The RA"?

David Cullinane certainly has

The Balcombe Street gang appeared at a Sinn Fein Ard Fheis

Sure then why not bring on the kidnappers of Don Tidey too, the guys who shot a Garda and an Irish Army man to death

This very much seems to me to be a party of glorification and revisionist rehabilitation of the PIRA

And that subscription to glorification and revisionist rehabilitation of the PIRA would certainly seem to me to be a core requirement of Sinn Fein membership, or at least candidacy

[Franko]

Sorry but it was exactly how the argument started

More revisionism

Unfortunately for you this time, there a written record.

The thing started with some typical moralising over a tweet from Brian Stanley regarding Kilmichael and Narrow Water

Stanley was glorifying the actual acts

There is no glory in such acts

None at all

Sure then there's nothing to stop the glorification of the Brighton bomb

Lol, really dancing on a pinhead here.

I take it nobody in the 26 glorifies the Kilmichael ambush.

Except for the time they built an actual f**king monument...

[Angelo]

Not only is there no appetite for the FS Government to get justice for the victims of the trouble.

They actively thwart it, they recently refused to release a report into the the murder of Aidan McAnespie that his family were very anxious for to be released in order to secure a conviction.

Then you have a government minister writing to the state broadcaster to question why they aired a documentary on collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in the murder of a wideranging number of nationalist civilians.

Sid is right from The Blueshirt genepool it seems.

[Snapchap]

Sorry but it was exactly how the argument started

More revisionism

Unfortunately for you this time, there a written record.

The thing started with some typical moralising over a tweet from Brian Stanley regarding Kilmichael and Narrow Water

Stanley was glorifying the actual acts

There is no glory in such acts

None at all

Sure then there's nothing to stop the glorification of the Brighton bomb

Quote the bit where he glorified either Narrow Water or Kilmichael, like a good man. In reality, he described the both as a "pity for everyone".

Well if they were "a pity for everybody" are you now saying he regrets them?

Has Stanley ever shouted "Up The RA"?

David Cullinane certainly has

The Balcombe Street gang appeared at a Sinn Fein Ard Fheis

Sure then why not bring on the kidnappers of Don Tidey too, the guys who shot a Garda and an Irish Army man to death

This very much seems to me to be a party of glorification and revisionist rehabilitation of the PIRA

And that subscription to glorification and revisionist rehabilitation of the PIRA would certainly seem to me to be a core requirement of Sinn Fein membership, or at least candidacy

As I suspected, you can't quote the part of his tweet that "glorified" what happened at Narrow Water or Kilmichael.

Meanwhile, does this count as glorification of Kilmichael?

[sid waddell]

The total denial of the media and governments as to what was happening also fuelled the anger and sense of inequality. The dogs on the street knew British security forces were in collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries but to say this to most people from the Free State until only very recently they would laugh in your face. To say it to an English person they would have you committed. Media spin is a powerful thing.

Utter nonsense

People in the Republic long believed there was Loyalist/British collusion, especially as the single most devastating event of the entire Troubles took place in the Republic

Ah so the Dublin bombing was a hot topic now, not swept under the carpet. Sorry, my mistake.

Let me guess, the bastions of truth keeping people informed with accurate and free information in the relentless pursuit of justice. The BBC and RTE?

Your assertion is simply wrong

The Dublin government caved as regards pushing to find out the real truth of the bombings

But pretty much everybody down here believed there was British involvement from the get go

Open to correction but as far as I remember it was an ITV documentary in 1993 that contained the first real substantiation of this

The carping about BBC and RTE from Shinners is reminiscent of the Gembots

All yis are missing is an "RTE is the virus" avatar

BBC and RTE both had and have plenty of faults but yis sound like Celtic supporters going on about freemasons, yis sound nuts

Not in my experience. Even today if you stopped 10 random people in a southern Irish town and asked them what the B Specials were they wouldn't have a clue. You'd do better on the Dublin bombings (due to only recent publicity) but to describe the media and government response as anything other than a total whitewash would be extremely disingenuous. Some ITV documentary when the troubles were almost over, which would have limited viewership down South anyway, is stretching it to say we were all informed from the get go.

Not sure what the rest of your post is about. Maybe you think I'm someone else but I'd have little sympathy for the flak that comes government and media way. There is simply no appetite from media or government to get justice for those families. No pressure or awkward questions for politicians to deal with. In fact the hypocrisy was nauseating to see media or government trip over themselves in the rush when people like Paisley (most blood on hands from troubles) or Unionist politicians came to town, whether it be fawning over them on some Gay Byrne show or giving them a standing ovation in government buildings.

I simply stated that the assertion that very few people in the Republic believed there was Loyalist/British collusion is wrong

It is wrong

It was widely assumed from the get go that there was collusion, especially as regards the Dublin and Monaghan bombs, a lot of northern posters here have a very strange view of the views of the people in the south

But sure what the hell would they know about these views? They didn't live here! 

I would wager that the average citizen of the Republic knew far more about the North than than the average Northern Catholic knew about the South, we got all your television, and we watched it

Christ, when I was a nipper I was under the assumption that there was Loyalist/British collusion, or in children's parlance, that they were "friends"

Ian Paisley was hated down here and so were Unionists and Unionism in general, Thatcher was certainly widely despised

I'd venture that very few young Northern Catholics these days could tell you very much about the B Specials

[Look-Up!]

Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

But the old IRA did win

They achieved an independent Irish state

The PIRA lost

They did not achieve what they wanted

Can you point me towards any evidence of the Old IRA outlining that their objective was to partition Ireland?

It wasn't their objective

Their objective was an independent Irish state

And that they got

No it wasn't. It was for an Irish Republic - in fact to be more precise they wanted recognition of the Irish republic declared in 1916, and run the Dail elected in 1917.

When the old IRA surrendered under the threat of "immediate and terrible war" what they got in return was a 26 county British Dominion in which parliamentarians had to swear allegiance to the British Crown.

"Home Rule for slow learners" if you paraphrase Seamus Mallon.  I don't say that to be disrespectful, at least half of the army of the Republic of first Dail broadly agreed with that conclusion.

The British Dominion then preserved this Dominion status by borrowing cannons from the British, and hiring ex-British servicemen to fight in the enduring civil war - committing unspeakable atrocities in the process (as did the other side).

The Republic was won (de jure) peacefully in 37. Declared (defacto) to in 49. Peacefully by diplomatic skill and opportunism.

The Old IRA had no chance of "winning" their war from the outset. That justification doesn't stack up Sid to support your argument.

A better example would have been Pearses surrender in 1916 where he explicitly done so to avoid more civilian casualties.

Well it was for an Irish Republic but they got an Irish Republic before long - the freedom to achieve freedom

And what was there from 22/23 was effectively an independent Irish state

It was unquestionably a victory

I don't think I would characterise it as a victory - more the "best defeat" that could be achieved.

Again - these men (aside from those who committed war crimes) were hero's. I mean them no disrespect - they deserve their exalted position in Irish history and long may that continue.

It wasn't total victory which was never achievable but of course it was a victory - a sort of a Rolling Stones "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need"

Home Rule would have meant remaining part of the United Kingdom

The Treaty meant the Free State ceased to be part of the United Kingdom with only a few Is to be dotted and a Ts to be crossed to get a Republic

Compared to what was believed achievable even six or seven years earlier, it was a totally seismic change

Even the most cursory analysis of the economy of the island in 1921 indicates that ireland was completely duped into declaring a partitioned "free state". Having shafted Ireland to such an extent that our population literally halved from the famine, the British came to the ingenious conclusion that they could offload the uncooperative Irish in the South, whilst retaining the industrial might of the North and protecting it with a privileged sectarian majority. Much like Some republicans claiming the GFA as a victory , the free staters claimed victory in 1921-whereas in reality they had been sold a pup. Only involvement in the EC , dubious government in the 80s,90s,00s and external Investment due to favourable tax environment, turned the economy around. As a fledgling "country" it wasn't easy , and abuse scandals, poor health service , influence of the Catholic Church and neglect of northern nationalists are examples  of how ROI has failed. However Ni has completely failed or at least run it's  course. Sectarian majority is now gone, the economy remains heavily subsidised, and English nationalists in power in Westminster will try to offload Ni , and the remaining unionist population which is a millstone round their neck. Offloading NI would be a legacy of which Boris would be proud.
A United ireland is now a "penalty kick". Uk would jump at it, but ironically the biggest barrier is northern nationalists who aren't working hard enough to persuade unionists and "freestaters" that it makes sense.

Like your posts 6th Sam.

I'd claim GFA as a victory for ordinary working class people on both sides of the divide or at least a great rebuilding point for the future from the horrors that went on before. For the hardliners, religious, imperialist and political zealots on both sides, it was surrender in my eyes thank God and I don't really care how their spin masters tell it.
I just hope ordinary decent people can see through all the BS and move away from this dogma. Although as you say the road will be long and hard, I think with baby steps and a couple of generations, there's no reason why a fair and united society cannot be achieved. Under what flag it will fly is another matter. Personally a United Ireland for me would be great but that might not suit everyone.