Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[sid waddell]

At the time the assassination of the Gibraltar 3 was celebrated and applauded by British politicians and media, it was and still is  accepted by the british state as a legitimate kill , but never did they recognise that those killed were soldiers of a kind.
Time to move on from the blame game,  claiming God's on my side and your side should wear the sackcloth and ashes.

Presumably this applies to Bloody Sunday too

Mad how far you can push "nationalists" in the name of logic, isn't it

All this is very interesting because SF now draw a clear distinction between PIRA acts in which civilians died and in which Brits died - because they saw the Brits as part of a conflict, a war in other words - their words

Yet Mairead Farrell TD and SF now refuse to draw any distinction between the killing of an active service PIRA member by the Brits - which remember, according to their own logic, was legitimate - and a group of civilian workmen slaughtered by the PIRA

SF are now saying that there was no difference between the killing of an active combatant of the killing of a civilian 

Which is total hypocrisy given their previous stance on different acts committed by the PIRA and their willingness to defend some of them but not others - because SF see some victims, bit not others, as legitimate

They have now directly reversed this stance

And in doing so, they are now saying that every act they ever committed was illegitimate

SF, masters of exclusive eternal victimhood - and supreme hypocrisy and stupidity

Your beloved Michael Martin, bought and sold for by property developers, showed us once again yesterday the absolute contempt he has for both Northern nationalists and victims of the troubles.

You really need to tackle your hypocrisies someday.

All you have in response when your and SF's total hypocrisy is called out is bluster

Laughable

You and SF draw a distinction between the deaths of Brits and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the PIRA?

You do, don't you?

So why are SF now obliterating that distinction?

You said it was a war, don't you?

You cry no tears for Brits who were killed by the PIRA

But then you're a total hypocrite as regards active PIRA service members who were killed by the Brits

Laughable

[sid waddell]

At the time the assassination of the Gibraltar 3 was celebrated and applauded by British politicians and media, it was and still is  accepted by the british state as a legitimate kill , but never did they recognise that those killed were soldiers of a kind.
Time to move on from the blame game,  claiming God's on my side and your side should wear the sackcloth and ashes.

Presumably this applies to Bloody Sunday too

Mad how far you can push "nationalists" in the name of logic, isn't it

All this is very interesting because SF now draw a clear distinction between PIRA acts in which civilians died and in which Brits died - because they saw the Brits as part of a conflict, a war in other words - their words

Yet Mairead Farrell TD and SF now refuse to draw any distinction between the killing of an active service PIRA member by the Brits - which remember, according to their own logic, was legitimate - and a group of civilian workmen slaughtered by the PIRA

SF are now saying that there was no difference between the killing of an active combatant of the killing of a civilian 

Which is total hypocrisy given their previous stance on different acts committed by the PIRA and their willingness to defend some of them but not others - because SF see some victims, bit not others, as legitimate

They have now directly reversed this stance

And in doing so, they are now saying that every act they ever committed was illegitimate

SF, masters of exclusive eternal victimhood - and supreme hypocrisy and stupidity

Your beloved Michael Martin, bought and sold for by property developers, showed us once again yesterday the absolute contempt he has for both Northern nationalists and victims of the troubles.

You really need to tackle your hypocrisies someday.

Oh, and who was to blame for Priory Hall, the biggest property disaster in the history of the state?

That's right, Tom McFeely, a hunger striker 

[Angelo]

At the time the assassination of the Gibraltar 3 was celebrated and applauded by British politicians and media, it was and still is  accepted by the british state as a legitimate kill , but never did they recognise that those killed were soldiers of a kind.
Time to move on from the blame game,  claiming God's on my side and your side should wear the sackcloth and ashes.

Presumably this applies to Bloody Sunday too

Mad how far you can push "nationalists" in the name of logic, isn't it

All this is very interesting because SF now draw a clear distinction between PIRA acts in which civilians died and in which Brits died - because they saw the Brits as part of a conflict, a war in other words - their words

Yet Mairead Farrell TD and SF now refuse to draw any distinction between the killing of an active service PIRA member by the Brits - which remember, according to their own logic, was legitimate - and a group of civilian workmen slaughtered by the PIRA

SF are now saying that there was no difference between the killing of an active combatant of the killing of a civilian 

Which is total hypocrisy given their previous stance on different acts committed by the PIRA and their willingness to defend some of them but not others - because SF see some victims, bit not others, as legitimate

They have now directly reversed this stance

And in doing so, they are now saying that every act they ever committed was illegitimate

SF, masters of exclusive eternal victimhood - and supreme hypocrisy and stupidity

Your beloved Michael Martin, bought and sold for by property developers, showed us once again yesterday the absolute contempt he has for both Northern nationalists and victims of the troubles.

You really need to tackle your hypocrisies someday.

Oh, and who was to blame for Priory Hall, the biggest property disaster in the history of the state?

That's right, Tom McFeely, a hunger striker 

You're reeling Sid. You and guttersnipe Martin are cosy bedfellows

[Rossfan]

They'll be part of a Coalition and won't be let near the Justice Department.

If there is a coalition they will be largest party so will have choice of departments.

Not necessarily as it will be subject to  negotiations in setting up a Coalition.
Assuming of course that the 14% that switched to SF between May 19 and Feb 20 stay on board plus the 3% extra in the last opinion poll.
That poll in a GE should give roughly
FG 48-50 seats
SF 46- 48
FF 30 -32

[marty34]

South Africa held a Truth and Reconciliation commission after apartheid ended which went some waying to dealing with the issues in their country. There doesn't seem to be any interest from any party to do something in this country. Instead we see victims used as political footballs by politicans (especially come elections) in both the north and the south

Correct me if I am wrong but have SF not been calling for one for years?

I don't know? Its not something they've made an issue of in the south anyway. I don't remember hearing about it as part of their election manifesto down here. It certainly wasn't an issue they or any other party brought up in the campaign

SF have been calling for an international independent truth commission for decades but guess what? The Free State, the Brits and unionism don't want it because what will show how northern nationalists were terrorised by the state while all three parties against this commission (Britsih state, Free State, Unionism) were either actively involved in it or sat on their hands and helped cover it up.

Do you really think FFG want the truth to come out about the Dublin/Monaghan bombings? That they knew of British state involvement in the mass murder of their citizens and tried to suppress that information and thwart the investigation?

Sssshh Angelo, Dublin7 doesn't want to hear things like that - it doesn't suit his narrative.

His use of the word 'terrorist' is the give away.

How would you decscribe the IRA/UVF etc Would you call them freedom fighters?

Which IRA are you talking about?

The good IRA or the bad IRA?

There are alot of offshoots/groups from the original 1919 version aren't there. I'd struggle to name them all to be honest. To keep it simple I would describe the IRA, Provsional IRA etc. and all the other versions formed from the 1970s onwards as terrorist organisations. I can see why they were originally formed to help people in the early days,no one would object to that, but somewhere along the way that changed and you ended up with organisations launching bombing campaigns against innocent people. How would you describe them?

You worded that very well indeed - typical Fianna Gael.

So the 'old' IRA were noble warriors etc. etc.

People in the north won't be taking lectures from the likes of you.

When the comparsion is made between the two, the free staters soon trip over themselves with the classic 'but that was different...blah, blah blah.

Look if you want to go back to 1916 and call them terrorists go ahead. You asked my opinion and for me the IRA were terrorists. I don't see how you can call them anything else.

In terms of the truth and reconciliation SF claim to want does anybody seriously think Gerry Adams for example would stand up and give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or do you think he would continue to deny he had any role in the IRA?

How Fianna Gael squirm when you bring up the 'old' IRA...hyprocrites  for all to see.

[dublin7]

What are you talking about Marty? If you want to consider those involved in the 1916 rising terrorists go ahead. You still haven't said why you don't think the IRA was a terrorist organization.

[dublin7]

They'll be part of a Coalition and won't be let near the Justice Department.

If there is a coalition they will be largest party so will have choice of departments.

Not necessarily as it will be subject to  negotiations in setting up a Coalition.
Assuming of course that the 14% that switched to SF between May 19 and Feb 20 stay on board plus the 3% extra in the last opinion poll.
That poll in a GE should give roughly
FG 48-50 seats
SF 46- 48
FF 30 -32

One thing in SF's favour at the last election was they only ran one candidate in most constituencies. Even Mary Lou didn't try to bring in a running mate even though she must have been certain she would get elected. That meant while FG/FF/Lab votes were split amongst their candidates there was only on SF candidate who in most cases topped the poll.

Big decision in the next election for Mary Lou. Does she run more candidates, which splits their vote and risk losing seats or go for it and potentially make them the biggest party in the next Dail

[Snapchap]

Fair play to him.

SF scored an own goal by having Stanley delete his original tweet, there was nothing wrong with it and they should not have rolled over to the absolute scum in the Free State establishment parties who continue to use victims of the troubles as political footballs.

Angelo and Mairead Farrell TD now using Farrell's aunt as a political football

SF hypocrisy never sleeps

You're the only one who referenced the death of Mairead Farrell.

It's not surprising to see a shoneen like yourself back up a corrupt weasel like Martin and how he uses victims to score political points.

Whose death do you think Mairead Farrell TD was referencing when she said she was a bereaved relative of the Troubles?

She was speaking on behalf of the 3,500 other bereaved relatives who signed the recent letter to him. Maybe you missed that bit. Did you miss the bit too where Martin refused to say he would even meet with the victims group they were represented by? Did you miss the bit where he refused to commit to the enactment of victims and survivors procedures as outlined in an international agreement that the Irish Government signed up to in 2014?

[Snapchap]

What are you talking about Marty? If you want to consider those involved in the 1916 rising terrorists go ahead. You still haven't said why you don't think the IRA was a terrorist organization.

You were asked if YOU consider the 1916 Vols and the Old IRA as terrorists. So again, do you?

[dublin7]

What are you talking about Marty? If you want to consider those involved in the 1916 rising terrorists go ahead. You still haven't said why you don't think the IRA was a terrorist organization.

You were asked if YOU consider the 1916 Vols and the Old IRA as terrorists. So again, do you?

They could be considered terrorists, yes. There are differences though. They occupied buildings and did their fighting against the British army. They didn't use car bombs as part of a long term campaign to target innocent people/business or detonate bombs in pubs full of innocent people. The Birmingham pub bombings (that saw innocent people jailed for it, while no one from the IRA has ever been prosecuted or admitted to it as far as I'm aware)or Omagh bombings were both carried out by the IRA. How could they be considered anything other than acts of terror?

As Marty won't answer my question, would you tell me why you don't consider the modern IRA terrorists?Also if you wouldn't mind answering If there was a truth and reconciliation commission do you think Gerry Adams would attend and continue to deny he was ever involved in the IRA?

[Snapchap]

What are you talking about Marty? If you want to consider those involved in the 1916 rising terrorists go ahead. You still haven't said why you don't think the IRA was a terrorist organization.

You were asked if YOU consider the 1916 Vols and the Old IRA as terrorists. So again, do you?

They could be considered terrorists, yes. There are differences though. They occupied buildings and did their fighting against the British army. They didn't use car bombs as part of a long term campaign to target innocent people/business or detonate bombs in pubs full of innocent people. The Birmingham pub bombings (that saw innocent people jailed for it, while no one from the IRA has ever been prosecuted or admitted to it as far as I'm aware)or Omagh bombings were both carried out by the IRA. How could they be considered anything other than acts of terror?

As Marty won't answer my question, would you tell me why you don't consider the modern IRA terrorists?Also if you wouldn't mind answering If there was a truth and reconciliation commission do you think Gerry Adams would attend and continue to deny he was ever involved in the IRA?

Do YOU consider them terrorists? And indeed there were differences between the Old IRA and PIRA. For instance, the Old IRA disappeared close to 200 (mostly innocent) people in 3 years. The PIRA disappeared 14 in 40 years. What does that tell you about the Old IRA and it's attitude to civilians? Does it hint to you that they were every bit as culpable (and more) at killing them as the PIRA were, perhaps?

By the way, the PIRA didn't bomb Omagh. That this needs explained to you says it all.

And no, I do not consider either the PIRA or Old IRA as terrorists. Like any armed group, in any armed conflict that people regard as legitimate, there were actions carried out by both the Old IRA and PIRA which were unjustified and deplorable. That doesn't mean their campaign as a whole was unjustified. For both IRA's, the OVERWHELMING majority of operations they carried out were directed against British forces and/or insfrastructure and both campaigns took place when no alternative was viable.

[dublin7]

We'll have to agree to disagree on pretty much everything you said there. If the IRA didn't carry out the Omagh bombing who did? I thought it was the RIRA. Does that not count as the IRA?

Serious question you didn't answer. Do you believe Gerry Adams was never in the IRA? That's his story and he has to stick to it at this stage, but is there anyone who actually believes him?

[Main Street]

I just watched it,  a dreadful input from Martin, he just keeps digging his and FF's political grave with the same old gormless negative tactics. He's totally out of touch. FF have no political identity to distinguish itself from Fine Gael and Fine Gael do it much better.  If anyone is to go,  send Varadkar to the White House, keep that idiot in lockdown.

[trailer]

What are you talking about Marty? If you want to consider those involved in the 1916 rising terrorists go ahead. You still haven't said why you don't think the IRA was a terrorist organization.

You were asked if YOU consider the 1916 Vols and the Old IRA as terrorists. So again, do you?

They could be considered terrorists, yes. There are differences though. They occupied buildings and did their fighting against the British army. They didn't use car bombs as part of a long term campaign to target innocent people/business or detonate bombs in pubs full of innocent people. The Birmingham pub bombings (that saw innocent people jailed for it, while no one from the IRA has ever been prosecuted or admitted to it as far as I'm aware)or Omagh bombings were both carried out by the IRA. How could they be considered anything other than acts of terror?

As Marty won't answer my question, would you tell me why you don't consider the modern IRA terrorists?Also if you wouldn't mind answering If there was a truth and reconciliation commission do you think Gerry Adams would attend and continue to deny he was ever involved in the IRA?

Do YOU consider them terrorists? And indeed there were differences between the Old IRA and PIRA. For instance, the Old IRA disappeared close to 200 (mostly innocent) people in 3 years. The PIRA disappeared 14 in 40 years. What does that tell you about the Old IRA and it's attitude to civilians? Does it hint to you that they were every bit as culpable (and more) at killing them as the PIRA were, perhaps?

By the way, the PIRA didn't bomb Omagh. That this needs explained to you says it all.

And no, I do not consider either the PIRA or Old IRA as terrorists. Like any armed group, in any armed conflict that people regard as legitimate, there were actions carried out by both the Old IRA and PIRA which were unjustified and deplorable. That doesn't mean their campaign as a whole was unjustified. For both IRA's, the OVERWHELMING majority of operations they carried out were directed against British forces and/or insfrastructure and both campaigns took place when no alternative was viable.

You can't debate this. The murder of innocent people including children is abhorrent.

[GAABoardMod5]

Will put this thread on LOCKED status for a few days.

Anybody that attempts to re-open the topic on another thread will be banned.

Permanently.

That includes references to what started the last outburst (Taoiseach's comments to SF member) and any references to the Troubles and the rights/wrongs of any conflict.

Everybody just take a few days away from the board - a few 2-day bans are in order as well.