A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.

[trailer]

Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

[johnnycool]

Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article? 

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

[trailer]

Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article? 

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

[johnnycool]

Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article? 

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

[Rossfan]

And Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,  Gaza...............etc etc etc

[trailer]

Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article? 

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

I don't follow. What is your point?
Are you are telling me the IRA was supported by a government in its failed war against Britain? Are you suggesting that the IRA was actually supported widely in it's campaign?

[johnnycool]

Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article? 

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

I don't follow. What is your point?
Are you are telling me the IRA was supported by a government in its failed war against Britain? Are you suggesting that the IRA was actually supported widely in it's campaign?

I'm saying violence is violence irrespective if its carried out by a grouping, a faction, an army, a state or whoever, innocent people die at the end of it.

Some countries use the mask of the Geneva convention, but that is just for show as our neighbours can justify.

Have an army, support that army and you defacto support violence or the threat of violence as a means to an end, no different to what Gerry says.

Scale is irrelevant.

What is your stance on a Nuclear "deterrent"?

[trailer]

Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article? 

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

I don't follow. What is your point?
Are you are telling me the IRA was supported by a government in its failed war against Britain? Are you suggesting that the IRA was actually supported widely in it's campaign?

I'm saying violence is violence irrespective if its carried out by a grouping, a faction, an army, a state or whoever, innocent people die at the end of it.

Some countries use the mask of the Geneva convention, but that is just for show as our neighbours can justify.

Have an army, support that army and you defacto support violence or the threat of violence as a means to an end, no different to what Gerry says.

Scale is irrelevant.

What is your stance on a Nuclear "deterrent"?

I'm against it. I'm against all violence. Gerry isn't, that's fine that's his view.
Interesting how Gerry condones the violence against British and Irish people. Yet Sinn Fein want murders committed against the IRA to be investigated etc. Sinn Fein also condemned the IS attacks across the world yet IS are committing these in order to further their own political ends. I'm sorry but Gerry Adams & Sinn Fein are all over the place when it comes to this.

[johnnycool]

Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article? 

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

I don't follow. What is your point?
Are you are telling me the IRA was supported by a government in its failed war against Britain? Are you suggesting that the IRA was actually supported widely in it's campaign?

I'm saying violence is violence irrespective if its carried out by a grouping, a faction, an army, a state or whoever, innocent people die at the end of it.

Some countries use the mask of the Geneva convention, but that is just for show as our neighbours can justify.

Have an army, support that army and you defacto support violence or the threat of violence as a means to an end, no different to what Gerry says.

Scale is irrelevant.

What is your stance on a Nuclear "deterrent"?

I'm against it. I'm against all violence. Gerry isn't, that's fine that's his view.
Interesting how Gerry condones the violence against British and Irish people. Yet Sinn Fein want murders committed against the IRA to be investigated etc. Sinn Fein also condemned the IS attacks across the world yet IS are committing these in order to further their own political ends. I'm sorry but Gerry Adams & Sinn Fein are all over the place when it comes to this.

No different to any western powers condemning IS attacks yet they're the ones making a mess of the Middle East.
They're all hyprocrites

[full moon]

Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article? 

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

I don't follow. What is your point?
Are you are telling me the IRA was supported by a government in its failed war against Britain? Are you suggesting that the IRA was actually supported widely in it's campaign?

I'm saying violence is violence irrespective if its carried out by a grouping, a faction, an army, a state or whoever, innocent people die at the end of it.

Some countries use the mask of the Geneva convention, but that is just for show as our neighbours can justify.

Have an army, support that army and you defacto support violence or the threat of violence as a means to an end, no different to what Gerry says.

Scale is irrelevant.

What is your stance on a Nuclear "deterrent"?

I'm against it. I'm against all violence. Gerry isn't, that's fine that's his view.
Interesting how Gerry condones the violence against British and Irish people. Yet Sinn Fein want murders committed against the IRA to be investigated etc. Sinn Fein also condemned the IS attacks across the world yet IS are committing these in order to further their own political ends. I'm sorry but Gerry Adams & Sinn Fein are all over the place when it comes to this.

Do you have any clue about the the history of violence in Ireland and the formation of the Irish Free State? The historical igorance is breathtaking.

[yellowcard]

Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.

Adams in that article has justified the use of violence in the past which I cannot support but I don't exactly find it surprising either.

However, I cannot see exactly where he has sanctioned the resumption of violence in future.

[full moon]

There would be no Irish republic without violence. Fact.

There would be no Good Friday Agreement without violence. Fact number 2.

[yellowcard]

There would be no Irish republic without violence. Fact.

There would be no Good Friday Agreement without violence. Fact number 2.

The first statement is a fact. The second one is just an opinion not a fact because we really don't know.

[AhNowRef]

PS.

There is so much wrong with your original post that it's not even worth discussing.  To read that article and come up with that rubbish points to you either having a HUGE agenda which means you will basically draw any conclusion you want, regardless of the facts... or you are barely literate.

You are convincing no-one with that sort of bullshit.

And under your view/opinion, no one can have a contrary view to SF.  There are many who do not and never will agree with SF in their past, current or future actions.  Any opinion contrary to that of SF and/or those in support of its leadership has no value in your world but not surprising.

Here Owen, I think you've just ruined your argument right there .. the bits in bold sort of give the game away dont you think   

[trailer]

There would be no Irish republic without violence. Fact.

There would be no Good Friday Agreement without violence. Fact number 2.

Utter bullshit. A lie peddled by the IRA to account for years of terrorism and racketeering against the very communities they profuse to protect.