The SDLP

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

im right, as I said having sympathy for ( which is what the report says)and actually doing something is completely different. I have sympathy for Hamas ffs.

The debate wasn't about who was "doing something". It was about the level of support the IRA has from the nationalist community. You suggested that the level was "max 20%". The QUB study says 42%. Over twice your guess. You were, yet again, wrong.

There is a book of remembrance in Rath Mór Creggan. Every single person's who actively helped the movement family is approached upon their death to see if the family want them in there.
That help can have been a safe house, comms smuggled into the Kesh, membership, anything- well have a look at the numbers,  what I said is that it was a significant minority and would never have passed 20% at any one time. In the 1982 election when you thought sympathy should have been at its highest SF only got 10% of vote, ah thats right they were all voting SDLP sure.

Again, this isn't evidence. If you want to refute the findding of an academic study, you need to produce research contradicting it. I'm still waiting.

The Derry SF Twitterati have gone very quiet recently , must have been a memo from Mary Lou. i suppose it will give Monga time to concentrate of his fulltime job as "bonfire officer" in the council! Wtf having a laugh, council jobs with pensions givien out, that got some laugh here I tell you that. Nepotism again.

I don't follow any "Derry SF twitterati" so I've no idea what you're on about.

No  and they dont need flats or houses in London which us the tax payer pays for, what constituency work is done in London? You cant run with fox and the hounds

They don't need accomodation? You think that the only think MPs do in Westminster attend sessions in the chamber? You really need to get a grip on what MPs actually do. To quote Professor Jon Tonge, "They are in London with ever-greater frequency these days, They regularly have meetings in Portcullis House. They are quite a big presence there these days. But they won't enter the chamber. In every other capacity you could argue that Sinn Fein are good constituency MPs." In fact, last year, the "People Power Index" which assesses the individual activity of every MP, found that Paul Makey came into the top 10% of all 650 MPs. Results also showed that out of the 18 MPs in the north, all of the SF MPS except one, came in with the highest score. The only non-SF MP to be in the top 7 was the DUPs Jim Shannon. Bearing in mind that the index takes voting record into consideration, then the fact that SF rate so highly on the scale, and the fact that Paul Maskey, despite not having any voting record still comes in in the top 10%, shows how much they work on behalf of constituents.

Again you are really over estimating the definition of the word sympathy, you are actually arguing here to prove that a significant minority of nationalists supported IRA violence versus a  minority.  A minority is a minority. Cloud cuckoo land.

Of course the book is evidence, I have family members in it. So the election results are not evidence, the well documented membership numbers aren't evidence(600 members by 1996 from a nationalist population of 800K ), the book of volunteers isn't evidence, pointless really gathering all this data for snapchat to say its all balls.

That report has to be seriously flawed, Elisha McCallion scoreed well, lol lol. She had a lovely shiny office you know with a great "contact details" and a fantastic "twitter account" . Wise up, we knew the craic and she got dumped, that report must be seriously flawed by Change.org.  based on that

Paul Who?

[Angelo]

im right, as I said having sympathy for ( which is what the report says)and actually doing something is completely different. I have sympathy for Hamas ffs.

The debate wasn't about who was "doing something". It was about the level of support the IRA has from the nationalist community. You suggested that the level was "max 20%". The QUB study says 42%. Over twice your guess. You were, yet again, wrong.

There is a book of remembrance in Rath Mór Creggan. Every single person's who actively helped the movement family is approached upon their death to see if the family want them in there.
That help can have been a safe house, comms smuggled into the Kesh, membership, anything- well have a look at the numbers,  what I said is that it was a significant minority and would never have passed 20% at any one time. In the 1982 election when you thought sympathy should have been at its highest SF only got 10% of vote, ah thats right they were all voting SDLP sure.

Again, this isn't evidence. If you want to refute the findding of an academic study, you need to produce research contradicting it. I'm still waiting.

The Derry SF Twitterati have gone very quiet recently , must have been a memo from Mary Lou. i suppose it will give Monga time to concentrate of his fulltime job as "bonfire officer" in the council! Wtf having a laugh, council jobs with pensions givien out, that got some laugh here I tell you that. Nepotism again.

I don't follow any "Derry SF twitterati" so I've no idea what you're on about.

No  and they dont need flats or houses in London which us the tax payer pays for, what constituency work is done in London? You cant run with fox and the hounds

They don't need accomodation? You think that the only think MPs do in Westminster attend sessions in the chamber? You really need to get a grip on what MPs actually do. To quote Professor Jon Tonge, "They are in London with ever-greater frequency these days, They regularly have meetings in Portcullis House. They are quite a big presence there these days. But they won't enter the chamber. In every other capacity you could argue that Sinn Fein are good constituency MPs." In fact, last year, the "People Power Index" which assesses the individual activity of every MP, found that Paul Makey came into the top 10% of all 650 MPs. Results also showed that out of the 18 MPs in the north, all of the SF MPS except one, came in with the highest score. The only non-SF MP to be in the top 7 was the DUPs Jim Shannon. Bearing in mind that the index takes voting record into consideration, then the fact that SF rate so highly on the scale, and the fact that Paul Maskey, despite not having any voting record still comes in in the top 10%, shows how much they work on behalf of constituents.

Again you are really over estimating the definition of the word sympathy, you are actually arguing here to prove that a significant minority of nationalists supported IRA violence versus a  minority.  A minority is a minority. Cloud cuckoo land.

Of course the book is evidence, I have family members in it. So the election results are not evidence, the well documented membership numbers aren't evidence(600 members by 1996 from a nationalist population of 800K ), the book of volunteers isn't evidence, pointless really gathering all this data for snapchat to say its all balls.

That report has to be seriously flawed, Elisha McCallion scoreed well, lol lol. She had a lovely shiny office you know with a great "contact details" and a fantastic "twitter account" . Wise up, we knew the craic and she got dumped, that report must be seriously flawed by Change.org.  based on that

Paul Who?

You've changed your tack now.

[Snapchap]

Again you are really over estimating the definition of the word sympathy, you are actually arguing here to prove that a significant minority of nationalists supported IRA violence versus a  minority.  A minority is a minority. Cloud cuckoo land.

I didn't argue that a majority of nationalists did support the IRA. I'm arguing that a significant number did. I substantiated that claim with academic research. You claimed they only had "max 20%" support among nationalists. You were demonstrably wrong according to, you know, the actual scientific research.

Of course the book is evidence, I have family members in it. So the election results are not evidence, the well documented membership numbers aren't evidence(600 members by 1996 from a nationalist population of 800K ), the book of volunteers isn't evidence, pointless really gathering all this data for snapchat to say its all balls.

A fu****g book in Derry is not a referendum on how the nationalist people viewed the IRA, ya ejit. Have you considered the possibility that maybe some people don't give a s**t about putting their name in a book? Or that some people might have sympathised with/supported the IRA but don't want to have that written in a book for the world to see? As the QUB research I directed you to says, "Using public opinion surveys to gauge public support for political violence is problematic; most respondents are loath to admit their support for physical force in a personal interview". They explained that that's why they didn't do their research via interview. So it's probably also why they didn't ask respondents to write their name in a f**king publicly displayed book if they ever symapathised with the IRA. 

That report has to be seriously flawed, Elisha McCallion scoreed well, lol lol. She had a lovely shiny office you know with a great "contact details" and a fantastic "twitter account" . Wise up, we knew the craic and she got dumped, that report must be seriously flawed by Change.org.

Flawed? It's based on data, not opinions. Just because you don't like what the data shows doesn't mean you get to decide it is wrong. That's not how statistical analysis works.

Paul Who?

Paul Maskey

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

Again you are really over estimating the definition of the word sympathy, you are actually arguing here to prove that a significant minority of nationalists supported IRA violence versus a  minority.  A minority is a minority. Cloud cuckoo land.

I didn't argue that a majority of nationalists did support the IRA. I'm arguing that a significant number did. I substantiated that claim with academic research. You claimed they only had approximately 20% support among nationalists. You were demonstrably wrong according to, you know, the actual scientific research.

Of course the book is evidence, I have family members in it. So the election results are not evidence, the well documented membership numbers aren't evidence(600 members by 1996 from a nationalist population of 800K ), the book of volunteers isn't evidence, pointless really gathering all this data for snapchat to say its all balls.

A fu****g book in Derry is not a referendum on how the nationalist people views the IRA, ya ejit. Have you considered the possibility that maybe some people don't give a s**t about putting their name in a book? Or that some people might have sympathised with/supported the IRA but don't want to have that written in a book for the world to see? As the QUB research I directed you to says, "Using public opinion surveys to gauge public support for political violence is problematic; most respondents are loath to admit their support for physical force in a personal interview". They explained that that's why they didn't do their research via interview. So it's probably also why they didn't ask respondents to write their name in a f**king publicly displayed book if they ever symapathised with the IRA. 

That report has to be seriously flawed, Elisha McCallion scoreed well, lol lol. She had a lovely shiny office you know with a great "contact details" and a fantastic "twitter account" . Wise up, we knew the craic and she got dumped, that report must be seriously flawed by Change.org.

Flawed? It's based on data, not opinions. Just because you don't like what the data shows doesn't mean you get to decide it is wrong. That's not how statistical data works.

Paul Who?

Paul Maskey

The book isn't publically displayed, its in SF offices.
The report from change.org very obviously uses criteria that doesn't reflect MP effectiveness based on election results.
The Queens report has never been independently critiqued as far as I can see, although id say the broad findings were accurate- ie significant minority was the conclusion, max 20% would be my personal experience through late 70s and into 80s
Yes you are right some people did refuse to write their name in the book, but mostly because their families were betrayed by a rotten set up riddled with touts, and gangsters.
,
And you have called me a number of names now. Bad form.

[Snapchap]

The book isn't publicly displayed, its in SF offices.

LOL it gets better! So what about nationalists that don't like SF, but did support/sympathise with the IRA campaign? Do you think they would bother going into a SF office to sign a SF book? Would you wise the head. And if anyone can write in it, then it's a public book! A book in a SF office in Derry is not a scientific measurement of nationalist support for the armed struggle. Most people don't need that spelled out to them. If it was, then QUB would probably not have bothered with their research. Sure why would they carry out a research project when there's a book in Creggan, eh?

The report from change.org very obviously uses criteria that doesn't reflect MP effectiveness based on election results.

The criteria it uses is in the link provided. It measures their effectiveness based on their level of activity as an MP. Once again, just because you don't like the data, doesn't mean you get to argue with it.

The Queens report has never been independently critiqued as far as I can see, although id say the broad findings were accurate- ie significant minority was the conclusion, max 20% would be my personal experience through late 70s and into 80s

Never been independently critiqued? What do you want? Another research project on the same topic? Because that report referenced previous research projects, which it noted achieved similar findings. These previous projects are listed in the appendix. So multiple scientific research projects, each coming to similar findings, or a book in a SF office in Creggan....which to use as a reliable reliable evidence into the subject matter...hmmmmm that's a tough one 

Yes you are right some people did refuse to write their name in the book, but mostly because their families were betrayed by a rotten set up riddled with touts, and gangsters.

"Mostly"? Did you survey every nationalist who didn't write their name in this book? Or are you talking through your hoop again?

And you have called me a number of names now. Bad form.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

The book isn't publicly displayed, its in SF offices.

LOL it gets better! So what about nationalists that don't like SF, but did support/sympathise with the IRA campaign? Do you think they would bother going into a SF office to sign a SF book? Would you wise the head. And if anyone can write in it, then it's a public book! A book in a SF office in Derry is not a scientific measurement of nationalist support for the armed struggle. Most people don't need that spelled out to them. If it was, then QUB would probably not have bothered with their research. Sure why would they carry out a research project when there's a book in Creggan, eh?

The report from change.org very obviously uses criteria that doesn't reflect MP effectiveness based on election results.

The criteria it uses is in the link provided. It measures their effectiveness based on their level of activity as an MP. Once again, just because you don't like the data, doesn't mean you get to argue with it.

The Queens report has never been independently critiqued as far as I can see, although id say the broad findings were accurate- ie significant minority was the conclusion, max 20% would be my personal experience through late 70s and into 80s

Never been independently critiqued? What do you want? Another research project on the same topic? Because that report referenced previous research projects, which it noted achieved similar findings. These previous projects are listed in the appendix. So multiple scientific research projects, each coming to similar findings, or a book in a SF office in Creggan....which to use as a reliable reliable evidence into the subject matter...hmmmmm that's a tough one 

Yes you are right some people did refuse to write their name in the book, but mostly because their families were betrayed by a rotten set up riddled with touts, and gangsters.

"Mostly"? Did you survey every nationalist who didn't write their name in this book? Or are you talking through your hoop again?

And you have called me a number of names now. Bad form.

You don't write in the book , you are approached and asked(as I was) can we enter your relatives name in the book. Some people have refused which admittedly skews the statistics, but by and large people have signed it. The numbers would be pretty reflective of who supported the movement.


Yes and normally academic papers get challenged by counter studies, that is pretty normal in the world of academia and I am sure that another study with questions structured differently could give entirely different results. Again that is normal.  That's why we have elections to see what people really think and support, and back then they didn't vote SF in numbers.

Anyhow we all agree it was a significant minority. 600 volunteers at the end, probably would have been more if it wasnt for likes of Stakenife and Dennis Donaldson- I mean did many high ranking Brits defect to us?

SF only grew significantly once they gave up the gun. It was a failed war in many ways and a deflating experience for a lot of us

[Snapchap]

You don't write in the book , you are approached and asked(as I was) can we enter your relatives name in the book. Some people have refused which admittedly skews the statistics, but by and large people have signed it. The numbers would be pretty reflective of who supported the movement.

Skews the statistics? The book isn't statistical!! It's a book that only those invited can write in. And you yourself said that it is only for those who "actively helped the movement". So by your own admission, it has nothing to do with measuring those who supported/sympathised with the armed campaign. Only those who actively aided it.
Furthermore, if it's only for those people who actively aided the armed campaign, and you say that many of those invited didn't sign it, then you're basically claiming that those who helped the armed campaign didn't actually support said campaign unless they have signed this book. Utter codswallop. So can we drop this nonsense about the book once and for all, please?

Yes and normally academic papers get challenged by counter studies, that is pretty normal in the world of academia and I am sure that another study with questions structured differently could give entirely different results. Again that is normal.  That's why we have elections to see what people really think and support, and back then they didn't vote SF in numbers.

And, as I already pointed out to you, there have been no fewer than three previous studies. These previous ones were referenced in the study I linked. Each one of them came to similar conclusions. So now not only are you telling the authors of one academic study that that are wrong, but you are telling the authors of THREE MORE reports that their conclusions are also wrong.

Anyhow we all agree it was a significant minority. 600 volunteers at the end, probably would have been more if it wasn't for likes of Stakenife and Dennis Donaldson- I mean did many high ranking Brits defect to us?

We all agree now that it was at least a significant minority. Which is a change in tone from your "max 20%" claim.

SF only grew significantly once they gave up the gun. It was a failed war in many ways and a deflating experience for a lot of us

They also grew significantly when they began to properly organise themselves and devote themselves wholly to competing electorally, and when a state assassination campaign against it's reps and party workers came to an end.

[LCohen]

There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.

Staggering ignorance.

Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?

But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all 

I'm not condoning any of that. But the scale of denying history pales compared to SF. As we all know the IRA never commanded majority nationalist support within NI. Show me a single occasion where a SF politician has admitted that.

You know as well as I do that SF are sitting on a massive reserve of knowledge of who did what and literally where the bodies are hidden. They are in no big rush to get it out there.

Also the shenanigans that the IRA where up and in some places are still up to to fund their campaign. They need to come clean on that. Need to clean their whole act on that.

Can you imagine SF being in charge of justice in the north or south?

As for Omagh. It wasn't the IRA. It was a renegade bunch of former IRA operatives who view more like the IRA than the IRA themselves.

What a load of incredible nonsense.

While we're on the free state parties, what sort of reconciliation process took place after The War of Independence and Civil War?

They are the parties over justice down South.

Look across the water at the UK. We're 50 years on from the troubles - what justice have the families of Bloody Sunday got? Ballymurphy? Loughinsland? Dublin and Monaghan? The war on Iraq.

You really need to take your head out of the sand.

It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?

It's not nonsense to suggest that SF have considerable knowledge of the IRA atrocities. It's not nonsense to say they are sitting on this

It's not nonsense to finger dissidents for the Omagh bomb.

Incredible that you labelled my post as nonsense.

I have no idea why you are asking me about the post civil war period. I have no skin in that game.

SF inability to touch a justice brief is their link in many locations to serious organised crime. There is no chance that SF will be allowed that brief in either jurisdiction.

As for the inquiries you mentioned I am all for inquiries. Let's get at all these cases. Prospects of conviction will be low but let's prepare files on all them and run the ones that stand a chance in front of a court.

[LCohen]

There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.

Staggering ignorance.

Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?

But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all 

A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.

Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.

The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.

The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.

Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.

The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.

You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?

Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.

We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.

Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?

They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.

And on and on you go. I am not arguing with you about the need to investigate those. Investigate them all. Hold everyone to account including republicanism. I am not favouring one side over another. Get at them all.

SF did participate in elections. And were roundly seen off. The support was never there .

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

You don't write in the book , you are approached and asked(as I was) can we enter your relatives name in the book. Some people have refused which admittedly skews the statistics, but by and large people have signed it. The numbers would be pretty reflective of who supported the movement.

Skews the statistics? The book isn't statistical!! It's a book that only those invited can write in. And you yourself said that it is only for those who "actively helped the movement". So by your own admission, it has nothing to do with measuring those who supported/sympathised with the armed campaign. Only those who actively aided it.
Furthermore, if it's only for those people who actively aided the armed campaign, and you say that many of those invited didn't sign it, then you're basically claiming that those who helped the armed campaign didn't actually support said campaign unless they have signed this book. Utter codswallop. So can we drop this nonsense about the book once and for all, please?

Yes and normally academic papers get challenged by counter studies, that is pretty normal in the world of academia and I am sure that another study with questions structured differently could give entirely different results. Again that is normal.  That's why we have elections to see what people really think and support, and back then they didn't vote SF in numbers.

And, as I already pointed out to you, there have been no fewer than three previous studies. These previous ones were referenced in the study I linked. Each one of them came to similar conclusions. So now not only are you telling the authors of one academic study that that are wrong, but you are telling the authors of THREE MORE reports that their conclusions are also wrong.

Anyhow we all agree it was a significant minority. 600 volunteers at the end, probably would have been more if it wasn't for likes of Stakenife and Dennis Donaldson- I mean did many high ranking Brits defect to us?

We all agree now that it was at least a significant minority. Which is a change in tone from your "max 20%" claim.

SF only grew significantly once they gave up the gun. It was a failed war in many ways and a deflating experience for a lot of us

They also grew significantly when they began to properly organise themselves and devote themselves wholly to competing electorally, and when a state assassination campaign against it's reps and party workers came to an end.

20% is a significant minority and all data collection wheter qualitative or quantitative is statistical you tube

[Angelo]

It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?

It's not nonsense to suggest that SF have considerable knowledge of the IRA atrocities. It's not nonsense to say they are sitting on this

It's not nonsense to finger dissidents for the Omagh bomb.

Incredible that you labelled my post as nonsense.

I have no idea why you are asking me about the post civil war period. I have no skin in that game.

SF inability to touch a justice brief is their link in many locations to serious organised crime. There is no chance that SF will be allowed that brief in either jurisdiction.

As for the inquiries you mentioned I am all for inquiries. Let's get at all these cases. Prospects of conviction will be low but let's prepare files on all them and run the ones that stand a chance in front of a court.

How do you know whether the IRA did or did not have support of the nationalist community? There's no basis for proving or disproving this argument. It's the type of complete nonsense I've spoken about you engaging in.

You are once again going off on a SF tangent. You contested a claim I made about the policies of FF and FG to the north and when I addressed this, rather than keep discussing this because you didn't like how it showed the up, you have now gone on a tangent on SF based on complete and utter unqualifiable conjecture.

FF/FG have actively thwarted a reconciliation process across the board. They have actively sought to deny the McAnespie family in their quest for justice early.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43144010

What do dissidents relate to SF? It's like blaming FF for any Provo action.

You came in here bald-headed trying to defend FF/FG and their attitude and policy to northern matters and their quest to politicise the troubles and use victims as political football. That was your entry in those debate and all you have offered since then is a tirade on SF based on absolute nonsense you have failed to qualify, post after post after post.

Address the issue and if you're going to try and smear SF then at least have something substantive to support it.

[LCohen]

I'm not condoning any of that. But the scale of denying history pales compared to SF. As we all know the IRA never commanded majority nationalist support within NI. Show me a single occasion where a SF politician has admitted that.

Straw man argument. Can you direct me to a SF politician claiming the IRA did have a majority of nationalists support? The reality is there was no poll taken. The only thing we know for certain is that they could not have waged such a relentless campaign for so long, in isolation from the community from which it's members came.

You know as well as I do that SF are sitting on a massive reserve of knowledge of who did what and literally where the bodies are hidden. They are in no big rush to get it out there.

Only a few days ago, it was discussed on this board, that the body which was set up to find the remains of the Disappeared, is on record as stating that republicans were being highly co-operative with their work, and that (contrary to your implication) that is why most of the bodies of those disappeared by the PIRA actually have been found. While we're on the topic, has the southern state ever made any attempts to search for the remains of those disappeared by the ("Good") Old IRA? A number which dwarfs the number disappeared by the Provos?

Also the shenanigans that the IRA where up and in some places are still up to to fund their campaign. They need to come clean on that. Need to clean their whole act on that.

Ironic that in a debate about truthfulness, you claim the IRA are currently fundraising. Care to provide your proof?

Can you imagine SF being in charge of justice in the north or south?

Absolutely I can. Hopefully it won't be long either. What I don't think Ireland needs is to be served by any more FF/FG justice ministers who have consistently thwarted justice to Troubles victims, play politics with victims and who have been utterly corrupt (just now, I see the news that FFG have refused to allow time for Helen McEntee to face questions in the Dáil about how Seamus Wolfe came to be appointed - more of the same).

As for Omagh. It wasn't the IRA.

Exactly.

Right I'll do my best.

Omagh is a red herring here. Some asshole linked it to the ira and all parties here think they are an asshole. End of that debate

I have never defended FF or FG on their quality of administration.

On fundraising. If by fundraising you mean for an armed campaign I have not alleged that. What I am alleging is that republicanism is still involved in serious crime for financial gain. Loyalists like wise. I am not posting evidence of either. My reasons for that are  twofold. Firstly the proof is not in a postable form. And secondly even if it was I would not do it. Do you really need to explain why.

Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.

[Angelo]

There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.

Staggering ignorance.

Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?

But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all 

A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.

Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.

The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.

The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.

Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.

The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.

You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?

Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.

We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.

Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?

They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.

And on and on you go. I am not arguing with you about the need to investigate those. Investigate them all. Hold everyone to account including republicanism. I am not favouring one side over another. Get at them all.

SF did participate in elections. And were roundly seen off. The support was never there .

What a ridiculous contention.

You are making ridiculous claims that have absolutely zero basis to support them. We never had a consensus on whether nationalist community support the Provos or not. What is evident though is that the Provos would not have existed and been so effective during the troubles without sizable support in their communities.

SF up until the ceasefire was an ancillary branch to its militant arm. The political part of the republican movement took 2nd place. SF had an abstentionist policy and many nationalists rejected electoral politics in the O6.

The whole premise of your argument is not based on anything other than your own subjectiveness.

[LCohen]

There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.

Staggering ignorance.

Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?

But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all 

A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.

Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.

The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.

The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.

Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.

The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.

You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?

Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.

We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.

Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?

They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.

They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire

If you're talking about constitutional politics, SF operated with an abstention policy in the O6 until after the ceasefire. The political party was merely an ancillary unit to the IRA up until the peace talks began to gain traction.

Not true. They ran in elections at all levels

[Angelo]

Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.

What qualifies as serious and organised crime?