Messages

[The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

Dunno if this is a logical argument given The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation. I don't think anyone can say that the IRA had some good people who were involved. I can't really understand how anyone can stand over what the IRA and it's members did. I often think of the young children murdered, what must their final moments on this earth have been like? The fear in their hearts, the loneliness as their lives slipped away, young innocent children, while a few IRA men hid in a safe house, back slapping one another on a job well done.

But look you have your view and I have mine.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison as you're simply defending the statement that he was a mass murderer simply because he was an IRA member yet has no convictions for murder, let alone mass murder. But apparently having a significant prison sentence means you must be a mass murderer. I did not know that until now. Every day's a school day.

You've gone off down a road that no one asked you to. I've agreed with you on the incidents you have named, and nobody in their right mind would disagree. Your emotional description of innocent people losing their lives adds nothing to the debate and doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

I can't imagine there was anybody slapping each other on the back for a 'job well done' that involved innocent children, or others.

All of your theatrics can be equally applied to the young children who's lives slipped away at the hands of the British Army. Nobody is clean in this and to pretend otherwise is deluded.

I do have my view and you do have yours. I'll continue to refrain from calling people mass murderers whilst you'll coninue to justify it, regardless of evidence.

We're different like that.

My point is that Bobby Storey was a person of significant influence in the IRA, this is widely accepted.
From this article https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/bobby-storey-the-ira-s-planner-and-enforcer-who-stayed-in-the-shadows-1.4292981
Studying his history, Storey, who was the IRA's director of intelligence in the eyes of those who knew that world well, was "a planner, operator and an enforcer"
What was he planning? Birthday Parties? Easter Egg Hunts? Fancy Dress competitions?

The IRA committed mass murder which is widely accepted. I don't think any of those who were members of the IRA can then claim they weren't involved in those events. It's the Nuremberg defence.

Feel free to come back to me with any evidence. Anything at all. An opinion piece with 'anonymous sources' is not evidence.

If you feel justified to call somebody a mass murderer with no basis then continue doing so. It won't lose me any sleep. Just thought I would point out that its probably not something anyone should do.

Then again he did have a significant prison sentence. Obviously a mass murderer on that basis alone.

I'll continue to not call people mass murderers without evidence, you continue to do the opposite. We're both happy.

Although you've now taken it to another level of insinuating that every single member of the IRA is a mass murderer. (See Catholic Church analogy)

The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation who's sole aim was to remove Britain from Ireland by force. I don't get the comparison if I'm honest.

That's fine, forget the analogy. There is a lot more to that post that you've conveniently decided to ignore, instead solely responding to four bracketed words.

But that's fine too I suppose. It's who you are.

Bear with me for a more detailed response, I will need a while to read through all the evidence you've sent through.

[The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

Dunno if this is a logical argument given The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation. I don't think anyone can say that the IRA had some good people who were involved. I can't really understand how anyone can stand over what the IRA and it's members did. I often think of the young children murdered, what must their final moments on this earth have been like? The fear in their hearts, the loneliness as their lives slipped away, young innocent children, while a few IRA men hid in a safe house, back slapping one another on a job well done.

But look you have your view and I have mine.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison as you're simply defending the statement that he was a mass murderer simply because he was an IRA member yet has no convictions for murder, let alone mass murder. But apparently having a significant prison sentence means you must be a mass murderer. I did not know that until now. Every day's a school day.

You've gone off down a road that no one asked you to. I've agreed with you on the incidents you have named, and nobody in their right mind would disagree. Your emotional description of innocent people losing their lives adds nothing to the debate and doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

I can't imagine there was anybody slapping each other on the back for a 'job well done' that involved innocent children, or others.

All of your theatrics can be equally applied to the young children who's lives slipped away at the hands of the British Army. Nobody is clean in this and to pretend otherwise is deluded.

I do have my view and you do have yours. I'll continue to refrain from calling people mass murderers whilst you'll coninue to justify it, regardless of evidence.

We're different like that.

My point is that Bobby Storey was a person of significant influence in the IRA, this is widely accepted.
From this article https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/bobby-storey-the-ira-s-planner-and-enforcer-who-stayed-in-the-shadows-1.4292981
Studying his history, Storey, who was the IRA's director of intelligence in the eyes of those who knew that world well, was "a planner, operator and an enforcer"
What was he planning? Birthday Parties? Easter Egg Hunts? Fancy Dress competitions?

The IRA committed mass murder which is widely accepted. I don't think any of those who were members of the IRA can then claim they weren't involved in those events. It's the Nuremberg defence.

Feel free to come back to me with any evidence. Anything at all. An opinion piece with 'anonymous sources' is not evidence.

If you feel justified to call somebody a mass murderer with no basis then continue doing so. It won't lose me any sleep. Just thought I would point out that its probably not something anyone should do.

Then again he did have a significant prison sentence. Obviously a mass murderer on that basis alone.

I'll continue to not call people mass murderers without evidence, you continue to do the opposite. We're both happy.

Although you've now taken it to another level of insinuating that every single member of the IRA is a mass murderer. (See Catholic Church analogy)

[The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

Dunno if this is a logical argument given The Catholic Church isn't a terrorist organisation. I don't think anyone can say that the IRA had some good people who were involved. I can't really understand how anyone can stand over what the IRA and it's members did. I often think of the young children murdered, what must their final moments on this earth have been like? The fear in their hearts, the loneliness as their lives slipped away, young innocent children, while a few IRA men hid in a safe house, back slapping one another on a job well done.

But look you have your view and I have mine.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison as you're simply defending the statement that he was a mass murderer simply because he was an IRA member yet has no convictions for murder, let alone mass murder. But apparently having a significant prison sentence means you must be a mass murderer. I did not know that until now. Every day's a school day.

You've gone off down a road that no one asked you to. I've agreed with you on the incidents you have named, and nobody in their right mind would disagree. Your emotional description of innocent people losing their lives adds nothing to the debate and doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

I can't imagine there was anybody slapping each other on the back for a 'job well done' that involved innocent children, or others.

All of your theatrics can be equally applied to the young children who's lives slipped away at the hands of the British Army. Nobody is clean in this and to pretend otherwise is deluded.

I do have my view and you do have yours. I'll continue to refrain from calling people mass murderers whilst you'll coninue to justify it, regardless of evidence.

We're different like that.

[The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that he wasn't a Mass murderer?
The point I am making is that he was an IRA member. Someone else actually called him a mass murderer, it wasn't me but anyway, that organisation was responsible for Mass Murder. The excuse that I was only following orders or only had a bit part to play didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and I don't think it'll work here. That would be my view and I don't think if you were / are a member of the IRA you can seriously claim to not have supported murder at Ballygawley, La Mon, Warrington, Narrow Water, Shankill rd.

When I stated he was being called a mass murderer your response was 'Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence.'. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there to be honest.

There are many, many things that Republicans can feel shame about, not limited to what you've mentioned above. Nobody can, or should, deny that.

The fact that he has no conviction for murder is the point I was making. Do I know what he was/wasn't involved in? Of course I don't, in the same way that you nor anyone else on here does. What we do have is facts however, yet that seems insufficient for some.

By your own logic, given the behaviour of the Catholic Church, we are safe to accuse all priests of being paedophiles, given they were all part of the Catholic Church. But that would be ridiculous because we know that's not the case.

[The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

Well now Bobby did serve a significant prison sentence. And all the intelligence available points to him being a significant player in the IRA. He also had a very typical Republican/IRA send off.
Weird hill to choose to die on.

OK, I don't think there is anything I can argue with there.

Two questions though:

1) What was Bobby's significant prison sentence for?
2) Why would you think he wouldn't have had a 'very typical Republican/IRA send off', when he was both a Republican and a former IRA member?

[The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

Was Stalin?

Was Churchill? Was Mick Collins?

Exactly. If a conviction in a court is what it takes then that's a pretty unrealistic bar.

It was a simple question...answered by questions. Nice one.

I don't normally go around calling someone a mass murderer as a matter of fact without having anything to base it on. But that's just me.

[The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.]

90% of Nationalists are moderate, but only 5% of Unionists.

Such a mindset would be laughable, were it not reflective of the whole problem.

You know, "The Politics of Themmuns", exhibit No.1 'Angelo' 

Nationalism is intrinsically moderate, as all it wants is a normal democratic country.
Unionism is the opposite of moderate, it wants to extend colonialism, when it couldn't win by force in most of the Ireland, it seized part of the country as a sectarian statelet.

Unionist political parties offer no moderation and many people from a PUL background are drifting to Alliance as a consequence.

Ah right, so "Themmuns" it is, then.

Glad we got that sorted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing


I said that nationalism was intrinsicially moderate, I did not say that all those who purported to be nationalists were moderate. RTÉ have been replaying the Reeling in the Years and I noted La Mon, one of the most disgraceful events in Irish history was in that year.
The difference being that 90%+ of nationalists do not justify La Mon.

If I said something that was not correct, then I'm sure you can refute it. I did not refer to "Themmuns" ,

Yet the large majority of Nationalists in NI vote for the party which is inextricably linked with the organisation which carried out La Mon.

And the Enniskillen bombing.

And the nakedly sectarian massacres at Tullyvallen, Darkley and Kingsmill.

And the abduction, torture, murder and disappearing of Jean McConville.

And Patsy Gillespie.

And a thousand other atrocities.

None of which justifies or condones one iota the myriad atrocities committed by their (so-called) "Loyalist" counterparts, but come on, surely you haven't forgotten what the IRA and INLA etc did in the name of Nationalism?

I mean, at a time when SF are falling over themselves to be seen "honouring" mass murderers like Bobby Storey?

I guess "moderate" means something different where you come from.

Great. Another Jamie Bryson.

Did the IRA commit multiple atrocities?
Are SF inextricably linked with, and supportive of, the IRA campaign?
Do the majority of Nationalists vote SF?

You don't need to be Jamie Bryson to ask those questions.

Though maybe you do need his mindset when required to answer them i.e. play the man instead of the ball.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a different Jamie Bryson from the one who got a massive 167 votes in the last election he fought in his own Bangor West backyard? (Equates to 2% of the vote, btw)

Listen, I'm not speaking for the majority of Unionists who vote for the DUP, nor do I condone those who do - I'm proud to say I've never given that mob so much as a 9th preference vote.

But just look at this picture and tell me that one side votes for extremists, while the other votes for moderates:



Them tell me which is which...

Was Bobby Storey convicted of mass murder?

[the fact that just last week the ROI paid back the last installment of the UK funded bailout loan]

The middle ground tends to be interested in facts. Things like standard of living and likely chaos.
And demographics don't change overnight.

Moderate unionism represents about 5% of unionism.

You simply have no idea what you are dealing with.

I agree, plus take the cultural aspect out of the UI debate and you're left with the economics of the situation, in a few recent twitter skirmishes I've read people of (I assume) a Unionist background when faced with how the ROI is performing economically weren't long throwing up counterpoints: The ROI debt clock; the fact that just last week the ROI paid back the last installment of the UK funded bailout loan; health service v NHS / Vaccine performance.

Unionism isn't and won't be wowed by superior ROI economic performance - when they can still claim to be part of the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world, eventho NI contributes very very little to it.

Just as a point of order, they tried to repay this earlier but it was declined by the British government.

At 6% interest I'm not surprised they didn't want it back early.

Good to see them talking about economics because that will be the decider whenever the Referendum is run.

On the Health front 323,174 people waiting for an outpatient appt in the 6 on 31/12/20. C.700k in the 26.
I suspect ours would be higher but for over 40% of the population having private health insurance.

Absolutely, from an economic point of view of course they'd want to see out the full term.

And on that note you are correct. You will have people on both sides who's views and vote will never be changed. The middle ground will be the deciding factor in this, and the back pocket will be the deciding factor in that.

[the fact that just last week the ROI paid back the last installment of the UK funded bailout loan]

The middle ground tends to be interested in facts. Things like standard of living and likely chaos.
And demographics don't change overnight.

Moderate unionism represents about 5% of unionism.

You simply have no idea what you are dealing with.

I agree, plus take the cultural aspect out of the UI debate and you're left with the economics of the situation, in a few recent twitter skirmishes I've read people of (I assume) a Unionist background when faced with how the ROI is performing economically weren't long throwing up counterpoints: The ROI debt clock; the fact that just last week the ROI paid back the last installment of the UK funded bailout loan; health service v NHS / Vaccine performance.

Unionism isn't and won't be wowed by superior ROI economic performance - when they can still claim to be part of the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world, eventho NI contributes very very little to it.

Just as a point of order, they tried to repay this earlier but it was declined by the British government.

Also, the NHS and free healthcare one bugs the absolute shite out of me. For those of us who work and pay National Insurance, it is not free. Free at the point of consumption but we still pay for it whether you use it or not.

That indeed is another painful one to have to endure. It seems for a lot of unionists and loyalists their argument against a UI is "Yeah but you have to pay €50 to see the doctor'.

They don't seem to grasp how the NHS works.

[the fact that just last week the ROI paid back the last installment of the UK funded bailout loan]

The middle ground tends to be interested in facts. Things like standard of living and likely chaos.
And demographics don't change overnight.

Moderate unionism represents about 5% of unionism.

You simply have no idea what you are dealing with.

I agree, plus take the cultural aspect out of the UI debate and you're left with the economics of the situation, in a few recent twitter skirmishes I've read people of (I assume) a Unionist background when faced with how the ROI is performing economically weren't long throwing up counterpoints: The ROI debt clock; the fact that just last week the ROI paid back the last installment of the UK funded bailout loan; health service v NHS / Vaccine performance.

Unionism isn't and won't be wowed by superior ROI economic performance - when they can still claim to be part of the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world, eventho NI contributes very very little to it.

Just as a point of order, they tried to repay this earlier but it was declined by the British government.

[I didnt see it either but]

I didnt see it either but why would you bring Joe Brolly on to state the obvious about unionism and drag it down into a slagging match. Was it not about Irish Unity? Sure we all know unionisms views on other subjects and Joes outbursts just detract from the real subject on hand. Its all about Joe.

'...I'm going to comment anyway.'

He was responding to questions asked about Gregory Campbell.  It was about Gregory Campbell showing nothing but contempt for those speaking, reeking of arrogance, laughing in their faces. Joe was responding to that. To put context around Gregory's character, which he was 100% right to do. Unfortunately he only got so far. Every accusation he made about Gregory could not be counter argued. Gregory is a bigot; he is a homophobe; and he is a racist.

But it's all about Joe I suppose.

[I'm telling you most Shinners( and others) sectarianise about protestants every single day.]

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40241705.html

Leo is making a bit of a dick out of himself recently.

The more you see the less likeable he is. What's that saying - if he was a lollipop he'd eat himself? Comes across very ego centric all about me.

(I know most politicians are but he is definitely up there...)

Undoubted tube at times, but let's be honest must be very very few protestants on island supporting SF. And I think it's becoming more widely accepted now that SF can't be leaders on unity push if we are to convince unionists. I'm telling you most Shinners( and others) sectarianise about protestants every single day. It's often cloaked in poor tasting humour. I can pretty much guarantee that most northern nationalists have  been involved in a conversation over the last week where something bad was said about protestants.

Would love to know the research you've done into this. This is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted on here, and that's saying something. Is it a pisstake?

No and I can see I have hit a nerve here. Wrong thread probably for it. Btw you are a newbie

Ah the old 'I hit a nerve'. No, you haven't hit a nerve. I'm calling out an absurd statement, which I presume you are unable to backup, given its absurdity.

Lets recap:

Most Shinners sectarianise about Protestants every single day

If you can't see how ridiculous that is then that's your problem not mine.

Also, if you'd bothered to check I've been registered on this board for the last 10 years on this name, and further back on a previous name.

You forgot - he doesn't just accuse shinners of being sectarian. He also claimed that most nationalists are bigots (he claimed most sectarianise about Protestants at least once every week). You really do have to wonder what sort of circles he moves in.

That's a good point, if I was hearing that kind of talk on a daily and weekly basis I'd have to start questioning the type of people I'm surrounding myself with.

FWIW I have no problem with anyone taking a pop at SF or any other party, but the absurdity of that statement made me have to re-read it a couple of times to make sure it was right.

The to claim all nationalists were bigots, pretty impressive.

I do wonder what kind of thoughts go on in a head like that.

Thank God you aren't my shrink, ye wouldnt make much money, what an awful thing to suggest about someone.

sectarian-the existence, within a locality, of two or more divided and actively competing communal identities, resulting in a strong sense of dualism which unremittingly transcends commonality, and is both culturally and physically manifest.'[1]

We live in a sectarian society and in the most part we as nationalists help facilitate it(based on the above definition) through our living, social, spiritual, educational and sporting choices and affiliations. It can not be denied, it fills our news EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Now bigot that is a whole other ballgame

What is it that I suggested? Intrigued by that one.

Live in a sectarian society, OK. Fills our news, Ok. I'm still trying to rationalise your comment that 'Most Shinners sectarianise about Protestants every single day'. What exactly is that based on?

You suggested that there was something wrong with my head, come on man up to it and don't back down. I could probably take out thee every single day bit but the rest of the sentence is entirely accurate in my experience.

Can you point out where I said there was something wrong with your head? It seems like you're just making things up, again.

You've gone from 'most Shinners every single day' to 'i could take that part out' and '...in my experience'. You've also gone from 'Protestants' to 'prods/unionists' (Ironically many Protestants find being called a prod quite insulting).

See how its slowly but surely changing? You were adamant you were completely correct and justified in what you were saying, and now you're reeling it back in because you realise how idiotic and absurd it was. And you expect us to take the rest of what you say with any sort of credibility?

[I'm telling you most Shinners( and others) sectarianise about protestants every single day.]

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40241705.html

Leo is making a bit of a dick out of himself recently.

The more you see the less likeable he is. What's that saying - if he was a lollipop he'd eat himself? Comes across very ego centric all about me.

(I know most politicians are but he is definitely up there...)

Undoubted tube at times, but let's be honest must be very very few protestants on island supporting SF. And I think it's becoming more widely accepted now that SF can't be leaders on unity push if we are to convince unionists. I'm telling you most Shinners( and others) sectarianise about protestants every single day. It's often cloaked in poor tasting humour. I can pretty much guarantee that most northern nationalists have  been involved in a conversation over the last week where something bad was said about protestants.

Would love to know the research you've done into this. This is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted on here, and that's saying something. Is it a pisstake?

No and I can see I have hit a nerve here. Wrong thread probably for it. Btw you are a newbie

Ah the old 'I hit a nerve'. No, you haven't hit a nerve. I'm calling out an absurd statement, which I presume you are unable to backup, given its absurdity.

Lets recap:

Most Shinners sectarianise about Protestants every single day

If you can't see how ridiculous that is then that's your problem not mine.

Also, if you'd bothered to check I've been registered on this board for the last 10 years on this name, and further back on a previous name.

You forgot - he doesn't just accuse shinners of being sectarian. He also claimed that most nationalists are bigots (he claimed most sectarianise about Protestants at least once every week). You really do have to wonder what sort of circles he moves in.

That's a good point, if I was hearing that kind of talk on a daily and weekly basis I'd have to start questioning the type of people I'm surrounding myself with.

FWIW I have no problem with anyone taking a pop at SF or any other party, but the absurdity of that statement made me have to re-read it a couple of times to make sure it was right.

The to claim all nationalists were bigots, pretty impressive.

I do wonder what kind of thoughts go on in a head like that.

Thank God you aren't my shrink, ye wouldnt make much money, what an awful thing to suggest about someone.

sectarian-the existence, within a locality, of two or more divided and actively competing communal identities, resulting in a strong sense of dualism which unremittingly transcends commonality, and is both culturally and physically manifest.'[1]

We live in a sectarian society and in the most part we as nationalists help facilitate it(based on the above definition) through our living, social, spiritual, educational and sporting choices and affiliations. It can not be denied, it fills our news EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Now bigot that is a whole other ballgame

What is it that I suggested? Intrigued by that one.

Live in a sectarian society, OK. Fills our news, Ok. I'm still trying to rationalise your comment that 'Most Shinners sectarianise about Protestants every single day'. What exactly is that based on?

[I'm telling you most Shinners( and others) sectarianise about protestants every single day.]

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40241705.html

Leo is making a bit of a dick out of himself recently.

The more you see the less likeable he is. What's that saying - if he was a lollipop he'd eat himself? Comes across very ego centric all about me.

(I know most politicians are but he is definitely up there...)

Undoubted tube at times, but let's be honest must be very very few protestants on island supporting SF. And I think it's becoming more widely accepted now that SF can't be leaders on unity push if we are to convince unionists. I'm telling you most Shinners( and others) sectarianise about protestants every single day. It's often cloaked in poor tasting humour. I can pretty much guarantee that most northern nationalists have  been involved in a conversation over the last week where something bad was said about protestants.

Would love to know the research you've done into this. This is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted on here, and that's saying something. Is it a pisstake?

No and I can see I have hit a nerve here. Wrong thread probably for it. Btw you are a newbie

Ah the old 'I hit a nerve'. No, you haven't hit a nerve. I'm calling out an absurd statement, which I presume you are unable to backup, given its absurdity.

Lets recap:

Most Shinners sectarianise about Protestants every single day

If you can't see how ridiculous that is then that's your problem not mine.

Also, if you'd bothered to check I've been registered on this board for the last 10 years on this name, and further back on a previous name.

You forgot - he doesn't just accuse shinners of being sectarian. He also claimed that most nationalists are bigots (he claimed most sectarianise about Protestants at least once every week). You really do have to wonder what sort of circles he moves in.

That's a good point, if I was hearing that kind of talk on a daily and weekly basis I'd have to start questioning the type of people I'm surrounding myself with.

FWIW I have no problem with anyone taking a pop at SF or any other party, but the absurdity of that statement made me have to re-read it a couple of times to make sure it was right.

The to claim all nationalists were bigots, pretty impressive.

I do wonder what kind of thoughts go on in a head like that.

[I'm telling you most Shinners( and others) sectarianise about protestants every single day.]

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40241705.html

Leo is making a bit of a dick out of himself recently.

The more you see the less likeable he is. What's that saying - if he was a lollipop he'd eat himself? Comes across very ego centric all about me.

(I know most politicians are but he is definitely up there...)

Undoubted tube at times, but let's be honest must be very very few protestants on island supporting SF. And I think it's becoming more widely accepted now that SF can't be leaders on unity push if we are to convince unionists. I'm telling you most Shinners( and others) sectarianise about protestants every single day. It's often cloaked in poor tasting humour. I can pretty much guarantee that most northern nationalists have  been involved in a conversation over the last week where something bad was said about protestants.

Would love to know the research you've done into this. This is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted on here, and that's saying something. Is it a pisstake?

No and I can see I have hit a nerve here. Wrong thread probably for it. Btw you are a newbie

Ah the old 'I hit a nerve'. No, you haven't hit a nerve. I'm calling out an absurd statement, which I presume you are unable to backup, given its absurdity.

Lets recap:

Most Shinners sectarianise about Protestants every single day

If you can't see how ridiculous that is then that's your problem not mine.

Also, if you'd bothered to check I've been registered on this board for the last 10 years on this name, and further back on a previous name.