The SDLP

[LCohen]

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

Indeed. And you yourself in your initial reply, attempted to tacitly link the perpetrators to the IRA.

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

Not to vacal in your criticisms of them though, are you?

On fundraising. If by fundraising you mean for an armed campaign I have not alleged that.

Really? Cos...

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.

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.

So you're going to make an accusation, but you refuse to post your evidence. Forgive me for not taking you seriously on this one.

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.

Only for not running enough candidates at the start of the year, SF would hold the justice ministry today. I know you're claiming to have "heard" things (presumably from the same inside lines that told you all about the IRA fundraising you can't tell us about), but again, what you "heard" won't change the outcome of any election where SF win a majority.

Whoever raised omagh as an issue want me. I have clearly said from the outset that it was dissidents and not the ira.

I am equal in my criticism. That is my point. Block an inquiry and I'll condemn you.

Read the shenanigans line again. They shenanigans they were up to to fund their campaign they are still up to in some locations (including mine).

You know full well why someone would not post evidence of racketeering. Full well.

I am not claiming to be able to influence future elections not indeed that if SF win a majority they will hold all the government roles. I guess you knew that

[Snapchap]

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?

I asked you to point us towards a SF rep claiming that a majority of nationalists did support the IRA campaign. Did you have any luck with that?

I'll look out for one. What do you want a clip of them saying "we had majority support" or a claim that they were necessary because the people needed them to take action and it was for the people that they acted?

You're the one insinuating that SF's default position is that the IRA did have the majority of nationalism's support. Since the implication is your own, then I'm merely asking you to substantiate it.

You made your implication by asking for a quote where a SF rep admits the IRA didn't have the support of a majority of nationalism. I'm asking you to post a quote where they ever claimed it did. But yeah, keep a look out and get back to us.

[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?

In my area racketeering and until recently fuel laundering. In others drug dealing, livestock and machinery theft with onward networks for processing

More baseless conjecture.

Who is to say it's not the SDLP involved in it?

[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

Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf

As you admit yourself that document does not suggest a majority but also critically it does not show any sympathy for the actions of the IRA. None

So a study which found that 42% of nationalists had some degree of sympathy for the armed republican campaign during the troubles doesn't actually contain evidence of any nationalist sympathy for the armed campaign? Hmmm.

Because that is not what the research says. The question was so you have sympathy for the causes and expressly does not ask for sympathy for the actions. It calls that out. Hence a figure of 10% of Protestants having sympathy. It doesn't say how many of the respondents said yes to both loyalist and republican side of the question which would be an interesting further piece of analysis

[LCohen]

I remember the republicans outside the polling station intimidating SDLP voters. I am against all those forms of intimidation

Anyway nobody is refuting an academic paper. Your interpretation of the paper is however being refuted

You're against all forms of intimidation, but only single out an instance where SF are the supposed guilty party? I can confirm for your benefit that I recall an election in my own area where the SDLP staffers around the polling station attempted to intimidate voters en masse by objecting to as many people as possible, purey to slow down the numbers voting in what is a republican stronghold. I hope that puts your mind at ease about intimidation, and that the next time the topic arises, you'll single out the SDLP for criticism too.

I am not singling out that incident. I am adding it to a list. I condemn them all

[Snapchap]

Whoever raised omagh as an issue want me. I have clearly said from the outset that it was dissidents and not the ira.

You didn't mention dissidents. You said those who carried out Omagh were "more like the IRA than the IRA". If that's not a cynical attempt to vague link it in people's minds to the IRA, then I just don't know what is.

Read the shenanigans line again. They shenanigans they were up to to fund their campaign they are still up to in some locations (including mine).

You know full well why someone would not post evidence of racketeering. Full well.

You're hiding behind anonymity ffs. Sure we can all make stupid accusation about anyone and point blank refuse to provide evidence. If that's the level you want to bring the debate to, then go ahead. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

I am not claiming to be able to influence future elections not indeed that if SF win a majority they will hold all the government roles. I guess you knew that

And I guess you understand that the party with the majority has the strongest negotiating hand to go for whatever departments it wants. regardless of what you "heard".

[LCohen]

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?

I asked you to point us towards a SF rep claiming that a majority of nationalists did support the IRA campaign. Did you have any luck with that?

I'll look out for one. What do you want a clip of them saying "we had majority support" or a claim that they were necessary because the people needed them to take action and it was for the people that they acted?

You're the one insinuating that SF's default position is that the IRA did have the majority of nationalism's support. Since the implication is your own, then I'm merely asking you to substantiate it.

You made your implication by asking for a quote where a SF rep admits the IRA didn't have the support of a majority of nationalism. I'm asking you to post a quote where they ever claimed it did. But yeah, keep a look out and get back to us.

I have certainly heard SF Calum popular support for their actions. I will keep an eye out for their precise wording and post anything I have

[LCohen]

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?

In my area racketeering and until recently fuel laundering. In others drug dealing, livestock and machinery theft with onward networks for processing

More baseless conjecture.

Who is to say it's not the SDLP involved in it?

I know the people. Some call to my door. They are not SDLP supporters. Nor am I

[Snapchap]

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

Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf

As you admit yourself that document does not suggest a majority but also critically it does not show any sympathy for the actions of the IRA. None

So a study which found that 42% of nationalists had some degree of sympathy for the armed republican campaign during the troubles doesn't actually contain evidence of any nationalist sympathy for the armed campaign? Hmmm.

Because that is not what the research says. The questions was so you have sympathy for the causes and expressly does not ask for sympathy for the actions. It calls that out. Hence a figure of 10% of Protestants having sympathy. It doesn't say how many of the respondents said yes to both loyalist and republican side of the question which would be an interesting further piece of analysis

To quote the report itself:

42 percent of Catholics as compared to just 10 percent of Protestants in Northern Ireland expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups

and....

"As in previous research, the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends. There is perhaps no other advanced industrial society where such large numbers of people effectively condone terrorism"

You may contact QUB and tell these academics that they don't understand their own research.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

The academic survey quoted seems to have asked the following question:

thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?''

7.4% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 34.6% said a little sympathy.

The same cohort of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents were also asked:

Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?

1.9% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 28.9% said a little sympathy.

Thanks, I couldn't be bothered to read whole thing but I suspected it was along those lines.
So the 42%that shitchat is talking about can be matched to 30 odd % nationslists showing some sympathy to loyalist violence

As I said support and sympathy aren't the same thing and the way questions and answers are framed can be misleading

[Snapchap]

The academic survey quoted seems to have asked the following question:

thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?''

7.4% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 34.6% said a little sympathy.

The same cohort of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents were also asked:

Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?

1.9% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 28.9% said a little sympathy.

Thanks, I couldn't be bothered to read whole thing but I suspected it was along those lines.
So the 42%that shitchat is talking about can be matched to 30 odd % nationslists showing some sympathy to loyalist violence

As I said support and sympathy aren't the same thing and the way questions and answers are framed can be misleading

I refer to honorable gentleman to my post above, quoting the report.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

The academic survey quoted seems to have asked the following question:

thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?''

7.4% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 34.6% said a little sympathy.

The same cohort of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents were also asked:

Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?

1.9% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 28.9% said a little sympathy.

Thanks, I couldn't be bothered to read whole thing but I suspected it was along those lines.
So the 42%that shitchat is talking about can be matched to 30 odd % nationslists showing some sympathy to loyalist violence

As I said support and sympathy aren't the same thing and the way questions and answers are framed can be misleading

I refer to honorable gentleman to my post above, quoting the report.

Lol

[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?

In my area racketeering and until recently fuel laundering. In others drug dealing, livestock and machinery theft with onward networks for processing

More baseless conjecture.

Who is to say it's not the SDLP involved in it?

I know the people. Some call to my door. They are not SDLP supporters. Nor am I

Subjective conjecture again.

Word on the street is of drug gangs with big links to the SDLP.

The old "I'm not an SDLP supporter" from the Stoops on here is laughable.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

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?

In my area racketeering and until recently fuel laundering. In others drug dealing, livestock and machinery theft with onward networks for processing

More baseless conjecture.

Who is to say it's not the SDLP involved in it?

I know the people. Some call to my door. They are not SDLP supporters. Nor am I

Subjective conjecture again.

Word on the street is of drug gangs with big links to the SDLP.

The old "I'm not an SDLP supporter" from the Stoops on here is laughable.

sure you arent getting eastwoods mixed up wit eastenders

[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

Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf

As you admit yourself that document does not suggest a majority but also critically it does not show any sympathy for the actions of the IRA. None

So a study which found that 42% of nationalists had some degree of sympathy for the armed republican campaign during the troubles doesn't actually contain evidence of any nationalist sympathy for the armed campaign? Hmmm.

Because that is not what the research says. The questions was so you have sympathy for the causes and expressly does not ask for sympathy for the actions. It calls that out. Hence a figure of 10% of Protestants having sympathy. It doesn't say how many of the respondents said yes to both loyalist and republican side of the question which would be an interesting further piece of analysis

To quote the report itself:

42 percent of Catholics as compared to just 10 percent of Protestants in Northern Ireland expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups

and....

"As in previous research, the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends. There is perhaps no other advanced industrial society where such large numbers of people effectively condone terrorism"

You may contact QUB and tell these academics that they don't understand their own research.

At least I read their research

The 42% figure you use comes from an earlier bit of research that is quoted in the QUB paper. It comes from this table

Republicans...............Prods..............Taigs
A lot of sympathy.......0%.................7.4%
A Little sympathy.......10.2%.............34.6%
No Sympathy.............89.9%............58%

Loyalist
A lot of sympathy........4.6%.............1.9%
A Little sympathy........19.5%............28.9%
No Sympathy..............75.9%...........69.2%
Your 42% is the aggregate of the 2 numbers in bold.

You conveniently ignore that these are the responses to the following specific question:
''Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself? And, thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?''

That is why you get some protestants sympathising with the conditions giving rise to republican violence and a whopping 30.8% of catholic respondents sympathising with the conditions giving rise to loyalist. They are expressly not condoning the violent actions. Your unique interpretation of this research would lead you to conclude that level of catholic support for loyalist violence ran at 73% of the level of catholic support for republican violence. That should serve to illustrate how far off the mark you are in your interpretation.

I know you thought upou had hit upon a gem of a source but lets face it you cocked up