A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.

Started by winghalfback, May 27, 2015, 03:16:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

charlieTully

Quote from: Rossfan on April 07, 2018, 05:59:05 PM
Owen seems to be seeing what he wants to see.
I believe Trimble has been saying that the Irish Government needs to ease off on its Brexit/no border talk as it might bring Loyalist Paramilitaries/Drug dealers back into action.
1912 threats of violence all over again.

Very true.

Franko

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: tiempo on April 07, 2018, 04:27:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

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

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

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

Quote specifically from the article and I'll believe you.

Read the article yourself, it is a transcript of an interview with your hero

You appear in this thread and in the Arlene thread to have an aversion to reading to broaden your knowledge and want others to provide you with a synopsis of the situation/issue on social media rather than taking time to read for yourself.

Can nobody express a view on this board that is in any way supportive a SF viewpoint without this constant shit?

Franko

#2237
PS.

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

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

Owen Brannigan

Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
PS.

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

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

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

Franko

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
PS.

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

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

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

More bollocks.  I've criticised SF plenty of times on here when I think they're due it.  Personally I reckon that Adams himself is a relic from the past that should be got rid of.  His twitter feed is a joke at times.

But anyway, by saying that you'll never agree with SF on their "future actions" you've just made my point for me.  In your world, it doesn't matter what they did (or will do), if it's SF, it's wrong.

You'll forgive others for treating your opinions on the matter as agenda-driven nonsense when you've just admitted that this is your base point.

Owen Brannigan

Quote
DER SPIEGEL: You have defended IRA violence on multiple occasions as "legitimate resistance." As a devout Catholic, how do you reconcile that with your faith?

Adams: It's still my view that the use of armed actions in the given circumstances is a legitimate response. Whether you exercise that right is another issue. And of course, there were many things that the IRA did which were wrong. And I both condemned at the time and deplore and regret it to this time.


So, according to this, any group, republican or loyalist, can define its own circumstances in which it believes that a return to violence or, in the case of those termed as dissidents, a continuation of violence is legitimate. 



Owen Brannigan

Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
PS.

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

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

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

More bollocks.  I've criticised SF plenty of times on here when I think they're due it.  Personally I reckon that Adams himself is a relic from the past that should be got rid of.  His twitter feed is a joke at times.

But anyway, by saying that you'll never agree with SF on their "future actions" you've just made my point for me.  In your world, it doesn't matter what they did (or will do), if it's SF, it's wrong.

You'll forgive others for treating your opinions on the matter as agenda-driven nonsense when you've just admitted that this is your base point.

So, my opinion is an agenda and 'bollocks' but yours is superior, balanced and wisdom.  Now I understand.

heganboy

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

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

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

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

I think you'll find that the former political party leader this week threatening violence was David Trimble
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

Franko

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:05:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
PS.

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

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

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

More bollocks.  I've criticised SF plenty of times on here when I think they're due it.  Personally I reckon that Adams himself is a relic from the past that should be got rid of.  His twitter feed is a joke at times.

But anyway, by saying that you'll never agree with SF on their "future actions" you've just made my point for me.  In your world, it doesn't matter what they did (or will do), if it's SF, it's wrong.

You'll forgive others for treating your opinions on the matter as agenda-driven nonsense when you've just admitted that this is your base point.

So, my opinion is an agenda and 'bollocks' but yours is superior, balanced and wisdom.  Now I understand.

I don't know what you want me to say.  You just admitted it.

Franko

Quote from: heganboy on April 07, 2018, 07:25:14 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

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

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

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

I think you'll find that the former political party leader this week threatening violence was David Trimble

Owen wouldn't have seen that.  ::)

Owen Brannigan

Quote from: heganboy on April 07, 2018, 07:25:14 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

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

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

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

I think you'll find that the former political party leader this week threatening violence was David Trimble

UDA/UVF violence is just as on-going as republican violence.  Don't think even Trimble can be attributed to directing loyalist violence for his political ends.

tiempo

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:01:58 PM
Quote
DER SPIEGEL: You have defended IRA violence on multiple occasions as "legitimate resistance." As a devout Catholic, how do you reconcile that with your faith?

Adams: It's still my view that the use of armed actions in the given circumstances is a legitimate response. Whether you exercise that right is another issue. And of course, there were many things that the IRA did which were wrong. And I both condemned at the time and deplore and regret it to this time.


So, according to this, any group, republican or loyalist, can define its own circumstances in which it believes that a return to violence or, in the case of those termed as dissidents, a continuation of violence is legitimate.

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

In bold are the parts of that post which don't align to the interview segment you posted. Wouldnt even accuse you of cherry picking or wishful thinking, more wum/fake news end of the spectrum.

If you have another section of the interview that does validate what you originally said then I'll believe you.

heganboy

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:52:30 PM


UDA/UVF violence is just as on-going as republican violence.  Don't think even Trimble can be attributed to directing loyalist violence for his political ends.

Short memory?

The issue here is that Trimble as a "moderate" unionist making statements to that effect opens up a degree of legitimacy to those conversations. Never mind his own history as a not so moderate unionist.
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

Owen Brannigan

Don't think Trimble could be called a moderate Unionist, when required his views/actions could stand up to anything that the DUP could manage.  Seamus Mallon could never deal with his bigotry.

Did you or any of the others actually read the whole article on Trimble?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/06/david-trimble-ireland-risks-provoking-paramilitaries-over-post-brexit-border

johnnycool

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:01:58 PM
Quote
DER SPIEGEL: You have defended IRA violence on multiple occasions as "legitimate resistance." As a devout Catholic, how do you reconcile that with your faith?

Adams: It's still my view that the use of armed actions in the given circumstances is a legitimate response. Whether you exercise that right is another issue. And of course, there were many things that the IRA did which were wrong. And I both condemned at the time and deplore and regret it to this time.


So, according to this, any group, republican or loyalist, can define its own circumstances in which it believes that a return to violence or, in the case of those termed as dissidents, a continuation of violence is legitimate.

DER SPIEGEL: But hundreds of innocent civilians were killed for that cause.

Adams: Many armed groups were involved in the conflict. Regardless of who was responsible, I regret all the dead. Our cause and our commitment must be to ensure it never happens again.

DER SPIEGEL: Is violence a legitimate means with which to reach one's aims?

Adams: I think in given circumstances. And the circumstances at that time in the north were that people were being denied their rights. The English occupiers refused to concede those and in fact attacked the demonstrators. The most disastrous mistake that the English government made is that they handed the situation over to the generals. That always leads to a militarization of the situation. Military people are not there to pacify, they are there to subjugate.


Feckin Nolan was rabbiting on about this this morning on the radio, so I had to read it to see exactly what Adams had said and like Owen big Nolan was pretty specific about quoting to suit his agenda.

Reading the whole article Adams isn't in denial and is forthright where he believes his community were before the turn to armed conflict, he's not currently advocating violence if the Shinners don't get what they want as he now believes there's other paths now open that weren't there in the late 60's so it takes a fair bit of spin to suggest otherwise.