Dan Breen and Sean Treacy

[magpie seanie]

On a side note, I had no idea how despised Gandhi was among a lot of Indians. He seems to be their Michael Collins

Is Collins despised by lots of Irish people? I think people might disagree with the Treaty but surely most would admire all he did to bring things to that point and feel things might have turned out better had he survived longer?

[rrhf]

He sawed the country in half.

[muppet]

I watched that documentary myself. To be honest I had sympathy for the RIC officers they killed in that first incident. There was no reason to kill them and it's a pity they aren't remembered along with the four IRA men at the annual commemoration.  As usual from TG4, it was a brilliant watch!

Surely the old IRA would not stoop so low, that is only the preserve of those awful provos.

Well it was no Shankill bomb!

The difference being what exactly?

Are you serious?

Yes unless you subscribe to a hierarchy of victims, both reprehensible terrorist acts of violence which left families in mourning.

There is a tendency in parties opposed to SF to argue that IRA violence in the '70's and '80's was some how different to that carried out by the old IRA, UVF or British forces. What I am arguing is that you can't have it both ways and I am not justifying any of these actions which I regard as unnecessary. They are also all now historic...or is that in the eye of the beholder.

Hang on a minute, doesn't SF argue that IRA violence was different to UVF & British Forces violence? It wants enquiries into the latter, and tells everyone these things happen with regards to the former.

SF are as hypocritical as others in doing so. All violence is wrong and it matters not how someone was killed or in what context, I personally do not believe it can be justified, some mothers son/daughter/father/mother.

I agree with that.

I don't. If all violence is wrong then is violence wrong in self defense. Is violence wrong to defend your country against an invader?

The "all violence is wrong" mantra  is the phoney ideology for cowards  and hasn't muppet  already  professed to having cowardly self- preservation tendencies, when honour and dignity are being directly threatened.
Even Gandhi said something to the extent, that if it comes down to a choice between cowardice or violence, chose violence.

Well this has been twisted out of all context and recognition.

I was talking about SF defending IRA violence, these were conscious decisions to commit violent acts, frequently against civilians including their own. That is a world away from instinctive self-defence, which would be over before you even know what happened. Saying all violence is wrong doesn't mean I wouldn't smash a hurley into the head of someone who broke into my house.

[mylestheslasher]

I watched that documentary myself. To be honest I had sympathy for the RIC officers they killed in that first incident. There was no reason to kill them and it's a pity they aren't remembered along with the four IRA men at the annual commemoration.  As usual from TG4, it was a brilliant watch!

Surely the old IRA would not stoop so low, that is only the preserve of those awful provos.

Well it was no Shankill bomb!

The difference being what exactly?

Are you serious?

Yes unless you subscribe to a hierarchy of victims, both reprehensible terrorist acts of violence which left families in mourning.

There is a tendency in parties opposed to SF to argue that IRA violence in the '70's and '80's was some how different to that carried out by the old IRA, UVF or British forces. What I am arguing is that you can't have it both ways and I am not justifying any of these actions which I regard as unnecessary. They are also all now historic...or is that in the eye of the beholder.

Hang on a minute, doesn't SF argue that IRA violence was different to UVF & British Forces violence? It wants enquiries into the latter, and tells everyone these things happen with regards to the former.

SF are as hypocritical as others in doing so. All violence is wrong and it matters not how someone was killed or in what context, I personally do not believe it can be justified, some mothers son/daughter/father/mother.

I agree with that.

I don't. If all violence is wrong then is violence wrong in self defense. Is violence wrong to defend your country against an invader?

The "all violence is wrong" mantra  is the phoney ideology for cowards  and hasn't muppet  already  professed to having cowardly self- preservation tendencies, when honour and dignity are being directly threatened.
Even Gandhi said something to the extent, that if it comes down to a choice between cowardice or violence, chose violence.

Well this has been twisted out of all context and recognition.

I was talking about SF defending IRA violence, these were conscious decisions to commit violent acts, frequently against civilians including their own. That is a world away from instinctive self-defence, which would be over before you even know what happened. Saying all violence is wrong doesn't mean I wouldn't smash a hurley into the head of someone who broke into my house.

Fair enough

[Applesisapples]

I watched that documentary myself. To be honest I had sympathy for the RIC officers they killed in that first incident. There was no reason to kill them and it's a pity they aren't remembered along with the four IRA men at the annual commemoration.  As usual from TG4, it was a brilliant watch!

Surely the old IRA would not stoop so low, that is only the preserve of those awful provos.

Well it was no Shankill bomb!

The difference being what exactly?

Are you serious?

Yes unless you subscribe to a hierarchy of victims, both reprehensible terrorist acts of violence which left families in mourning.

There is a tendency in parties opposed to SF to argue that IRA violence in the '70's and '80's was some how different to that carried out by the old IRA, UVF or British forces. What I am arguing is that you can't have it both ways and I am not justifying any of these actions which I regard as unnecessary. They are also all now historic...or is that in the eye of the beholder.

Hang on a minute, doesn't SF argue that IRA violence was different to UVF & British Forces violence? It wants enquiries into the latter, and tells everyone these things happen with regards to the former.

SF are as hypocritical as others in doing so. All violence is wrong and it matters not how someone was killed or in what context, I personally do not believe it can be justified, some mothers son/daughter/father/mother.

I agree with that.

I don't. If all violence is wrong then is violence wrong in self defense. Is violence wrong to defend your country against an invader?

The "all violence is wrong" mantra  is the phoney ideology for cowards  and hasn't muppet  already  professed to having cowardly self- preservation tendencies, when honour and dignity are being directly threatened.
Even Gandhi said something to the extent, that if it comes down to a choice between cowardice or violence, chose violence.

It was me not muppet that said I believe all violence is wrong, I meant in the context of Irish politics, of course there are situations where defense is required, that is somewhat different. The point that I wanted to get across was really more to do with the hypocritical way in Ireland in which politicians of what ever hue define violence as acceptable or not depending on the point in time and their point of view. There is absolutely no difference between the violent minority in the IRA, UVF, PIRF, UFF etc... whether it be 1916 or 2016. 

[muppet]

I watched that documentary myself. To be honest I had sympathy for the RIC officers they killed in that first incident. There was no reason to kill them and it's a pity they aren't remembered along with the four IRA men at the annual commemoration.  As usual from TG4, it was a brilliant watch!

Surely the old IRA would not stoop so low, that is only the preserve of those awful provos.

Well it was no Shankill bomb!

The difference being what exactly?

Are you serious?

Yes unless you subscribe to a hierarchy of victims, both reprehensible terrorist acts of violence which left families in mourning.

There is a tendency in parties opposed to SF to argue that IRA violence in the '70's and '80's was some how different to that carried out by the old IRA, UVF or British forces. What I am arguing is that you can't have it both ways and I am not justifying any of these actions which I regard as unnecessary. They are also all now historic...or is that in the eye of the beholder.

Hang on a minute, doesn't SF argue that IRA violence was different to UVF & British Forces violence? It wants enquiries into the latter, and tells everyone these things happen with regards to the former.

SF are as hypocritical as others in doing so. All violence is wrong and it matters not how someone was killed or in what context, I personally do not believe it can be justified, some mothers son/daughter/father/mother.

I agree with that.

I don't. If all violence is wrong then is violence wrong in self defense. Is violence wrong to defend your country against an invader?

The "all violence is wrong" mantra  is the phoney ideology for cowards  and hasn't muppet  already  professed to having cowardly self- preservation tendencies, when honour and dignity are being directly threatened.
Even Gandhi said something to the extent, that if it comes down to a choice between cowardice or violence, chose violence.

Well this has been twisted out of all context and recognition.

I was talking about SF defending IRA violence, these were conscious decisions to commit violent acts, frequently against civilians including their own. That is a world away from instinctive self-defence, which would be over before you even know what happened. Saying all violence is wrong doesn't mean I wouldn't smash a hurley into the head of someone who broke into my house.

Fair enough

Well that was surprisingly civil. 

Good man!

[Main Street]

I watched that documentary myself. To be honest I had sympathy for the RIC officers they killed in that first incident. There was no reason to kill them and it's a pity they aren't remembered along with the four IRA men at the annual commemoration.  As usual from TG4, it was a brilliant watch!

Surely the old IRA would not stoop so low, that is only the preserve of those awful provos.

Well it was no Shankill bomb!

The difference being what exactly?

Are you serious?

Yes unless you subscribe to a hierarchy of victims, both reprehensible terrorist acts of violence which left families in mourning.

There is a tendency in parties opposed to SF to argue that IRA violence in the '70's and '80's was some how different to that carried out by the old IRA, UVF or British forces. What I am arguing is that you can't have it both ways and I am not justifying any of these actions which I regard as unnecessary. They are also all now historic...or is that in the eye of the beholder.

Hang on a minute, doesn't SF argue that IRA violence was different to UVF & British Forces violence? It wants enquiries into the latter, and tells everyone these things happen with regards to the former.

SF are as hypocritical as others in doing so. All violence is wrong and it matters not how someone was killed or in what context, I personally do not believe it can be justified, some mothers son/daughter/father/mother.

I agree with that.

I don't. If all violence is wrong then is violence wrong in self defense. Is violence wrong to defend your country against an invader?

The "all violence is wrong" mantra  is the phoney ideology for cowards  and hasn't muppet  already  professed to having cowardly self- preservation tendencies, when honour and dignity are being directly threatened.
Even Gandhi said something to the extent, that if it comes down to a choice between cowardice or violence, chose violence.

Well this has been twisted out of all context and recognition.

I was talking about SF defending IRA violence, these were conscious decisions to commit violent acts, frequently against civilians including their own. That is a world away from instinctive self-defence, which would be over before you even know what happened. Saying all violence is wrong doesn't mean I wouldn't smash a hurley into the head of someone who broke into my house.

Fair enough

Well that was surprisingly civil. 

Good man!

Pity you don't read a post before  agreeing wholeheartedly to  that "all violence is wrong"
I still think you're a coward though who'll only profess to defend his property or act in self interest, how about selflessly acting to defend others in dire straights? How about for example the french resistance in WW2 , do you think they were justified to send a few bullets Fritz's way? Would a german soldier in France  during WW2 be a legitimate target or do you think they should be let do what they felt like doing in peace and with full permission of the Vichy government?

[muppet]

Pity you don't read a post before  agreeing wholeheartedly to  that "all violence is wrong"
I still think you're a coward though who'll only profess to defend his property or act in self interest, how about selflessly acting to defend others in dire straights? How about for example the french resistance in WW2 , do you think they were justified to send a few bullets Fritz's way? Would a german soldier in France  during WW2 be a legitimate target or do you think they should be let do what they felt like doing in peace and with full permission of the Vichy government?

I am a mere mortal, unlike your magnificent self. I could never be the historical giant that you obviously are. If Gengis Khan and his army or Hilter or all of Persia came at me, I would take my family and run. I couldn't perform the heroics that Leonidis and you could.

War is about egos, not principles. You can fight for or against the egos all you want. But don't pretend it is for some noble cause. You defend your own interests and that it it.