Guess the Sindo Headline

[Snapchap]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

[Angelo]

The founding fathers of the Free State carried out atrocities far in excess of what the Provisionals would do decades later.

But the IRA killed an awful.lot of civilians and that usually has a bad look..

So did the Old IRA.

What is it about you free staters that doesn't allow ye to see the brazen hypocrisy.

[mouview]

The founding fathers of the Free State carried out atrocities far in excess of what the Provisionals would do decades later.

But the IRA killed an awful.lot of civilians and that usually has a bad look..

So did the Old IRA.

What is it about you free staters that doesn't allow ye to see the brazen hypocrisy.

The border probably.

[Itchy]

I don't take SF criticism personally. If during election people wanted to pull up their manifesto and critique it, call it nonsense or whatever then no problem. However they dragged up a murder in armagh and used a grieving family like pawns. SF getting grief for having a twitter account in Europe or keeping a list of voters yet when another party simultaneously is out deleting websites not a peep. Bobby Storey Wall to wall coverage for months. Did any other party get that, do example when An Taoiseach was breaking rules at an opening in Cork and blatantly ignoring rules live on camera?.
FG were in government, asking them about their record on homelessness is fair. If SF gets into government it will be fair to ask them.
BTW, McInerney is a fine journalist and I think will be fair unlike many others with numerous family links to FF and FG, miriam and tubridy for example.

SF didnt want the Armagh murder brought up. Doesn't mean bringing it up is an anti-SF agenda.
I don't buy the "grieving family like pawns" bit even slightly. That's deflection.
It's like saying the media don't actually give a crap about the poor homeless when they tackle FG about it.

The Storey funeral was a ridiculous high profile mistake. You can't for one minute say they did not deserve criticism for it.
However " Bobby Storey Wall to wall coverage for months" is a gross exaggeration!! At least in the media I was following there was no "wall to wall coverage for months".
The story did keep rumbling from time to time, but that was purely because Arlene widened it to talk about prosecutions and then police etc. It was news, but still covered much less down south than up north.

Do you really believe what the Taoiseach did was the same? If you do then fair enough, but I don't. Mary Lou (nor anyone else) wasn't calling for him to be prosecuted, if they did, it would have got wall to wall coverage. 

SF get a hard time because of their past. Is that fair? Maybe not. It gets less as the new breed come into the party and the old stagers leave. FF still get a hard time over the financial crisis and the brown envelopes, even though most of the guilty have left, but that's also diminishing with time.

But no doubt there's an element of conspiracy theory in saying FF and FG don't get criticised from the mainstream media. Stephen Donnelly doesn't get criticised? What about every Minister for Health since Martin??? What about housing - FG not get criticised about that? It's just not true.
And Mary Lou has received a huge amount of airtime on RTE during the Covid crisis. Rightly so. But you seem to ignore that. To suggest RTE have a bias/agenda against her, is just silly.

We will have to agree to disagree as there is no scientific way to measure this, my gut tells me all parties are not treated equally in the south yours say not true.

[Angelo]

Interesting that FF have a tweet up commemorating an IRA gunman and killer today.

Of course the usual stooges who decry SF and their links to Provos will be on defending that.

And when the double standards are pointed out they will run off into the sunset because there is no credible justification for it.

[Hound]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

[Hound]

We will have to agree to disagree as there is no scientific way to measure this, my gut tells me all parties are not treated equally in the south yours say not true.

That's fair itchy.

I'm not denying that SF get treated harshly at times by IT, RTE and VM, but so do FG and FF at times. And the other parties. But totally agree that it is difficult to measure and of course the tabloids and social media muddy things completely in all directions!

[Snapchap]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

There are differences in all armed campaigns. The fact is there are also distinct similarities between the Old IRA and PIRA campaigns. So your attempts to dodge the discussion with such meaningless nonsense as "it was 100 years ago" (besides, the Old IRA and PIRA were separated by 50 years, not 100) and your persistence with the "whataboutery" get out clause is just pathetic. If you regard the PIRA as terrorist, then explain why the Old IRA were not.

[Angelo]

We will have to agree to disagree as there is no scientific way to measure this, my gut tells me all parties are not treated equally in the south yours say not true.

That's fair itchy.

I'm not denying that SF get treated harshly at times by IT, RTE and VM, but so do FG and FF at times. And the other parties. But totally agree that it is difficult to measure and of course the tabloids and social media muddy things completely in all directions!

False equivalence.

There's countless examples of the bias in the Irish media. Itchy pointed many of them out to you, I pointed many of them out to you and you ignored them because they don't fit in with your blinkered analysis.

Only a stooge would try and claim it's a level playing field.

[Keyser soze]

I don't know why any SF supporter would complain about the vilification of SF in the Southern Media as it is so blatant that it has provided SF with a boost at the polls over the past few years. The bile of the political establishment and their tame media [by no means all media though] is such that they cannot control their instinctive reaction to demonise SF at every available opportunity.

All this does is magnify the corruption at the heart of the  establishment in Dublin as far as I can see, so long may it continue as it will soon lead to SF becoming the biggest party in the Dail.

[clonadmad]

The founding fathers of the Free State carried out atrocities far in excess of what the Provisionals would do decades later.

But the IRA killed an awful.lot of civilians and that usually has a bad look..

So did the Old IRA.

What is it about you free staters that doesn't allow ye to see the brazen hypocrisy.

The difference is the old IRA were led and manned by people from the South who drove the British out of the 26 counties,which led to the Republic and the modern European state it is today

They were winners


The provos were a collection of beardie Nordie rabble with guff about a socialist state,who were running to the British authorities at every opportunity to inform on each other.They also didn't achieve their aims of

Brits out of the North

NI is still in existence after all their attempts to overthrow it

They lost

There's the difference

[trueblue1234]

The founding fathers of the Free State carried out atrocities far in excess of what the Provisionals would do decades later.

But the IRA killed an awful.lot of civilians and that usually has a bad look..

So did the Old IRA.

What is it about you free staters that doesn't allow ye to see the brazen hypocrisy.

The difference is the old IRA were led and manned by people from the South who drove the British out of the 26 counties,which led to the Republic and the modern European state it is today

They were winners


The provos were a collection of beardie Nordie rabble with guff about a socialist state,who were running to the British authorities at every opportunity to inform on each other.They also didn't achieve their aims of

Brits out of the North

NI is still in existence after all their attempts to overthrow it

They lost

There's the difference

The old IRA didn't win. They never got what they wanted. They just sold out.

[Milltown Row2]

The founding fathers of the Free State carried out atrocities far in excess of what the Provisionals would do decades later.

But the IRA killed an awful.lot of civilians and that usually has a bad look..

So did the Old IRA.

What is it about you free staters that doesn't allow ye to see the brazen hypocrisy.

The difference is the old IRA were led and manned by people from the South who drove the British out of the 26 counties,which led to the Republic and the modern European state it is today

They were winners, but turned their back on the rest of Ireland as they got what they wanted and didn't want the hassle


The provos were a collection of beardie Nordie rabble with guff about a socialist state,who were running to the British authorities at every opportunity to inform on each other.They also didn't achieve their aims of

Brits out of the North

NI is still in existence after all their attempts to overthrow it

They lost

There's the difference

Fixed that 

[Hound]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

There are differences in all armed campaigns. The fact is there are also distinct similarities between the Old IRA and PIRA campaigns. So your attempts to dodge the discussion with such meaningless nonsense as "it was 100 years ago" (besides, the Old IRA and PIRA were separated by 50 years, not 100) and your persistence with the "whataboutery" get out clause is just pathetic. If you regard the PIRA as terrorist, then explain why the Old IRA were not.

So you're deliberately and disingenuously missing the point. It's pathetic to think the Old IRA and the Provos were the same or very similar. You're not worthy of further discussion.

Just read about John Hume and why he thought the Old IRA was different to the Provos. In fact just read on both histories and it'll stare you right in the face. I'll leave you with the following from John Hume:

John Hume: The IRA has killed more than twice as many Catholics - the very people they claim to defend - as the British security forces have. ``Some defenders!'

[Lar Naparka]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

There are differences in all armed campaigns. The fact is there are also distinct similarities between the Old IRA and PIRA campaigns. So your attempts to dodge the discussion with such meaningless nonsense as "it was 100 years ago" (besides, the Old IRA and PIRA were separated by 50 years, not 100) and your persistence with the "whataboutery" get out clause is just pathetic. If you regard the PIRA as terrorist, then explain why the Old IRA were not.

Yes, the Old IRA had its (more than)) fair share of terrorists and get quick merchants- probably on a par with PIRA. My father was tooo young to fight in the war against the tans but he gave me his reminiscencesover the years as I was growing up and from what he and other s told me, for every genuine freedom fighter, there was at least one other who was motivated by greed or intent on sorting out old grievances.
(I'm referring to East Mayo here but II believe the same held true for the rest of the country as well.)
Shopkeepers and other property owners were forced to pay levies ostensibly for the war effort but there was no way of telling where the levies went. A few prosperous farmers were pointed out to me who were, nominally anyway, in ther IRA. They wound up far richer when the war ended than when it begun.
I was told that it was commoon knowledge that some of them never fires a shot in anger and took goood care that they were never callled upon to do so.
All in all, the Old IRA was a very mixed bag.