gaaboard.com

A row has broken out in Donegal over council plans to erect a memorial to Lord Mountbatten and the other victims of the Mullaghmore bombing.
Four people, including two children, died when the IRA detonated a bomb on his boat off the coast of Sligo thirty years ago.
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.
But the Fianna Fáil Mayor of Donegal, Brendan Byrne, says it should go ahead.
"As mayor of Donegal I'm not erecting a memorial to a member of the British Royal family.
"I'm erecting a monument to the four people who perished needlessly, senselessly, as Mullaghmore some 30 years ago."
Eighteen British soldiers were killed later that day when two booby-trap bombs exploded beside Narrow Water Castle near Warrenpoint in County Down.

Isn't Mullaghmore in Sligo?

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
A row has broken out in Donegal over council plans to erect a memorial to Lord Mountbatten and the other victims of the Mullaghmore bombing.
Four people, including two children, died when the IRA detonated a bomb on his boat off the coast of Sligo thirty years ago.
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.
But the Fianna Fáil Mayor of Donegal, Brendan Byrne, says it should go ahead.
"As mayor of Donegal I'm not erecting a memorial to a member of the British Royal family.
"I'm erecting a monument to the four people who perished needlessly, senselessly, as Mullaghmore some 30 years ago."
Eighteen British soldiers were killed later that day when two booby-trap bombs exploded beside Narrow Water Castle near Warrenpoint in County Down.

Well at least their opposition has got nothing to do with the background of the victims  ::)

Quote from: thewobbler on August 27, 2009, 01:29:15 PM
Isn't Mullaghmore in Sligo?

Yes, Mullaghmore is in Sligo as far as I know so it seems a strange location for a memorial.

Obviously Donegal Co. Co. doesn't have the same money problems that the rest of the county councils seem to have.

'm sure that they could find better things to do with their money at the minute

Quote from: tyronefan on August 27, 2009, 01:36:39 PM
Obviously Donegal Co. Co. doesn't have the same money problems that the rest of the county councils seem to have.

'm sure that they could find better things to do with their money at the minute

They could subsidise the Donegal firms who lost out to 2 Northern Ireland firms for building an army barracks and the supply of fruit and veg to hospitals in Doengal.

Was his castle not in Donegal? I think he used just Mullaghmore for the boats, don't think he lived round it.

Is there a memorial to Eddie Fullerton?

Quote from: gallsman on August 27, 2009, 01:59:52 PM
Was his castle not in Donegal? I think he used just Mullaghmore for the boats, don't think he lived round it.

Classiebawn Castle is in Sligo, right beside Mullaghmore.

Doesn't some of the Mountbatten family still live in Mayo.

Quote from: Zapatista on August 27, 2009, 02:30:45 PM
Is there a memorial to Eddie Fullerton?

He doesn't qualify as he was not from the arisotocracy, stupid idea from Donegal Co Co, they should have more pressing concerns to be getting on with.

By the way the History channel has a documentary about him tonight 9pm, repeated several times over the weekend.

What was his legacy in Pakistan and India, is he rembered fondly there, I remember reading ages ago someone attacking his reputation regarding there?

Quote from: Tony Baloney on August 27, 2009, 01:33:11 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
A row has broken out in Donegal over council plans to erect a memorial to Lord Mountbatten and the other victims of the Mullaghmore bombing.
Four people, including two children, died when the IRA detonated a bomb on his boat off the coast of Sligo thirty years ago.
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.
But the Fianna Fáil Mayor of Donegal, Brendan Byrne, says it should go ahead.
"As mayor of Donegal I'm not erecting a memorial to a member of the British Royal family.
"I'm erecting a monument to the four people who perished needlessly, senselessly, as Mullaghmore some 30 years ago."
Eighteen British soldiers were killed later that day when two booby-trap bombs exploded beside Narrow Water Castle near Warrenpoint in County Down.

Well at least their opposition has got nothing to do with the background of the victims  ::)

Quote from: thewobbler on August 27, 2009, 01:29:15 PM
Isn't Mullaghmore in Sligo?

Yes, Mullaghmore is in Sligo as far as I know so it seems a strange location for a memorial.

Using that logic there should be no 1916 commemerations.

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.

So SF have never supported memorials to any Republican who died in a "single incident", then?
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/28361

Bitter, hypocritical c***ts.  >:(

Contrast that with the reaction of some of the legitimate targets innocent victims who perished in the atrocity, such as the father of Paul Maxwell (the 15 year old Irish boy holidaying locally who was invited by Mountbatten to help out on the boat). The vermin who murdered his son undoubtedly knew that he was on Board, yet still went ahead. Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Or consider the humanity of Timothy Knatchbull, the 14 year old who was seriously injured along with his parents, in an explosion which robbed him of his identical twin brother, two Grandparents and his friend Paul:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6806272.ece

It is little wonder that the Shinners are desperate not to be reminded of this atrocity, since deep down they know that not even they can justify the utter barbarism which they deliberately inflicted on entirely innocent human beings.

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:05:17 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.

So SF have never supported memorials to any Republican who died in a "single incident", then?
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/28361

Bitter, hypocritical c***ts.  >:(

Contrast that with the reaction of some of the legitimate targets innocent victims who perished in the atrocity, such as the father of Paul Maxwell (the 15 year old Irish boy holidaying locally who was invited by Mountbatten to help out on the boat). The vermin who murdered his son undoubtedly knew that he was on Board, yet still went ahead. Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Or consider the humanity of Timothy Knatchbull, the 14 year old who was seriously injured along with his parents, in an explosion which robbed him of his identical twin brother, two Grandparents and his friend Paul:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6806272.ece

It is little wonder that the Shinners are desperate not to be reminded of this atrocity, since deep down they know that not even they can justify the utter barbarism which they deliberately inflicted on entirely innocent human beings.

These butchers Loyalist or Republican not alone think they have a right to kill the so called other side but can murder their own in a cause that only a deluded view believe in. Trust me there are many other Nationalist & Unionists who have differing views & also valid, we don't murder for them. I am a nationalist with alot of questions how a United Ireland will affect me, my family, my friends, my area, my county, my province. That sence of community is what makes us Irish no matter if we nationalist or unionist. I want a United Ireland by the way, but I am far from ready for it.

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:05:17 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.

So SF have never supported memorials to any Republican who died in a "single incident", then?
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/28361

Bitter, hypocritical c***ts.  >:(

Contrast that with the reaction of some of the legitimate targets innocent victims who perished in the atrocity, such as the father of Paul Maxwell (the 15 year old Irish boy holidaying locally who was invited by Mountbatten to help out on the boat). The vermin who murdered his son undoubtedly knew that he was on Board, yet still went ahead. Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Or consider the humanity of Timothy Knatchbull, the 14 year old who was seriously injured along with his parents, in an explosion which robbed him of his identical twin brother, two Grandparents and his friend Paul:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6806272.ece

It is little wonder that the Shinners are desperate not to be reminded of this atrocity, since deep down they know that not even they can justify the utter barbarism which they deliberately inflicted on entirely innocent human beings.

I think you will find that it was the IRA that did this, dont think that sf were even around at that time - though could be wrong..

terrible that people were killed, however unless the memorial is a small and financially cheap plaque or somthing, it is a bit much to be shelling out dosh for that when the country's coffers are empty !

Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 27, 2009, 03:14:34 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:05:17 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.

So SF have never supported memorials to any Republican who died in a "single incident", then?
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/28361

Bitter, hypocritical c***ts.  >:(

Contrast that with the reaction of some of the legitimate targets innocent victims who perished in the atrocity, such as the father of Paul Maxwell (the 15 year old Irish boy holidaying locally who was invited by Mountbatten to help out on the boat). The vermin who murdered his son undoubtedly knew that he was on Board, yet still went ahead. Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Or consider the humanity of Timothy Knatchbull, the 14 year old who was seriously injured along with his parents, in an explosion which robbed him of his identical twin brother, two Grandparents and his friend Paul:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6806272.ece

It is little wonder that the Shinners are desperate not to be reminded of this atrocity, since deep down they know that not even they can justify the utter barbarism which they deliberately inflicted on entirely innocent human beings.

I think you will find that it was the IRA that did this, dont think that sf were even around at that time - though could be wrong..

terrible that people were killed, however unless the memorial is a small and financially cheap plaque or somthing, it is a bit much to be shelling out dosh for that when the country's coffers are empty !

I actually agree, Lynchboy, bad timing for this kind of thing, purely on financial terms at present. Nice idea, but we broke.

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:05:17 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.

So SF have never supported memorials to any Republican who died in a "single incident", then?
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/28361

Bitter, hypocritical c***ts.  >:(

Contrast that with the reaction of some of the legitimate targets innocent victims who perished in the atrocity, such as the father of Paul Maxwell (the 15 year old Irish boy holidaying locally who was invited by Mountbatten to help out on the boat). The vermin who murdered his son undoubtedly knew that he was on Board, yet still went ahead. Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Or consider the humanity of Timothy Knatchbull, the 14 year old who was seriously injured along with his parents, in an explosion which robbed him of his identical twin brother, two Grandparents and his friend Paul:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6806272.ece

It is little wonder that the Shinners are desperate not to be reminded of this atrocity, since deep down they know that not even they can justify the utter barbarism which they deliberately inflicted on entirely innocent human beings.

They are objecting to the council erecting a monument (and rightly so) I think you'll find.
As for the rest of your rant - well!  ::)

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 27, 2009, 03:18:18 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:05:17 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.

So SF have never supported memorials to any Republican who died in a "single incident", then?
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/28361

Bitter, hypocritical c***ts.  >:(

Contrast that with the reaction of some of the legitimate targets innocent victims who perished in the atrocity, such as the father of Paul Maxwell (the 15 year old Irish boy holidaying locally who was invited by Mountbatten to help out on the boat). The vermin who murdered his son undoubtedly knew that he was on Board, yet still went ahead. Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Or consider the humanity of Timothy Knatchbull, the 14 year old who was seriously injured along with his parents, in an explosion which robbed him of his identical twin brother, two Grandparents and his friend Paul:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6806272.ece

It is little wonder that the Shinners are desperate not to be reminded of this atrocity, since deep down they know that not even they can justify the utter barbarism which they deliberately inflicted on entirely innocent human beings.

They are objecting to the council erecting a monument (and rightly so) I think you'll find.
As for the rest of your rant - well!  ::)

'equalising', 'digressing' and 'tangents' are the words I think you are looking for
maybe an 'as usual' too !
yer welcome !
:D

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 27, 2009, 03:18:18 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:05:17 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.

So SF have never supported memorials to any Republican who died in a "single incident", then?
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/28361

Bitter, hypocritical c***ts.  >:(

Contrast that with the reaction of some of the legitimate targets innocent victims who perished in the atrocity, such as the father of Paul Maxwell (the 15 year old Irish boy holidaying locally who was invited by Mountbatten to help out on the boat). The vermin who murdered his son undoubtedly knew that he was on Board, yet still went ahead. Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Or consider the humanity of Timothy Knatchbull, the 14 year old who was seriously injured along with his parents, in an explosion which robbed him of his identical twin brother, two Grandparents and his friend Paul:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6806272.ece

It is little wonder that the Shinners are desperate not to be reminded of this atrocity, since deep down they know that not even they can justify the utter barbarism which they deliberately inflicted on entirely innocent human beings.

They are objecting to the council erecting a monument (and rightly so) I think you'll find.
As for the rest of your rant - well!  ::)

As opposed to in Castlebar they where objecting to moving a monument to Ernie O'Malley to a location that it would not be vadalised by secondary school students so as to save council money, council wants to move it to a lovely location by the lake, but the Shinners kicking up a shitstorm, bloody hell its safer at the lake than on the Mall, council spends loads to upkeep it at its present location. I actually a fan of Ernie O'Malley & my town thats why I want to see it safe. They willing to spend extra money to keep it in its present location.

There was a good documentary on RTÉ recently. Documents released by the National Archives of correspondance between Mountbatten and an Irish diplomat revealed that Mountbatten was actually in favour of Irish reunification.

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1053790 (http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1053790)

Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on August 27, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
There was a good documentary on RTÉ recently. Documents released by the National Archives of correspondance between Mountbatten and an Irish diplomat revealed that Mountbatten was actually in favour of Irish reunification.

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1053790 (http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1053790)

Probably fancied his chances as King of Ireland

Quote from: Son_of_Sam on August 27, 2009, 03:24:42 PM
As opposed to in Castlebar they where objecting to moving a monument to Ernie O'Malley to a location that it would not be vadalised by secondary school students so as to save council money, council wants to move it to a lovely location by the lake, but the Shinners kicking up a shitstorm, bloody hell its safer at the lake than on the Mall, council spends loads to upkeep it at its present location. I actually a fan of Ernie O'Malley & my town thats why I want to see it safe. They willing to spend extra money to keep it in its present location.

Mustn't take much to kick up a shit storm in Castlebar then as the last I remember there was only 1 SF member on the town council and yiz victimised him to the extent that he had to resign or lose his job. Would it not also be betraying the wishes of the person that donated the statue (O'Malley's widow) to move it somewhere else? If you are such a big fan of Ernie O'Malley maybe you should be asking what happened his art collection and why it never ended up in a museum in Castlebar as he wanted.

Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on August 27, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
There was a good documentary on RTÉ recently. Documents released by the National Archives of correspondance between Mountbatten and an Irish diplomat revealed that Mountbatten was actually in favour of Irish reunification.

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1053790 (http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1053790)

Yeah, but he was still a Brit, so that makes him "fair game". Along with teenaged boys and pensioners...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 27, 2009, 03:14:34 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:05:17 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.

So SF have never supported memorials to any Republican who died in a "single incident", then?
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/28361

Bitter, hypocritical c***ts.  >:(

Contrast that with the reaction of some of the legitimate targets innocent victims who perished in the atrocity, such as the father of Paul Maxwell (the 15 year old Irish boy holidaying locally who was invited by Mountbatten to help out on the boat). The vermin who murdered his son undoubtedly knew that he was on Board, yet still went ahead. Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Or consider the humanity of Timothy Knatchbull, the 14 year old who was seriously injured along with his parents, in an explosion which robbed him of his identical twin brother, two Grandparents and his friend Paul:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6806272.ece

It is little wonder that the Shinners are desperate not to be reminded of this atrocity, since deep down they know that not even they can justify the utter barbarism which they deliberately inflicted on entirely innocent human beings.

I think you will find that it was the IRA that did this, dont think that sf were even around at that time - though could be wrong..

Ah right. And there was me thinking that there might be some sort of connection between Sinn Fein and the Provos.

Silly me.  ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:46:14 PM

Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on August 27, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
There was a good documentary on RTÉ recently. Documents released by the National Archives of correspondance between Mountbatten and an Irish diplomat revealed that Mountbatten was actually in favour of Irish reunification.

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1053790 (http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1053790)

Yeah, but he was still a Brit, so that makes him "fair game". Along with teenaged boys and pensioners...

Is that why the Brits always liked to build beside schools ?

Quote from: Donagh on August 27, 2009, 03:40:57 PM

Quote from: Son_of_Sam on August 27, 2009, 03:24:42 PM
As opposed to in Castlebar they where objecting to moving a monument to Ernie O'Malley to a location that it would not be vadalised by secondary school students so as to save council money, council wants to move it to a lovely location by the lake, but the Shinners kicking up a shitstorm, bloody hell its safer at the lake than on the Mall, council spends loads to upkeep it at its present location. I actually a fan of Ernie O'Malley & my town thats why I want to see it safe. They willing to spend extra money to keep it in its present location.

Mustn't take much to kick up a shit storm in Castlebar then as the last I remember there was only 1 SF member on the town council and yiz victimised him to the extent that he had to resign or lose his job. Would it not also be betraying the wishes of the person that donated the statue (O'Malley's widow) to move it somewhere else? If you are such a big fan of Ernie O'Malley maybe you should be asking what happened his art collection and why it never ended up in a museum in Castlebar as he wanted.

A Noel, I always wondered how such a nice lad could get caught up with such people as Sinn Fein.

Just for your info.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5880&Itemid=38 (http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5880&Itemid=38)

Heard a debate about this today on highland radio and going about the amount of calls into the station i cannot see this starting. None of the callers objected to it going ahead but they though there were thousands of other things the money could be spent

Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 27, 2009, 03:20:19 PM
'equalising', 'digressing' and 'tangents' are the words I think you are looking for

What comparable atrocity eg by "Loyalist" [sic] terrorists was I attempting to "equalise"?

How may a post about some of the victims of the atrocity be considered to be "digressing"?

By what measure is pointing out that SF are (hypocritically) happy to see memorials erected to other "single incidents" going off at a "tangent"?

You know, I am happy for you to repeat, parrot-fashion, your collection of catchphrases straight from the SF Lexicon. For I have little doubt that far from rebutting or refuting my posts, they serve instead only to remind people of the risible intellectual poverty of whatever point it is you are trying to make.  ::)

Quote from: gerry on August 27, 2009, 03:54:11 PM
Heard a debate about this today on highland radio and going about the amount of calls into the station i cannot see this starting. None of the callers objected to it going ahead but they though there were thousands of other things the money could be spent

If, in the present economic climate, people are concerned about spending public money on the Memorial, then that may be fair enough.

But I somehow doubt that that is SF's primary motive for opposing it.  ::)

EG How are SF being hypocritical, these other monuments you talk of are put up by SF themselves or other organisations (NGA etc...), SF are saying it is not right that the council fund this monument, and I think they are 100% correct.

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 27, 2009, 04:07:11 PM
EG How are SF being hypocritical, these other monuments you talk of are put up by SF themselves or other organisations (NGA etc...), SF are saying it is not right that the council fund this monument, and I think they are 100% correct.

I am going by the report from Minder's opening post:

"Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident"

That said, it is uncharacteristically remiss of them not to have come up with some spurious pretext for opposing this memorial, such as "saving the public purse", which would have served to conceal what is undoubtedly their real motive.

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:47:49 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 27, 2009, 03:14:34 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:05:17 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.

So SF have never supported memorials to any Republican who died in a "single incident", then?
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/28361

Bitter, hypocritical c***ts.  >:(

Contrast that with the reaction of some of the legitimate targets innocent victims who perished in the atrocity, such as the father of Paul Maxwell (the 15 year old Irish boy holidaying locally who was invited by Mountbatten to help out on the boat). The vermin who murdered his son undoubtedly knew that he was on Board, yet still went ahead. Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Or consider the humanity of Timothy Knatchbull, the 14 year old who was seriously injured along with his parents, in an explosion which robbed him of his identical twin brother, two Grandparents and his friend Paul:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6806272.ece

It is little wonder that the Shinners are desperate not to be reminded of this atrocity, since deep down they know that not even they can justify the utter barbarism which they deliberately inflicted on entirely innocent human beings.

I think you will find that it was the IRA that did this, dont think that sf were even around at that time - though could be wrong..

Ah right. And there was me thinking that there might be some sort of connection between Sinn Fein and the Provos.

Silly me.  ::)

silly you indeed.
you keep trying though.

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:57:55 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 27, 2009, 03:20:19 PM
'equalising', 'digressing' and 'tangents' are the words I think you are looking for

What comparable atrocity eg by "Loyalist" [sic] terrorists was I attempting to "equalise"?

How may a post about some of the victims of the atrocity be considered to be "digressing"?

By what measure is pointing out that SF are (hypocritically) happy to see memorials erected to other "single incidents" going off at a "tangent"?

You know, I am happy for you to repeat, parrot-fashion, your collection of catchphrases straight from the SF Lexicon. For I have little doubt that far from rebutting or refuting my posts, they serve instead only to remind people of the risible intellectual poverty of whatever point it is you are trying to make.  ::)

equalising as this thread is on the memorial being erected !

I htink people see your agenda from way off now. Whatever credibility you might had have is long gone with your equalising , whataboutery, tangents , irrelevent digressions and all round all huff no substance and no actual point to your posts !
keep it up, you help destroy your own points through this !

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
A row has broken out in Donegal over council plans to erect a memorial to Lord Mountbatten and the other victims of the Mullaghmore bombing.
Four people, including two children, died when the IRA detonated a bomb on his boat off the coast of Sligo thirty years ago.
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.
But the Fianna Fáil Mayor of Donegal, Brendan Byrne, says it should go ahead.
"As mayor of Donegal I'm not erecting a memorial to a member of the British Royal family.
"I'm erecting a monument to the four people who perished needlessly, senselessly, as Mullaghmore some 30 years ago."
Eighteen British soldiers were killed later that day when two booby-trap bombs exploded beside Narrow Water Castle near Warrenpoint in County Down.

Loads of mistakes in the above piece, mullaghmore isnt off the coast of Sligo, Its part of our coast line, even Leitrim borders us before Donegal so how any clown gets that wrong is poor. Its Sligo full stop.

Why would Donegal be erecting a memorial for an atrocity in Sligo, whats it to do with them? Its a joke anyway, we are going to remember a british monarchs death.. ::).

I live about 4 miles from Classiebawn Castle but before my time, When mountbatten owned it he employed locals to keep it running and was well thought of by locals. He is high ranking british royalty and he used to fly the union jack for the month of august on the castle, now when the troubles started, wasnt the brightest idea was it. He should of stopped coming during those times as he was way to easy a target, the bomb was on the boat and it was very sickening that innocent locals were killed aswell, one of those lads fathers had to put pieces of his son into a black bag im reliabily informed >:(, just sick. But mountbatten should of stopped coming, idiot. Stupid and as for the flag he was blatantly asking for trouble.

If the monument doenst mention mountbattens name or have anything about him, I would be in favour to remember the other innocent victims. But I fear not. IMO mountbatten endangered those kids lives because of his stupity, but my opinion on those who carried it out is not printable.

Have you been at the "hubbly bubbly" again? ;)

Quote from: hatchetfield on August 27, 2009, 06:14:41 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:05:17 PM
Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Do you really think that this is what it was/is all about?  Its not a green v orange thing ya eejit.  Have you not noticed that the Bwits are still here and that they own 6 of our counties?  The fourth green field??

I'd be careful with the words vermin - it was some op!

Some op?  Are we talking about the same thing here.  Two teenage boys were killed and a 79 year old man who the IRA had no quarrel with.  Those behind it were nothing more than scum of the earth.

Its a scary time for me when I agree with Evil Genius!

There is a programme on at 9pm about it on the History channel.

RTE had a decent documentary on the bombing a few weeks ago. It brought the detail of the event back to me. Let me be clear about this as a republican. Two IRA men sat on a hill to blow up by remote control Louis Mountbatten, a member of the Royal family holidaying in the South. Now at a stretch Mountbatten could be jsutified by his military history, but only at a stretch as he was an old man. But the most shocking thing was that the two men who blew up the boat were watching a boat with a local man young child on board and other small children belonging to Mountbatten. They couldv'e backed out but they did not. They pushed the button and that makes them cowardly child killers and scum to me. I felt very sorry for the young boys father still traumatised all these years later recalling how he picked up his lifeless sons body hoping against the odds he was still alive. Thomas McMahon was a hard man but ultimately a child killer and I don't think he ever spoke with regret for what he did. Francis McGirl was also with him, a nephew of famous republican John Joe from Ballinamore, a short distance from me. A coward also although I believe he deeply regreted what he did. I supported the IRA right to fight with physical force but I also believe in discipline within an army, these guys should have been court martialed and handed to the cops for what they did.

As for the monument. If it remembers the victims equally I have no problem with it. I do wonder what Donegal Co Council is at and has time and money to spend on this but I also wonder what Sinn Fein is at, this is a shameful part of the struggle and they'd be better off shuting their traps.

I'd have no problem with the monument. I certainly had no issues with the morality of Mountbatten being a target in time of war.

Quote from: SLIGONIAN on August 27, 2009, 07:05:54 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
A row has broken out in Donegal over council plans to erect a memorial to Lord Mountbatten and the other victims of the Mullaghmore bombing.
Four people, including two children, died when the IRA detonated a bomb on his boat off the coast of Sligo thirty years ago.
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.
But the Fianna Fáil Mayor of Donegal, Brendan Byrne, says it should go ahead.
"As mayor of Donegal I'm not erecting a memorial to a member of the British Royal family.
"I'm erecting a monument to the four people who perished needlessly, senselessly, as Mullaghmore some 30 years ago."
Eighteen British soldiers were killed later that day when two booby-trap bombs exploded beside Narrow Water Castle near Warrenpoint in County Down.

Loads of mistakes in the above piece, mullaghmore isnt off the coast of Sligo, Its part of our coast line, even Leitrim borders us before Donegal so how any clown gets that wrong is poor. Its Sligo full stop.

Why would Donegal be erecting a memorial for an atrocity in Sligo, whats it to do with them? Its a joke anyway, we are going to remember a british monarchs death.. ::).

I live about 4 miles from Classiebawn Castle but before my time, When mountbatten owned it he employed locals to keep it running and was well thought of by locals. He is high ranking british royalty and he used to fly the union jack for the month of august on the castle, now when the troubles started, wasnt the brightest idea was it. He should of stopped coming during those times as he was way to easy a target, the bomb was on the boat and it was very sickening that innocent locals were killed aswell, one of those lads fathers had to put pieces of his son into a black bag im reliabily informed >:(, just sick. But mountbatten should of stopped coming, idiot. Stupid and as for the flag he was blatantly asking for trouble.

If the monument doenst mention mountbattens name or have anything about him, I would be in favour to remember the other innocent victims. But I fear not. IMO mountbatten endangered those kids lives because of his stupity, but my opinion on those who carried it out is not printable.

Mountbatten was an easy target. They could have got him any time with a bullet. They went for a big elaborate bomb instead. Why did they have to do that and take out kids as well. Btw, according to mountbattens biographer, he would have loved dying the way he did at see at the hands of the empires enemy. The IRA gave him what he wanted as he was fairly obsessed with his time being up.

I doubt if the enemies of the Empire cared very much about the thoughts that Mountbatten might have had about dying, even if he had enough time to compose them..

Its being repeated on History +1 at the moment.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on August 27, 2009, 09:58:18 PM

Quote from: SLIGONIAN on August 27, 2009, 07:05:54 PM

Quote from: Minder on August 27, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
A row has broken out in Donegal over council plans to erect a memorial to Lord Mountbatten and the other victims of the Mullaghmore bombing.
Four people, including two children, died when the IRA detonated a bomb on his boat off the coast of Sligo thirty years ago.
Sinn Féin have said they oppose the monument because it would be wrong to single out any one incident.
But the Fianna Fáil Mayor of Donegal, Brendan Byrne, says it should go ahead.
"As mayor of Donegal I'm not erecting a memorial to a member of the British Royal family.
"I'm erecting a monument to the four people who perished needlessly, senselessly, as Mullaghmore some 30 years ago."
Eighteen British soldiers were killed later that day when two booby-trap bombs exploded beside Narrow Water Castle near Warrenpoint in County Down.

Loads of mistakes in the above piece, mullaghmore isnt off the coast of Sligo, Its part of our coast line, even Leitrim borders us before Donegal so how any clown gets that wrong is poor. Its Sligo full stop.

Why would Donegal be erecting a memorial for an atrocity in Sligo, whats it to do with them? Its a joke anyway, we are going to remember a british monarchs death.. ::).

I live about 4 miles from Classiebawn Castle but before my time, When mountbatten owned it he employed locals to keep it running and was well thought of by locals. He is high ranking british royalty and he used to fly the union jack for the month of august on the castle, now when the troubles started, wasnt the brightest idea was it. He should of stopped coming during those times as he was way to easy a target, the bomb was on the boat and it was very sickening that innocent locals were killed aswell, one of those lads fathers had to put pieces of his son into a black bag im reliabily informed >:(, just sick. But mountbatten should of stopped coming, idiot. Stupid and as for the flag he was blatantly asking for trouble.

If the monument doenst mention mountbattens name or have anything about him, I would be in favour to remember the other innocent victims. But I fear not. IMO mountbatten endangered those kids lives because of his stupity, but my opinion on those who carried it out is not printable.

Mountbatten was an easy target. They could have got him any time with a bullet. They went for a big elaborate bomb instead. Why did they have to do that and take out kids as well. Btw, according to mountbattens biographer, he would have loved dying the way he did at see at the hands of the empires enemy. The IRA gave him what he wanted as he was fairly obsessed with his time being up.

Fair point, even more so a sickening act, but makes sense about mountbatten, its doesnt excuse the act, but his ego as you say above about how he wanted to die endangered locals lives >:(.

Are lads naive enough to think the monument will remember all those who died equally, I seriously doubt it.

Quote from: Main Street on August 27, 2009, 09:51:06 PM
I'd have no problem with the monument. I certainly had no issues with the morality of Mountbatten being a target in time of war.

On what grounds? That he saw military service in the Far East against the Japanese during WWII? Or that he carried out a political function in India 30 years previously? Or that he married into the British Royal Family? That he was an OAP? Had controversial views on Ireland, such that he thought it should be united? Perhaps that he liked to holiday in Ireland with his family, including teenaged kids?

Or maybe it's just enough for him to have been a "Brit", even if murdering him meant blowing entirely innocent bystanders to pieces? Then again, the likes of 15 year old Irish boy Paul Maxwell could probably be described as part of "the British War Machine", seeing as he was helping out on Mountbatten's boat during his own family holiday...

The sort of mindset which could conceive of people like these as being a "target in a time of war" can only be described as sick and twisted.  >:(

Of course he was going to be a target, he was a very high profile member of the British establishment, as Sligonian said he should have stopped coming over and flying the butchers apron drawing attention to himself and those around him. EG your mock rage at this one is as usual for you way ott. Hierarchy of victims by any chance?

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 28, 2009, 10:41:57 AM

Quote from: Main Street on August 27, 2009, 09:51:06 PM
I'd have no problem with the monument. I certainly had no issues with the morality of Mountbatten being a target in time of war.

On what grounds? That he saw military service in the Far East against the Japanese during WWII? Or that he carried out a political function in India 30 years previously? Or that he married into the British Royal Family? That he was an OAP? Had controversial views on Ireland, such that he thought it should be united? Perhaps that he liked to holiday in Ireland with his family, including teenaged kids?

Or maybe it's just enough for him to have been a "Brit", even if murdering him meant blowing entirely innocent bystanders to pieces? Then again, the likes of 15 year old Irish boy Paul Maxwell could probably be described as part of "the British War Machine", seeing as he was helping out on Mountbatten's boat during his own family holiday...

The sort of mindset which could conceive of people like these as being a "target in a time of war" can only be described as sick and twisted.  >:(

The man was asking for it, RAISING A union jack on Irish Soil  >:(during those times, also what been highlighted by his biographer about his thoughts on his prefered way to die, he endangered locals lives, big deal he SAID he wanted a UNITED IRELAND, did he follow that up by actions and it irrelevant anyway.

If I walked into a unionist area waving a Tricolour in 1974 what would of happened me? EG answer me that. Oh and I bring a few kids to parade with me. If they were killed would I not have to some responsibility...endangering them. Of course the scum that actually do the killing are worse but he was stupid.

My Dad said he should of stopped coming, everyone in the Republican community in North Sligo said the same. I wouldnt be suprised if he was warned and ignored it. It wouldnt be the first time for a brit to ignore a warning. But he knew he was in danger, make no mistake. Everyone knew.

Quote from: hatchetfield on August 27, 2009, 06:14:41 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 27, 2009, 03:05:17 PM
Meanwhile, his bereaved father has dedicated himself to fostering peace and reconciliation in Ireland, including being a major force behind an integrated school in Enniskillen.

Do you really think that this is what it was/is all about?  Its not a green v orange thing ya eejit.  Have you not noticed that the Bwits are still here and that they own 6 of our counties?  The fourth green field??

I'd be careful with the words vermin - it was some op!

Idiotic post. Never mind the fact that it was a disgraceful act, it was possibly the worst timing they could have come up with. Warrenpoint was wonderful propaganda for the provos, yet it was ruined by this apalling act.

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 11:39:07 AM
Of course he was going to be a target, he was a very high profile member of the British establishment, as Sligonian said he should have stopped coming over and flying the butchers apron drawing attention to himself and those around him. EG your mock rage at this one is as usual for you way ott. Hierarchy of victims by any chance?

I never said claimed that as a a "very high profile member of the British establishment" [sic], that that would not make Mountbatten a "legitimate target" in the eyes of the psychopathic vermin who blew him up. (Or in the eyes of their apologists, for that matter).

Rather, my point was that it ought  not to have made him a target, especially since he never had anything other than good wishes towards Ireland, and was surrounded by entirely innocent children etc.

Yet from the tone of some of the posters on here, it's almost as if he was asking to be blown up.

As for his flying of the Union Flag, you might find that objectionable, but by what twisted logic does that make him "fair game" for such a foul murder? That is entirely the same "reasoning" employed by the verminous mob who killed Kevin McDaid in the Heights in Coleraine (i.e. because certain local residents chose to fly Tricolours on the lampposts).

P.S. Seeing as I have a personal connection with the outrage at Mullaghmore, I deeply resent your jibe about "mock outrage". You might be the sort to manufacture such outrage for effect, but I have never stooped to such tactics. Indeed considering some of the highly offensive provocation I face on a daily basis from certain posters on this Board, I have more than enough cause for genuine outrage.

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 28, 2009, 12:37:07 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 11:39:07 AM
Of course he was going to be a target, he was a very high profile member of the British establishment, as Sligonian said he should have stopped coming over and flying the butchers apron drawing attention to himself and those around him. EG your mock rage at this one is as usual for you way ott. Hierarchy of victims by any chance?

I never said claimed that as a a "very high profile member of the British establishment" [sic], that that would not make Mountbatten a "legitimate target" in the eyes of the psychopathic vermin who blew him up. (Or in the eyes of their apologists, for that matter).

Rather, my point was that it ought  not to have made him a target, especially since he never had anything other than good wishes towards Ireland, and was surrounded by entirely innocent children etc.

Yet from the tone of some of the posters on here, it's almost as if he was asking to be blown up.

As for his flying of the Union Flag, you might find that objectionable, but by what twisted logic does that make him "fair game" for such a foul murder? That is entirely the same "reasoning" employed by the verminous mob who killed Kevin McDaid in the Heights in Coleraine (i.e. because certain local residents chose to fly Tricolours on the lampposts).

P.S. Seeing as I have a personal connection with the outrage at Mullaghmore, I deeply resent your jibe about "mock outrage". You might be the sort to manufacture such outrage for effect, but I have never stooped to such tactics. Indeed considering some of the highly offensive provocation I face on a daily basis from certain posters on this Board, I have more than enough cause for genuine outrage.

If thats the case, can i ask why do you bother ?

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 28, 2009, 10:41:57 AM

Quote from: Main Street on August 27, 2009, 09:51:06 PM
I'd have no problem with the monument. I certainly had no issues with the morality of Mountbatten being a target in time of war.

On what grounds? That he saw military service in the Far East against the Japanese during WWII? Or that he carried out a political function in India 30 years previously? Or that he married into the British Royal Family? That he was an OAP? Had controversial views on Ireland, such that he thought it should be united? Perhaps that he liked to holiday in Ireland with his family, including teenaged kids?

Or maybe it's just enough for him to have been a "Brit", even if murdering him meant blowing entirely innocent bystanders to pieces? Then again, the likes of 15 year old Irish boy Paul Maxwell could probably be described as part of "the British War Machine", seeing as he was helping out on Mountbatten's boat during his own family holiday...

The sort of mindset which could conceive of people like these as being a "target in a time of war" can only be described as sick and twisted.  >:(

Did I mention anything about any neccessity to blow up a young boy at the same time?
Far from it, our Evil dimwit.

By military service you do mean  Admiral of the Fleet?
By political service  you do refer to  Governor general of India, Viceroy?
Royalty, he was a senior royal figure by birth and by marraige.

In effect, that alone sets him up as a target.
IMO a legitimate target in times of war against the remnants of the empire.

Others have different opinions.
But hey thats war, people take sides.
Just the self righteous bleat on ad infinitum about how right they are.

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 28, 2009, 12:37:07 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 11:39:07 AM
Of course he was going to be a target, he was a very high profile member of the British establishment, as Sligonian said he should have stopped coming over and flying the butchers apron drawing attention to himself and those around him. EG your mock rage at this one is as usual for you way ott. Hierarchy of victims by any chance?

I never said claimed that as a a "very high profile member of the British establishment" [sic], that that would not make Mountbatten a "legitimate target" in the eyes of the psychopathic vermin who blew him up. (Or in the eyes of their apologists, for that matter).

Rather, my point was that it ought  not to have made him a target, especially since he never had anything other than good wishes towards Ireland, and was surrounded by entirely innocent children etc.

Yet from the tone of some of the posters on here, it's almost as if he was asking to be blown up.

As for his flying of the Union Flag, you might find that objectionable, but by what twisted logic does that make him "fair game" for such a foul murder? That is entirely the same "reasoning" employed by the verminous mob who killed Kevin McDaid in the Heights in Coleraine (i.e. because certain local residents chose to fly Tricolours on the lampposts).

P.S. Seeing as I have a personal connection with the outrage at Mullaghmore, I deeply resent your jibe about "mock outrage". You might be the sort to manufacture such outrage for effect, but I have never stooped to such tactics. Indeed considering some of the highly offensive provocation I face on a daily basis from certain posters on this Board, I have more than enough cause for genuine outrage.

Theres a fair difference in the meaning behind the Tri Colour and union jack is there not. Why does a Tri Colour offend protestants so much when the orange takes up a third of the flag? I always wanted to know that, maybe EG you can answer. I feel we have way over board to appease that part of our society, way more so than we have received. I often wonder why that is case, why are we the ones to reach out and lead when we are the victims.

EG also I find yourself coming on to a GAA forum quite the analogy were mountbatten is concerned. In terms of what do you expect? What did he expect? What would I expect going into a oo forum with a total opposite lack of understanding point of view, I would expect to get attacked. So if this board causes you outrage I suggest you leave for your own good. I would of told mountbatten something similiar had I been around in 1979.

Also putting a union jack on classiebawn castle in 1979 or even now would provoke a respone from me, whilst it wouldnt be of a violent nature (a peaceful protest response), I would find it offensive.

Not getting into this Sligonian, but you could equally ask why the Union Jack rubs Irish people up the wrong way, seeing as how the cross of Saint PAtrick is included in the flag.

Quote from: Main Street on August 28, 2009, 12:56:18 PM

Did I mention anything about any neccessity to blow up a young boy at the same time?
Far from it, our Evil dimwit.

No, but you characterise Mountbatten as "legitimate target" [sic], even when he is in the company of entirely innocent children. It should have been possible to mount an attack on him in some other way which would not have risked others, such as sniper attack. Yet the vermin declined to do so, presumably because that might have entailed some risk to their own wretched skin.
Instead, they chose to watch as the boat party loaded up in full view, then sailed out to deep water, where they detonated the bomb, in the knowledge that if the explosion didn't kill everyone on board, drowning might do so.

Quote from: Main Street on August 28, 2009, 12:56:18 PM
By military service you do mean  Admiral of the Fleet?
By political service  you do refer to  Governor general of India, Viceroy?
Royalty, he was a senior royal figure by birth and by marraige.

In effect, that alone sets him up as a target.
IMO a legitimate target in times of war against the remnants of the empire.

How on earth does fighting the Japanese, or administering the independence of India, or marrying someone, make somebody a "legitimate target" for Irish Republicans, to be blown up alongside entirely innocent bystanders, other than in the mind of sick, perverted and bigoted individuals?
What crime did Mountbatten ever actually commit against Ireland, other than loving the country sufficiently to own property in Donegal, spend family holidays there, and aspire to a United Ireland?
f**k me, by that standard, Gerry Adams should be a "legitimate target" - and that's before consider Adams's role in helping administer British Rule in Ireland.  ::)

Quote from: Main Street on August 28, 2009, 12:56:18 PM

But hey thats war, people take sides.
Just the self righteous bleat on ad infinitum about how right they are.

You might consider blowing up a boatload of pensioners and children to be an act of "war", but I do not.
And if that makes me "self righteous", then I'd rather be charged with that, than for being an apologist for verminous mass murderers.

So why the fcuk did a man who would have known there was a serious risk to his life surround himself with "innocent" children!!!!!

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 28, 2009, 01:19:45 PM
No, but you characterise Mountbatten as "legitimate target" [sic], even when he is in the company of entirely innocent children. It should have been possible to mount an attack on him in some other way which would not have risked others, such as sniper attack. Yet the vermin declined to do so, presumably because that might have entailed great risk to their own wretched skin.

Evil dimwit I said he was a legitimate target full stop, I did not mention even when he was in the company of his daughter, or friend, or even when visiting a kindergarten.

QuoteInstead, they chose to watch as the boat party loaded up in full view, then sailed out to deep water, where they detonated the bomb, in the knowledge that if the explosion didn't kill everyone on board, drowning might do so.

The mode of assasination is an entirely different discussion. to whether he was a legitimate target or not.

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 01:25:37 PM
So why the fcuk did a man who would have known there was a serious risk to his life surround himself with "innocent" children!!!!!

Why have you used inverted commas?? Are you implying they were guilty of something?

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 01:25:37 PM
So why the fcuk did a man who would have known there was a serious risk to his life surround himself with "innocent" children!!!!!

It was obviously his fault  :-\

Quote from: Evil Genius on August 28, 2009, 12:37:07 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 11:39:07 AM
Of course he was going to be a target, he was a very high profile member of the British establishment, as Sligonian said he should have stopped coming over and flying the butchers apron drawing attention to himself and those around him. EG your mock rage at this one is as usual for you way ott. Hierarchy of victims by any chance?

I never said claimed that as a a "very high profile member of the British establishment" [sic], that that would not make Mountbatten a "legitimate target" in the eyes of the psychopathic vermin who blew him up. (Or in the eyes of their apologists, for that matter).

Rather, my point was that it ought  not to have made him a target, especially since he never had anything other than good wishes towards Ireland, and was surrounded by entirely innocent children etc.

Yet from the tone of some of the posters on here, it's almost as if he was asking to be blown up.

As for his flying of the Union Flag, you might find that objectionable, but by what twisted logic does that make him "fair game" for such a foul murder? That is entirely the same "reasoning" employed by the verminous mob who killed Kevin McDaid in the Heights in Coleraine (i.e. because certain local residents chose to fly Tricolours on the lampposts).

P.S. Seeing as I have a personal connection with the outrage at Mullaghmore, I deeply resent your jibe about "mock outrage". You might be the sort to manufacture such outrage for effect, but I have never stooped to such tactics. Indeed considering some of the highly offensive provocation I face on a daily basis from certain posters on this Board, I have more than enough cause for genuine outrage.

that bit in bold must be the stupidest thing you have written on here and that takes some doing.
for a guy who takes mock outrage to new levels - eg the HS commemoration thread on the main GAA page, you either have alzheimers or a misunderstanding of the concept !

also thats the second girly soccer-esque whinge you have had on here today. Must be feeling a bit sensitive. Also if you whine about others having a go at you, then dont cast the first stone ! if ya cant take it - dont give it !


Edit- btw Sligonian, I have tosay that the flying of the british flag in sligo while slightly provocative, its not a reason for violence. Whatever about him being a target, imo I think it was a waste of time as he was a nothing. Poor kids that got caught up in it. Cant blame mountbatten for that really, the royals are well known for not being able tothink for themselves. Sure ist only a hundred years or less since they have been wiping their own erses

Quote from: gallsman on August 28, 2009, 01:34:46 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 01:25:37 PM
So why the fcuk did a man who would have known there was a serious risk to his life surround himself with "innocent" children!!!!!

Why have you used inverted commas?? Are you implying they were guilty of something?

I think he is highlighting the innocent part rather than questioning, it would be very michevious to twist that Gallsman.

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 28, 2009, 01:16:28 PM
Not getting into this Sligonian, but you could equally ask why the Union Jack rubs Irish people up the wrong way, seeing as how the cross of Saint PAtrick is included in the flag.

Yes I know, but it signifies the union and conlization of nations, its a symbol of britain taking over of Ireland. Its not about peace, its about rule brittania. The Tri Colour is about peace between protestants and Catholics, more appeasemet and reaching out by us. 2 totally different meanings clearly.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on August 28, 2009, 01:39:03 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 01:25:37 PM
So why the fcuk did a man who would have known there was a serious risk to his life surround himself with "innocent" children!!!!!

It was obviously his fault  :-\

Did he endanger those innocent kids, yes he did. He did not kill them but he is responsible for endangering them IMO. Again it is alot less serious than the killing but worth noting he could of saved lives and all this trouble had he stayed away.

Quote from: gallsman on August 28, 2009, 01:34:46 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 01:25:37 PM
So why the fcuk did a man who would have known there was a serious risk to his life surround himself with "innocent" children!!!!!

Why have you used inverted commas?? Are you implying they were guilty of something?

The inverted commas was to draw attention to EG continued use of the phrase, I think we can take it that the kids were innocent.

I'd like to f**king think so. Why bother drawing attention to his continued use of the phrase? Drawing attention to it appears to suggest you have some issue with them being described as innocent.

As Tony said, of course it's Mountbatten's fault they died... :-\

Sligonian, I made no attempt to twist anything.

Quote from: SLIGONIAN on August 28, 2009, 01:50:00 PM


Yes I know, but it signifies the union and conlization of nations, its a symbol of britain taking over of Ireland. Its not about peace, its about rule brittania. The Tri Colour is about peace between protestants and Catholics, more appeasemet and reaching out by us. 2 totally different meanings clearly.

They would say it signifies the union between those nations joined under the Great British Empire, rather than some sort of triumphalist battle banner.

People offended by the tricolour would say that a) It's the flag of a foreign country and b) Who asked us whether we wanted to be represented on the flag?

We may claim that the flag represents peace between Unionist and Nationalist (rather than Catholic and Protestant), but who actually asked the Unionists if they were happy to be on the Tricolour? That's a bit presumptious.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I understand and agree that the Irish flag is a well intentioned statement, but from the other side, why is it any less provocative than the UJ.

Quote from: gallsman on August 28, 2009, 01:55:58 PM
I'd like to f**king think so. Why bother drawing attention to his continued use of the phrase? Drawing attention to it appears to suggest you have some issue with them being described as innocent.

As Tony said, of course it's Mountbatten's fault they died... :-\

Sligonian, I made no attempt to twist anything.

Ah wind your neck in, you misunderstood my point, not my problem.

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 02:42:12 PM

Quote from: gallsman on August 28, 2009, 01:55:58 PM
I'd like to f**king think so. Why bother drawing attention to his continued use of the phrase? Drawing attention to it appears to suggest you have some issue with them being described as innocent.

As Tony said, of course it's Mountbatten's fault they died... :-\

Sligonian, I made no attempt to twist anything.

Ah wind your neck in, you misunderstood my point, not my problem.

Typical confrontational response.

Considering the fact that the way you phrased your post implies the children involved weren't innocent, I'd venture that you do have a problem. But then again, that's nothing new for you, as you always seem to have plenty of problems on the board.

Quote from: gallsman on August 28, 2009, 02:51:59 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 02:42:12 PM

Quote from: gallsman on August 28, 2009, 01:55:58 PM
I'd like to f**king think so. Why bother drawing attention to his continued use of the phrase? Drawing attention to it appears to suggest you have some issue with them being described as innocent.

As Tony said, of course it's Mountbatten's fault they died... :-\

Sligonian, I made no attempt to twist anything.

Ah wind your neck in, you misunderstood my point, not my problem.

Typical confrontational response.

Considering the fact that the way you phrased your post implies the children involved weren't innocent, I'd venture that you do have a problem. But then again, that's nothing new for you, as you always seem to have plenty of problems on the board.

Bullshit Gallsman, you interpretated GD abu words to suit your own agenda or vendatta for whatever reason. The kids were Innocent (no one is saying othrwise), this is getting to gutter talk now. Cop on will ya.

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 28, 2009, 01:56:59 PM

Quote from: SLIGONIAN on August 28, 2009, 01:50:00 PM


Yes I know, but it signifies the union and conlization of nations, its a symbol of britain taking over of Ireland. Its not about peace, its about rule brittania. The Tri Colour is about peace between protestants and Catholics, more appeasemet and reaching out by us. 2 totally different meanings clearly.

They would say it signifies the union between those nations joined under the Great British Empire, rather than some sort of triumphalist battle banner.

People offended by the tricolour would say that a) It's the flag of a foreign country and b) Who asked us whether we wanted to be represented on the flag?

We may claim that the flag represents peace between Unionist and Nationalist (rather than Catholic and Protestant), but who actually asked the Unionists if they were happy to be on the Tricolour? That's a bit presumptious.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I understand and agree that the Irish flag is a well intentioned statement, but from the other side, why is it any less provocative than the UJ.

Ya you are, your interpretations are wrong in my opinion, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I feel Ive explained it enough before. I suppose I will say the intention and meaning behind the uj is to celebrate the colonization of other countries and unite them by whatever means, equals the so called brit empire and meaning and intention behind the Tricolour is to reach out to decentants of our colonizers and to promote peace, protestants should embrace it ;) IMO, take the hand of peace and all that. I cant be any clearer to be honest.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 28, 2009, 01:48:06 PM

Edit- btw Sligonian, I have tosay that the flying of the british flag in sligo while slightly provocative, its not a reason for violence. Whatever about him being a target, imo I think it was a waste of time as he was a nothing. Poor kids that got caught up in it. Cant blame mountbatten for that really, the royals are well known for not being able tothink for themselves. Sure ist only a hundred years or less since they have been wiping their own erses

Though there is a huge difference when its Mountbatten, flying a flag, outside his castle in the republic.
I have no idea about the protocol necessities, if any, of such an act. But in a time of war, it does give one the impression of announcing, here I am, a prime arrogant symbol of everything that the British Empire is about, living in a delusional world where acap tipping natives made him feel safe enough to carry on with his life as if nothing was happening in the 6 counties.

As to the value of his assassination. At a minimum, I can guess that no matter where you were in the world that day , you would have heard the news.

Quote from: gallsman on August 28, 2009, 02:51:59 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 28, 2009, 02:42:12 PM

Quote from: gallsman on August 28, 2009, 01:55:58 PM
I'd like to f**king think so. Why bother drawing attention to his continued use of the phrase? Drawing attention to it appears to suggest you have some issue with them being described as innocent.

As Tony said, of course it's Mountbatten's fault they died... :-\

Sligonian, I made no attempt to twist anything.

Ah wind your neck in, you misunderstood my point, not my problem.

Typical confrontational response.

Considering the fact that the way you phrased your post implies the children involved weren't innocent, I'd venture that you do have a problem. But then again, that's nothing new for you, as you always seem to have plenty of problems on the board.

YOU read my post (to EG btw) and YOU drew an inference from it that wasn't there, as for the rest of your post, well care to tell me about these problems I seem to have on the board? Or is it just that some of my views would be different then yours. And finally if telling you to wind your neck in after you stating "I'd like to f**king think so." is confrontational then I think maybe it's you who has the problem.

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 28, 2009, 01:56:59 PM

Quote from: SLIGONIAN on August 28, 2009, 01:50:00 PM


Yes I know, but it signifies the union and conlization of nations, its a symbol of britain taking over of Ireland. Its not about peace, its about rule brittania. The Tri Colour is about peace between protestants and Catholics, more appeasemet and reaching out by us. 2 totally different meanings clearly.

They would say it signifies the union between those nations joined under the Great British Empire, rather than some sort of triumphalist battle banner.

People offended by the tricolour would say that a) It's the flag of a foreign country and b) Who asked us whether we wanted to be represented on the flag?

We may claim that the flag represents peace between Unionist and Nationalist (rather than Catholic and Protestant), but who actually asked the Unionists if they were happy to be on the Tricolour? That's a bit presumptious.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I understand and agree that the Irish flag is a well intentioned statement, but from the other side, why is it any less provocative than the UJ.

Agree with the above, as a unionist i take issue with the tricolour as i feel its trying to lay claim to us, which in fact it is/was since at the time it was created the republic was laying claim to NI. Things have changed on that front post GFA of course but the tricolour has neagtive connations for me. If there every was a UI, it would have to be one of the things that changed.

Of course i'll be told that im talking rubbish and its not the same as the UJ/'butchers apron' etc etc.

It may be worth noting that mountbattons opinions on a united Ireland (i.e. he was in favour of it, based on his experiences in India) did not come to light until after his death when extracts from his diary and letters came into the public domain.

It is also true that he was gung ho in his insistance on surrounding himself with family in friends in a place where he knew he was a target and at the same time insisting that the he did not want proper security. That was reckless on his part. As was flying a union jack although I did not hear about that before now. It still does not excuse McMahon and McGirls actions, watching kids on a boat and then pushing a button to blow them up. They could have abandoned this mission but choose to kill children and that makes them scumbags to me, that should have been court martialled for what they did.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on August 28, 2009, 04:40:19 PM
It may be worth noting that mountbattons opinions on a united Ireland (i.e. he was in favour of it, based on his experiences in India) did not come to light until after his death when extracts from his diary and letters came into the public domain.

It is also true that he was gung ho in his insistance on surrounding himself with family in friends in a place where he knew he was a target and at the same time insisting that the he did not want proper security. That was reckless on his part. As was flying a union jack although I did not hear about that before now. It still does not excuse McMahon and McGirls actions, watching kids on a boat and then pushing a button to blow them up. They could have abandoned this mission but choose to kill children and that makes them scumbags to me, that should have been court martialled for what they did.

I agree 100% with all points, said better than I could of.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on August 28, 2009, 04:40:19 PM
It may be worth noting that mountbattons opinions on a united Ireland (i.e. he was in favour of it, based on his experiences in India) did not come to light until after his death when extracts from his diary and letters came into the public domain.

It is also true that he was gung ho in his insistance on surrounding himself with family in friends in a place where he knew he was a target and at the same time insisting that the he did not want proper security. That was reckless on his part. As was flying a union jack although I did not hear about that before now. It still does not excuse McMahon and McGirls actions, watching kids on a boat and then pushing a button to blow them up. They could have abandoned this mission but choose to kill children and that makes them scumbags to me, that should have been court martialled for what they did.

By the IRA? You jest, surely. This would be the same IRA which consistently left bombs in public places in the full knowledge that kids were likely to be nearby (think Warrington)? The same boyos who planted bombs under cars knowing that they had limited control over who got into the car or who it exploded beside? The same IRA which shot down off duty security force personnel in front of their children? You dignify them way beyond what the scumbags deserve.

which in fact it is/was since at the time it was created the republic was laying claim to NI.
[/quote]

Just a correction there, when the Irish Tricolour was created there was no Republic or Northern Ireland, the flag was a gift from France in the 19'th century as part of the fraternity of nations with Republican values (I and the French mean it entriely in the way Republican is meant in nearly every country except Ireland, somehow the words Republican & Nationalist have swapped places in the lexicon of Hiberno-English ). It was not a claim over one group or the other but a symbol of peace and the ideals of World Republicanism.

To be honest I always thought the Green flag with the Golden Harp & Éireann go Brách was a more attractive flag.

Plenty of condemnation of McMahon/McGirl also Warrington etc of bombs being set off not caring who was killed injured etc.
Very true and correct
BUT........
I'll take ye a lot more seriously when I see equal condemnation of NATO/US pilots dropping loads of bombs from 10 miles in the air down on crowded civilian cities( Belgrade,Baghdad etc) or of Israeli Helicopter pilots who fire rockets into densely populated apartment blocks in Gaza.

As for the UJ and us being part of it because there's a cross shaped like an X to represent us.
Nobody asked our permission to do this so it's nothing to do with me thanks very much.

Quote from: Son_of_Sam on August 28, 2009, 05:42:01 PM

which in fact it is/was since at the time it was created the republic was laying claim to NI.


Just a correction there, when the Irish Tricolour was created there was no Republic or Northern Ireland, the flag was a gift from France in the 19'th century as part of the fraternity of nations with Republican values (I and the French mean it entriely in the way Republican is meant in nearly every country except Ireland, somehow the words Republican & Nationalist have swapped places in the lexicon of Hiberno-English ). It was not a claim over one group or the other but a symbol of peace and the ideals of World Republicanism.

To be honest I always thought the Green flag with the Golden Harp & Éireann go Brách was a more attractive flag.

Yes point accepted, i know that it was kicking about in one guise or another from sometime in the mid 1800s (I think), but my understanding was that it only came into use/prominence around the time of the easter rising.

In its conception that may well have been the point as you say but i think that it has come to to symbolise something different from its original ideal. At the time the republic laid claim to the territory of NI despite the majority of the people wanting to remain part of the union (I know it was specifically setup that way). In that context of the republic laying claim to the land you can understand how the inclusion of orange in the flag could be viewed as a laying claim to the whole of ireland including NI.

In the context of modern day northern ireland the tri colour much like the union jack is not a flag of unity but rather a flag of seperation, used to mark out territory. It has become completely identified with irish republicism and hence despite its conceivers best intentions its not a flag that any unionist would identify with.

If a UI happens it should be consigned to history (along with the UJ and ulster flag) a new flag which all people could rally around should instead be brought into use. I'd actually like to see any new flag have some red in it to represent ulster (since NI makes up a large chunk of it). I could identify more with that than orange to be honest.

Quote from: Rossfan on August 28, 2009, 06:10:27 PM
Plenty of condemnation of McMahon/McGirl also Warrington etc of bombs being set off not caring who was killed injured etc.
Very true and correct
BUT........
I'll take ye a lot more seriously when I see equal condemnation of NATO/US pilots dropping loads of bombs from 10 miles in the air down on crowded civilian cities( Belgrade,Baghdad etc) or of Israeli Helicopter pilots who fire rockets into densely populated apartment blocks in Gaza.
As for the UJ and us being part of it because there's a cross shaped like an X to represent us.
Nobody asked our permission to do this so it's nothing to do with me thanks very much.

I have no problem condemning indiscriminate killing, whether its carried out by private armies like the IRA or by armies of states. The victims end up just as dead.

Quote from: Rossfan on August 28, 2009, 06:10:27 PM
As for the UJ and us being part of it because there's a cross shaped like an X to represent us.
Nobody asked our permission to do this so it's nothing to do with me thanks very much.

Exactly the point im making about the inclusion of orange in the tri colour, both can be viewed as either mutually inclusive or inclusion by force depending on the viewer.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 28, 2009, 06:32:25 PM
I have no problem condemning indiscriminate killing, whether its carried out by private armies like the IRA or by armies of states. The victims end up just as dead.

But discriminate killing is okay?

Quote from: deiseach on August 28, 2009, 07:15:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 28, 2009, 06:32:25 PM
I have no problem condemning indiscriminate killing, whether its carried out by private armies like the IRA or by armies of states. The victims end up just as dead.

But discriminate killing is okay?

I believe that in some circumstances - self defence, mainly - killing is justified. If you want to call that discriminate killing, fair enough.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 28, 2009, 09:08:49 PM

Quote from: deiseach on August 28, 2009, 07:15:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 28, 2009, 06:32:25 PM
I have no problem condemning indiscriminate killing, whether its carried out by private armies like the IRA or by armies of states. The victims end up just as dead.

But discriminate killing is okay?

I believe that in some circumstances - self defence, mainly - killing is justified. If you want to call that discriminate killing, fair enough.

You say self defence killing, in the main could be justified. What other circumstances could be justified, in your opinion?

Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on August 29, 2009, 12:24:33 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 28, 2009, 09:08:49 PM

Quote from: deiseach on August 28, 2009, 07:15:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 28, 2009, 06:32:25 PM
I have no problem condemning indiscriminate killing, whether its carried out by private armies like the IRA or by armies of states. The victims end up just as dead.

But discriminate killing is okay?

I believe that in some circumstances - self defence, mainly - killing is justified. If you want to call that discriminate killing, fair enough.

You say self defence killing, in the main could be justified. What other circumstances could be justified, in your opinion?

Self defence, or in some circumstances, the defence of others. In each situation, the threat needs to be critical, the response needs to be proportionate to the threat, and there should be no other practical alternative open to you.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 29, 2009, 07:37:58 AM

Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on August 29, 2009, 12:24:33 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 28, 2009, 09:08:49 PM

Quote from: deiseach on August 28, 2009, 07:15:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 28, 2009, 06:32:25 PM
I have no problem condemning indiscriminate killing, whether its carried out by private armies like the IRA or by armies of states. The victims end up just as dead.

But discriminate killing is okay?

I believe that in some circumstances - self defence, mainly - killing is justified. If you want to call that discriminate killing, fair enough.

You say self defence killing, in the main could be justified. What other circumstances could be justified, in your opinion?

Self defence, or in some circumstances, the defence of others. In each situation, the threat needs to be critical, the response needs to be proportionate to the threat, and there should be no other practical alternative open to you.

sounds like you founded the IRA  :o

Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 29, 2009, 04:28:58 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 29, 2009, 07:37:58 AM

Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on August 29, 2009, 12:24:33 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 28, 2009, 09:08:49 PM

Quote from: deiseach on August 28, 2009, 07:15:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 28, 2009, 06:32:25 PM
I have no problem condemning indiscriminate killing, whether its carried out by private armies like the IRA or by armies of states. The victims end up just as dead.

But discriminate killing is okay?

I believe that in some circumstances - self defence, mainly - killing is justified. If you want to call that discriminate killing, fair enough.

You say self defence killing, in the main could be justified. What other circumstances could be justified, in your opinion?

Self defence, or in some circumstances, the defence of others. In each situation, the threat needs to be critical, the response needs to be proportionate to the threat, and there should be no other practical alternative open to you.

sounds like you founded the IRA  :o

The IRA has already been mentioned in this context: see the earlier post on indiscriminate killing.

So Myles na Gob your basically saying you support the shoot to kill policy employed by the crown forces in the six counties.

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 29, 2009, 09:36:02 PM
So Myles na Gob your basically saying you support the shoot to kill policy employed by the crown forces in the six counties.

Of course they were the only ones with a shoot to policy?

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 29, 2009, 09:36:02 PM
So Myles na Gob your basically saying you support the shoot to kill policy employed by the crown forces in the six counties.

Not what I'm saying, no.

It's instructive that there were 18 British soldiers murdered on the same day that Mountbatten was killed.  No-one in Ireland or Britain remembers their names; no one publishes commemorative books; no-one (as they currently are debating in Donegal county council) seeks to erect monuments to them; no-one remembers the effect on their families in emotional newspaper articles.

Just as we find that "Bertie the Socialist" was lobbying for tax breaks for big-shots to remain, we now have another FF man lobbying for memorials to victims of the Troubles, but only if they were titled victims. 

"Up the Republic" means something different these days.

Quote from: cynic on September 08, 2009, 11:05:41 AM
No-one in Ireland or Britain remembers their names

No one should. They were somewhere were they shouldnt have been, just like the dick heads in Afghanistan. Fair game IMHO

Quote from: cynic on September 08, 2009, 11:05:41 AM
It's instructive that there were 18 British soldiers murdered on the same day that Mountbatten was killed.  No-one in Ireland or Britain remembers their names; no one publishes commemorative books; no-one (as they currently are debating in Donegal county council) seeks to erect monuments to them; no-one remembers the effect on their families in emotional newspaper articles.

Just as we find that "Bertie the Socialist" was lobbying for tax breaks for big-shots to remain, we now have another FF man lobbying for memorials to victims of the Troubles, but only if they were titled victims. 

"Up the Republic" means something different these days.

Bit of a difference between the death of a British soldier and innocent kids out on a boat Cynic.  I don't like to see anyone killed but those in the British army now what the risks are and were at war with the PIRA, but as for those innocent kids, they had nothing got to do with the Troubles and were basically killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time which is a disgrace.

As for the memorial, I'm all for it as long as its for all the victims of that bombing and not just Mountbatten.

Can someone give me ONE good reason why Donegal County Council should even be getting involved with this?!