Councillor Martin Connolly

[Hardy]

Nally Stand - have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?

[Myles Na G.]

Myles you changed your language mid way from refused to condem to sanction.

Quite a difference between the two and quite an accusation.

Agreed. Careless use of language on my part to use the word 'sanction'. Obviously I have no knowledge of whether the man was directly involved or not.

[pintsofguinness]

and you've said you'd also criticise him if he did condemn it so I don't see the point in the thread. 

You won't condemn someone saying they are going to wreck a stadium so I don't think you're anyone to be preaching about condemnation.

I haven't condemned it, because noone said it. If you'd checked on OWC (and I know you can't, because you can't remember your username  ) you'd have seen a few posters blowing off steam and expressing how they felt. Here's a typical example:

'The image I now have in my head is not one which I would normally admit, but to hell with it.

I'm thinking of seats being ripped up and thrown, terrified corporate guests from the glitterati of the Irish corporate fraud banking and construction industries being assisted in escaping down corridors away from the maelstrom, Gardai turning away and running in the face of never before encountered violence, the pitch being invaded and coated in industrial strength weedkiller leaving it drier and more parched than Bairbre de Brun's clitoris, the posts being discharged in the direction of the dressing room, Liam Brady struggling to escape over a fence, and all of a sudden flames starting to lick up the back wall of the stand.

That's the sort of thing which will get me banned and probably arrested, but f**k it, it's a more satisfying thought than boycotting a second rate friendly tournament.'

Angry, certainly, OTT without a doubt. But does anyone seriously think that's the onset of a plan to vandalise a stadium? Do me a favour. A few posters subsequently told the author of the above to mind what he posted, because even though it was obviously tongue in cheek, someone from the GAA Board was bound to pick it up and present it as evidence of bigoted, brutal, OWC fans, etc etc. And in you steam, just as predicted. It would be comical if it wasn't a bit sad at the same time.

No, I can't look on owc because I was banned, years ago.

So you won't condemn the comments because it was just a bit of craic, alright then. 

[Nally Stand]

Nally Stand - have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?

1. Absolutely.

2. I never mentioned anything about SF being right or wrong, I was implying that Orangeman was wrong in his claim. I referred to the view held by SF on physical force, I didn't give my analysis on whether I agreed with their view.

[red hander]

Myles you changed your language mid way from refused to condem to sanction.

Quite a difference between the two and quite an accusation.

Agreed. Careless use of language on my part to use the word 'sanction'. Obviously I have no knowledge of whether the man was directly involved or not.

You're being unusually modest... you have no knowledge of many, many things judging by the shite you post on here ... Why don't you ask the people of the 26 counties how they feel about the freedom won for them by morally bankrupt physical force republicanism? S'pose the French Resistance were a shower of bastards too for opposing the fascist occupation of their country by resorting to armed struggle?

[Myles Na G.]

Myles you changed your language mid way from refused to condem to sanction.

Quite a difference between the two and quite an accusation.

Agreed. Careless use of language on my part to use the word 'sanction'. Obviously I have no knowledge of whether the man was directly involved or not.

You're being unusually modest... you have no knowledge of many, many things judging by the shite you post on here ... Why don't you ask the people of the 26 counties how they feel about the freedom won for them by morally bankrupt physical force republicanism? S'pose the French Resistance were a shower of b**tards too for opposing the fascist occupation of their country by resorting to armed struggle?

The independence gained by the 26 counties was won at the cost of the partition of the country and the sowing of greater divisions between the people of this island. Great victory indeed. As for the French Resistance, their war was against an invading army, not (as in the case of Irish republicans) their fellow countrymen with a different view about how the country should be governed.

[red hander]

Myles you changed your language mid way from refused to condem to sanction.

Quite a difference between the two and quite an accusation.

Agreed. Careless use of language on my part to use the word 'sanction'. Obviously I have no knowledge of whether the man was directly involved or not.

You're being unusually modest... you have no knowledge of many, many things judging by the shite you post on here ... Why don't you ask the people of the 26 counties how they feel about the freedom won for them by morally bankrupt physical force republicanism? S'pose the French Resistance were a shower of b**tards too for opposing the fascist occupation of their country by resorting to armed struggle?

The independence gained by the 26 counties was won at the cost of the partition of the country and the sowing of greater divisions between the people of this island. Great victory indeed. As for the French Resistance, their war was against an invading army, not (as in the case of Irish republicans) their fellow countrymen with a different view about how the country should be governed.

And the flow of revisionist bullshit continues ... Partition was imposed against the democratic wishes of ALL the Irish people in 1918 (there might be a clue there why Republicans took up the gun again in 1919, don't you think, Einstein?).  Armed struggle throughout the British Empire was as a direct result of the fascist way the British controlled said empire, whether it be in Malaya or Magherafelt ... the only difference between the German fascists and countless British regimes is that the latter had more time to implement their lebensraum policy (it was called the Plantation) in Ireland, having interfered with Ireland for over 800 years ... no Irish Republican should feel the need to apologise for bearing arms against an invading force and its infrastructure of oppression

[Tony Baloney]

Myles you changed your language mid way from refused to condem to sanction.

Quite a difference between the two and quite an accusation.

Agreed. Careless use of language on my part to use the word 'sanction'. Obviously I have no knowledge of whether the man was directly involved or not.

You're being unusually modest... you have no knowledge of many, many things judging by the shite you post on here ... Why don't you ask the people of the 26 counties how they feel about the freedom won for them by morally bankrupt physical force republicanism? S'pose the French Resistance were a shower of b**tards too for opposing the fascist occupation of their country by resorting to armed struggle?

The independence gained by the 26 counties was won at the cost of the partition of the country and the sowing of greater divisions between the people of this island. Great victory indeed. As for the French Resistance, their war was against an invading army, not (as in the case of Irish republicans) their fellow countrymen with a different view about how the country should be governed.

And the flow of revisionist bullshit continues ... Partition was imposed against the democratic wishes of ALL the Irish people in 1918 (there might be a clue there why Republicans took up the gun again in 1919, don't you think, Einstein?).  Armed struggle throughout the British Empire was as a direct result of the fascist way the British controlled said empire, whether it be in Malaya or Magherafelt ... the only difference between the German fascists and countless British regimes is that the latter had more time to implement their lebensraum policy (it was called the Plantation) in Ireland, having interfered with Ireland for over 800 years ... no Irish Republican should feel the need to apologise for bearing arms against an invading force and its infrastructure of oppression

"ALL the Irish people" you say? And he's the revisionist?!

I'll not embarrass you by asking for sources or statistics to backup your claim that every person in Ireland opposed partition in 1918. We both know none exist.

[Hardy]

Nally Stand - have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?

1. Absolutely.

Have you ever posted here to comment on any of those occasions?

[orangeman]

Sinn Fein have accepted that physical force replucianism didn't work. That is their now accepted view.

But that was the line they peddled for years so there's no point picking out this guy for special criticism. Gerry and the boys sang this same song for a long time and there wasn't a word about it.

Timinig is everything.

Where is it accepted by Sinn Fein that physical force republicanism did not work?

Listen / read to any number of their condemnation of recent so called dissident attacks - it's now standard speak for them or rather it's now acceptable to admit that.

[orangeman]

Sinn Fein have accepted that physical force replucianism didn't work. That is their now accepted view.

But that was the line they peddled for years so there's no point picking out this guy for special criticism. Gerry and the boys sang this same song for a long time and there wasn't a word about it.

Timinig is everything.

That's the first I knew of that. I would suggest that SF sees physical force as not being a suitable tactic TODAY, but feel that previous armed campaigns were both necessary and justified due to the circumstances of the times.

That used to be the standard explanation but has now been developed to admit that force was never the answer. If it is as you say it is, a few SF representatives have clearly not been properly briefed by the press department.

[Nally Stand]

Nally Stand - have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?

1. Absolutely.

Have you ever posted here to comment on any of those occasions?

Yes, on various topics including on the public assemblies bill which I am opposed to. But don't change the subject to worm out of it - can you not just accept the fact that you took me up about saying something which I didn't say?

[red hander]

'"ALL the Irish people" you say? And he's the revisionist?!

I'll not embarrass you by asking for sources or statistics to backup your claim that every person in Ireland opposed partition in 1918. We both know none exist.'

Sorry, what I meant was an ALL-Ireland election ... as in the vast majority of the Irish people voted for candidates supporting Irish independence ... the concept of partition wasn't on the agenda in the 1918 general election, it was imposed afterwards, against the wishes of the vast majority of Irish people expressed in that All-Ireland election

[Nally Stand]

Sinn Fein have accepted that physical force replucianism didn't work. That is their now accepted view.

But that was the line they peddled for years so there's no point picking out this guy for special criticism. Gerry and the boys sang this same song for a long time and there wasn't a word about it.

Timinig is everything.

That's the first I knew of that. I would suggest that SF sees physical force as not being a suitable tactic TODAY, but feel that previous armed campaigns were both necessary and justified due to the circumstances of the times.

That used to be the standard explanation but has now been developed to admit that force was never the answer. If it is as you say it is, a few SF representatives have clearly not been properly briefed by the press department.

"As you get older, you reflect on things and you see things from life experience and from a different perspective. I do think that armed actions were – and I defended them at the time – were justifiable in the context in which they occurred. " Gerry Adams, 2008

I take it Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams also need to be briefed by the press department then? Maybe they need to be disciplined too because they regularly talk about how physical force was justified before the peace process and do so not only in the media but at almost every single republican commemoration.
http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2010/pc/pod-v-miriammeets270610adamsandmcguinness.mp3

[orangeman]

Sinn Fein have accepted that physical force replucianism didn't work. That is their now accepted view.

But that was the line they peddled for years so there's no point picking out this guy for special criticism. Gerry and the boys sang this same song for a long time and there wasn't a word about it.

Timinig is everything.

That's the first I knew of that. I would suggest that SF sees physical force as not being a suitable tactic TODAY, but feel that previous armed campaigns were both necessary and justified due to the circumstances of the times.

That used to be the standard explanation but has now been developed to admit that force was never the answer. If it is as you say it is, a few SF representatives have clearly not been properly briefed by the press department.

"As you get older, you reflect on things and you see things from life experience and from a different perspective. I do think that armed actions were – and I defended them at the time – were justifiable in the context in which they occurred. " Gerry Adams, 2008

I take it Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams also need to be briefed by the press department then? Maybe they need to be disciplined too because they regularly talk about how physical force was justified before the peace process and do so not only in the media but at almost every single republican commemoration.
http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2010/pc/pod-v-miriammeets270610adamsandmcguinness.mp3

Well let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time these lads and consequently the whole party changed their tune on significant issues, such as this ?.