Councillor Martin Connolly

[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

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 ?.

I would have thought though that this is one of the areas where they have always been consistent? I cant EVER recall ANY party member saying that the armed campaign should not have happened or that it didn't work so I just think that to say that such a thing was the accepted SF view/policy is a bit far fetched! Anyway, no point in getting bogged down in all this.

[rosnarun]

the first thing that came to my mind reading this was . 'you cant make an omlette with out breaking eggs'
Why on earth would he condemn an attempot on the life of one of the queens agents of oppesssion if hes a republican?
because shes family . not a chance many a man had to fight his brother and friends during the Civil War and indeed in the war of independence against those wh took the schilling then too.
And in case you think this is a republican thing many a king killrd his brother to win ascendancy or dont you read shakespeare

[Maguire01]

Why on earth would he condemn an attempot on the life of one of the queens agents of oppesssion if hes a republican?

'Queen's agents of oppression'? Catch a grip.
Unless of course you're talking about oppression of murderers, thiefs, dealers, drink drivers, rapists, paedophiles...

[Zapatista]

Why on earth would he condemn an attempot on the life of one of the queens agents of oppesssion if hes a republican?

'Queen's agents of oppression'? Catch a grip.
Unless of course you're talking about oppression of murderers, thiefs, dealers, drink drivers, rapists, paedophiles...

I think that's how the counciller would see it.

[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?

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?

What? I don't remember doing that at all. Have a look back there for me and show me where that happened.

[Rossfan]

Why on earth would he condemn an attempot on the life of one of the queens agents of oppesssion if hes a republican?

Does he claim expenses as a Councillor?
Surely he should refuse to take his seat on a body set up by a Brit Act of Parliament?

[Zapatista]

Why on earth would he condemn an attempot on the life of one of the queens agents of oppesssion if hes a republican?

Does he claim expenses as a Councillor?
Surely he should refuse to take his seat on a body set up by a Brit Act of Parliament?

And refuse to go to the hospital when sick. Perhaps he should refuse to walk on the footpath or drive on the road too?

[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?

What? I don't remember doing that at all. Have a look back there for me and show me where that happened.

Well do you remember when you asked me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?"
Well, I only gave my view on what SF would say in regards to armed struggle. I made no comment on whether they were right or wrong. So by replying to that post by asking me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?" you are quite clearly implying that I made a comment to say they SF were right to hold such views. It's really not that complicated!!

[Nally Stand]

Can we expect you to start a thread on the release of Torrens Knight now? Or is it only republican "moral bankruptcy" that appalls you?

Oh...It's OK Myles, someone else set up that thread for you I see. You were probably just on your way to the computer to start the thread too!!

[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?

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?

What? I don't remember doing that at all. Have a look back there for me and show me where that happened.

Well do you remember when you asked me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?"
Well, I only gave my view on what SF would say in regards to armed struggle. I made no comment on whether they were right or wrong. So by replying to that post by asking me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?" you are quite clearly implying that I made a comment to say they SF were right to hold such views. It's really not that complicated!!

It's getting complicated though. You're accusing me of taking you up on something I didn't say by taking me up on something I didn't say.  Anyway, just for clarity, my question was prompted by an impression that you're a tireless defender of SF's party line on here and I don't recall ever seeing a post from you that was critical of SF. That's all. I could be wrong, of course but that's just my impression.

[supersarsfields]

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?

What? I don't remember doing that at all. Have a look back there for me and show me where that happened.

Well do you remember when you asked me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?"
Well, I only gave my view on what SF would say in regards to armed struggle. I made no comment on whether they were right or wrong. So by replying to that post by asking me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?" you are quite clearly implying that I made a comment to say they SF were right to hold such views. It's really not that complicated!!

It's getting complicated though. You're accusing me of taking you up on something I didn't say by taking me up on something I didn't say.  Anyway, just for clarity, my question was prompted by an impression that you're a tireless defender of SF's party line on here and I don't recall ever seeing a post from you that was critical of SF. That's all. I could be wrong, of course but that's just my impression.

the flip side of that is that there's people on here who wouldn't have a good word to say about SF no matter what they did.

[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?

What? I don't remember doing that at all. Have a look back there for me and show me where that happened.

Well do you remember when you asked me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?"
Well, I only gave my view on what SF would say in regards to armed struggle. I made no comment on whether they were right or wrong. So by replying to that post by asking me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?" you are quite clearly implying that I made a comment to say they SF were right to hold such views. It's really not that complicated!!

It's getting complicated though. You're accusing me of taking you up on something I didn't say by taking me up on something I didn't say.  Anyway, just for clarity, my question was prompted by an impression that you're a tireless defender of SF's party line on here and I don't recall ever seeing a post from you that was critical of SF. That's all. I could be wrong, of course but that's just my impression.

So even though on this thread I made no attempt to defend or attack SF policy, you decided that this was the thread to take me up for "tirelessly defending SF policy"? Just for "clarity" I can assure you that there are plenty of things I disagree with SF on, such as the Draft Public Assemblies Bill but for the most part I happen to agree with their main line of thinking. I make no apology for that.

And as supersarsfield says, there are PLENTY of people here who tirelessly attack SF and, as I have said before, would not be happy with a SF press statement if they were allowed write it themselves. Will you be taking a crusade against such posters also?

[wicked]

Gerry Adams thinks Mr. Connolly is an idiot, apparently.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/uncle-who-refused-to-condemn-bomb-bid-on-n.html--lsquoan-eejitrsquo-says-gerry-adams-14902447.html

[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?

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?

What? I don't remember doing that at all. Have a look back there for me and show me where that happened.

Well do you remember when you asked me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?"
Well, I only gave my view on what SF would say in regards to armed struggle. I made no comment on whether they were right or wrong. So by replying to that post by asking me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?" you are quite clearly implying that I made a comment to say they SF were right to hold such views. It's really not that complicated!!

It's getting complicated though. You're accusing me of taking you up on something I didn't say by taking me up on something I didn't say.  Anyway, just for clarity, my question was prompted by an impression that you're a tireless defender of SF's party line on here and I don't recall ever seeing a post from you that was critical of SF. That's all. I could be wrong, of course but that's just my impression.

So even though on this thread I made no attempt to defend or attack SF policy, you decided that this was the thread to take me up for "tirelessly defending SF policy"? Just for "clarity" I can assure you that there are plenty of things I disagree with SF on, such as the Draft Public Assemblies Bill but for the most part I happen to agree with their main line of thinking. I make no apology for that.

And as supersarsfield says, there are PLENTY of people here who tirelessly attack SF and, as I have said before, would not be happy with a SF press statement if they were allowed write it themselves. Will you be taking a crusade against such posters also?

What crusade? What apology did anybody ask for? Why so sensitive? As I said, I'm just giving you my impression.

There are plenty of people who attack the SDLP, UUP, FF, DUP, FG, Labour, etc. as well, but it's also my impression that nobody pops up here to defend these parties on all occasions when they're criticised or to complain about the criticism.

That's despite the fact that many of these parties would have massively more electoral support than SF and would also be more strongly represented among the general GAA membership. But it's my impression that the demographics of this discussion board don't seem to reflect that. Or else it could be that SF's supporters are just more committed, loyal and unswerving.

[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?

What? I don't remember doing that at all. Have a look back there for me and show me where that happened.

Well do you remember when you asked me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?"
Well, I only gave my view on what SF would say in regards to armed struggle. I made no comment on whether they were right or wrong. So by replying to that post by asking me "Have SF ever been wrong? On anything? Ever?" you are quite clearly implying that I made a comment to say they SF were right to hold such views. It's really not that complicated!!

It's getting complicated though. You're accusing me of taking you up on something I didn't say by taking me up on something I didn't say.  Anyway, just for clarity, my question was prompted by an impression that you're a tireless defender of SF's party line on here and I don't recall ever seeing a post from you that was critical of SF. That's all. I could be wrong, of course but that's just my impression.

So even though on this thread I made no attempt to defend or attack SF policy, you decided that this was the thread to take me up for "tirelessly defending SF policy"? Just for "clarity" I can assure you that there are plenty of things I disagree with SF on, such as the Draft Public Assemblies Bill but for the most part I happen to agree with their main line of thinking. I make no apology for that.

And as supersarsfield says, there are PLENTY of people here who tirelessly attack SF and, as I have said before, would not be happy with a SF press statement if they were allowed write it themselves. Will you be taking a crusade against such posters also?

What crusade? What apology did anybody ask for? Why so sensitive? As I said, I'm just giving you my impression.

There are plenty of people who attack the SDLP, UUP, FF, DUP, FG, Labour, etc. as well, but it's also my impression that nobody pops up here to defend these parties on all occasions when they're criticised or to complain about the criticism.

That's despite the fact that many of these parties would have massively more electoral support than SF and would also be more strongly represented among the general GAA membership. But it's my impression that the demographics of this discussion board don't seem to reflect that. Or else it could be that SF's supporters are just more committed, loyal and unswerving.

OK you are giving your impression. I'm just pointing out that your impression is wrong (I have mentioned repeatedly that SF are very def not always right) and that you raised it when it was out of context with the discussion. And as for many of those parties having more electoral support that SF, again not that that has anything to do with anything, but most of the named parties have a much SMALLER level of support that SF which is the third largest party in Ireland (which has 32 counties by the way!) and whatever GAA support has got to do with this also bewilders me.

Finally, I wasn't asking about supporters of other parties and how they speak on topics of this board, I am just asking do you reserve criticism for people who generally support SF on the board or would you also take issue with people who take every opportunity to attack SF at the most trivial opportunities?