Gerry Adams exposed , his lies demolished at brothers rape trial

[Pickman's model]

Are you honestly this dense? You claimed



I listed off IRA attacks where civilians were the targets. Pointing out that you're a clueless fucking liar.

So no please explain how attacking Harrods or a pub in Birmingham or the London Docklands, or Bloody Friday, or Enniskillen weren't attacks with the direct aim of murdering civilians.

out of curiosity, if killing "civilians" was the aim of these bombings, do you think that phoning in warnings was something of a mistake? surely the docklands bomb could have killed hundreds if only the ira hadn't made that basic mistake of calling in a warning.

 

[8den]

Not the case. The ANC had Umkhonto we Sizwe, it's armed wing, who carried out armed actions against the apartheid state in parallel with the political agitation of the ANC main body. Actions included bombings, land-mine operation, and armed engagements with security forces both in SA and frontline states.
I have to say - anybody who knew anything at all about the struggle against apartheid would know that.

I'm well aware of the armed winged of the ANC, however the major reason for the fall of apartheid was a peaceful political protest combined with a growing understanding among the governing whites that the status quo in Sth Africa was unsustainable. Negotiations began nearly 6 or 7 years before Mandela's actual release.

 

[8den]

jesus mary and joseph. perhaps you haven't noticed it, but neither ff nor fg are radical socialist parties

I never said or suggested they were. Try reading what I said.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't know who you are but you just countermanded your own argument (and cliche riddled rhetoric about "living life on your knees") by referencing the ANC a organisation who achieved their aims through non violent peaceful protest.

do you know what 'countermand' means? y/n

 

[Pickman's model]

I never said or suggested they were. Try reading what I said.

what you said was, in essence, that neither ff nor fg are conservative - despite 90 years of history to the contrary.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm well aware of the armed winged of the ANC, however the major reason for the fall of apartheid was a peaceful political protest combined with a growing understanding among the governing whites that the status quo in Sth Africa was unsustainable. Negotiations began nearly 6 or 7 years before Mandela's actual release.

could you provide some evidence to support your assertions?

 

[alsoknownas]

I'm well aware of the armed winged of the ANC, however the major reason for the fall of apartheid was a peaceful political protest combined with a growing understanding among the governing whites that the status quo in Sth Africa was unsustainable. Negotiations began nearly 6 or 7 years before Mandela's actual release.

There were all sorts of factors that led to the fall of apartheid, including International pressure and sanctions, but your desire to place the ANC in a nice cosy Ghandi-like box, and the IRA in a nasty spiky one, doesn't work. There were even some information and personnel exchanges between the organisations I believe.

 

[8den]

what you said was, in essence, that neither ff nor fg are conservative - despite 90 years of history to the contrary.

No I didn't. I've said we've been electing conservative right wing governments for 70 years.

The majority of them (Irish electorate) have been electing a conservative center right government into power for 7 decades.

Since FF or FG (or a version of FG) have been in government throughout the history of the state clearly I think both parties are conservative.

Please try reading what I've written.

 

[8den]

what you said was, in essence, that neither ff nor fg are conservative - despite 90 years of history to the contrary.

No I didn't. I've said we've been electing conservative right wing governments for 90 years. Since either FF or FG (or some version of FG) have been in power since the foundation of the state, clearly I think both parties are conservative.

Mandela's statement on not renouncing violence was that they ANC only adopted violence "when other forms of resistance were no longer open to us"

 

[Pickman's model]

No I didn't. I've said we've been electing conservative right wing governments for 70 years.

so why didn't you say that when you posted this:

I think that ignores the fact that Ireland is in fact a very socially conservative nation. And if FF/FG werent divided over the side they took during the treaty negotiations would still would be electing conservative leaders.

?

the second post quoted here says that while ireland socially conservative they HAVE NOT elected conservative (small c) leaders but ff/fg. i don't want to continue this but it's plain you don't know what you're saying.

 

[miktheword]

See for starts we have Irish self determination. I live in a republic.



I hate to be the one who breaks it to you, but Thatcher was lying.



Who is living life on their knees.



Because the ANC's campaign succeeded through non violent means rather than violently overthrowing the Apartheid state.

I don't know who you are but you just countermanded your own argument (and cliche riddled rhetoric about "living life on your knees") by referencing the ANC a organisation who achieved their aims through non violent peaceful protest.

Who’s living life on their knees ? those in that part of Ireland that you conveniently forget when pretending to yourself that you have self determination . and they still would be if it had been left to the non violent strategy of the SDLP that you appear to back (I asked for your politics , unanswered /avoided)

My post was clearly I thought , referring to them , not you, so best to avoid insulting others on the thread , dense, non brain surgeons etc, when your lack of understanding can come across in that way ; as with the thatcher remark, sarcasm best used when you’re good at it. Again ,I was, I thought, clearly referring to what most brits would believe .
I could reply that I hate to be the one to break it to you, but another state has been squatting on your Ireland , for quite some time , you know the one where you have self determination for? ( were allowed to have self determination for) look north eastwards .
But I have too much class to go down that sarcasm route.

I ‘countermanded’ nothing , and the cliché was appropriately used to poignantly describe the life of catholics at the time. The symbolism of the hymn singing was used as they were battered to their knees immediately after singing it.

You swerved the meaning of my use of the ANC example.
I meant that many lefties here , were and would be cheering them on still even when violence was deemed the right tactic at that time .
They weren’t dancing to jerry dammers due to nelson’s Ghandi style non violence.
If he was non violent he wouldn’t have been incarcerated and I doubt if many would’ve heard of him.
for nelson , non violence was also a tactic , not a principle as it was for ghandi , MLK.
A tactic , used when assessing supporting and opposing forces. At various points in the struggle .
And knowing that atrocities , mistakes would happen ; and knowing that there would be many of their own nationals who would jump on any errors to denounce the whole struggle .
As he reiterated last year .
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/12/06/nelson-mandela-and-nonviolent-resistance/


Others , in the north east of your Ireland that has self determination , have expressed similar views on violence as a tactic . Whether they’re genuine or not , I don’t know )

So, to ask you more clearly , if you didn’t live in the self determined bit that the brits allowed you to have, what would you have done having been battered by RUC early 70s whilst singing aforementioned hymn..
and where would you be now having followed your actions?

 

[Pickman's model]

No I didn't. I've said we've been electing conservative right wing governments for 90 years. Since either FF or FG (or some version of FG) have been in power since the foundation of the state, clearly I think both parties are conservative.

it's by no means clear you know what you think when you seem to change your position from post to post.

 

[Pickman's model]

Mandela's statement on not renouncing violence was that they ANC only adopted violence "when other forms of resistance were no longer open to us"

sorry, what's this in aid of?

 

[Pickman's model]

out of curiosity, if killing "civilians" was the aim of these bombings, do you think that phoning in warnings was something of a mistake? surely the docklands bomb could have killed hundreds if only the ira hadn't made that basic mistake of calling in a warning.

8den, answer pls.

 

[N_igma]

Are you honestly this dense? You claimed

I listed off IRA attacks where civilians were the targets. Pointing out that you're a clueless fucking liar.

So no please explain how attacking Harrods or a pub in Birmingham or the London Docklands, or Bloody Friday, or Enniskillen weren't attacks with the direct aim of murdering civilians.

They were but it wasn't part of their strategy they were individual events that shouldn't have happened. Pickman's makes a valid point about phoning in warnings. If it was the sole intention to kill civilians they would just bomb the place regardless. I think the intention there, wrong as I think It is, is to cause maximum disruption to the day to day running of the state thus making the North untenable for the British to maintain and resulting in the political and military withdrawal of the six counties. Of course there was mindless killing too on both sides but that's what happens in a war.

I was merely pointing out that loyalists' strategy was to kill Catholics. Indiscriminate killing like with no basis other than the fact if they're catholic they're therefore IRA sympathisers.

Your rabid condemnation of Republicanism and its sympathisers troubles me slightly. I don't feel that much hatred towards loyalists and they're my enemy. It doesn't surprise me though, symptomatic of clueless free staters who think they know everything. Slide on mate.

 

[8den]

so why didn't you say that when you posted this:
?

the second post quoted here says that while ireland socially conservative they HAVE NOT elected conservative (small c) leaders but ff/fg. i don't want to continue this but it's plain you don't know what you're saying.

You don't want to continue this because you've just realized you've been caught trying to misquote me.

Fuckity bye bye.

 

[8den]

8den, answer pls.

No. I'm not your lacky.

 

[Pickman's model]

You don't want to continue this because you've just realized you've been caught trying to misquote me.

Fuckity bye bye.

no, i don't want to continue this because we are both going "read the fucking post" but it's clear you can't be bothered to look at what you wrote. but i would be interested if you could point to the post containing a "misquote".

 

[Pickman's model]

No. I'm not your lacky.

maybe not a lacky but certainly a lackwit. otherwise you wouldn't declare that ireland hadn't elected conservative leaders one minute and then insist they have the next.

e2a: i thought it was your contention that the ira had deliberately inflicted civilian casualties. i wonder, is your silence on the subject now due to your realisation that had they so desired large-scale civilian casualties all they needed to do was stop phoning in warnings?

 

[8den]

They were but it wasn't part of their strategy they were individual events that shouldn't have happened. Pickman's makes a valid point about phoning in warnings. If it was the sole intention to kill civilians they would just bomb the place regardless. I think the intention there, wrong as I think It is, is to cause maximum disruption to the day to day running of the state thus making the North untenable for the British to maintain and resulting in the political and military withdrawal of the six counties. Of course there was mindless killing too on both sides but that's what happens in a war.


I was merely pointing out that loyalists' strategy was to kill Catholics. Indiscriminate killing like with no basis other than the fact if they're catholic they're therefore IRA sympathisers.

Your rabid condemnation of Republicanism and its sympathisers troubles me slightly. I don't feel that much hatred towards loyalists and they're my enemy. It doesn't surprise me though, symptomatic of clueless free staters who think they know everything. Slide on mate.

It's not a rabid condemnation of Republicanism. It's just I rarely see people trying to leap through mental hoops trying to explain, and justify the loyalist campaign of violence and indiscriminate killing.

It's breathtaking that someone can say "I condemn IRA attacks on civilians" then go through post after post offering mitigating excuses for their campaign and suggesting that "well they were bad but the Loyalist scum were much much worse!"

 

[Pickman's model]

It's not a rabid condemnation of Republicanism. It's just I rarely see people trying to leap through mental hoops trying to explain, and justify the loyalist campaign of violence and indiscriminate killing.

It's breathtaking that someone can say "I condemn IRA attacks on civilians" then go through post after post offering mitigating excuses for their campaign and suggesting that "well they were bad but the Loyalist scum were much much worse!"

yes, yes. all very well. but if these were indeed attacks on civilians, why do you think the ira went to the lengths of phoning in warnings for e.g. bloody friday? do you think that these were at one and the same time attacks on civilians but also attacks where there were attempts to restrict the number of casualties? could you at least try to jump through a mental hoop or two to prove you can in fact think?

 

[8den]

maybe not a lacky but certainly a lackwit. otherwise you wouldn't declare that ireland hadn't elected conservative leaders one minute and then insist they have the next.

Actually it was a number of weeks ago. Keep up with the program.

e2a: i thought it was your contention that the ira had deliberately inflicted civilian casualties. i wonder, is your silence on the subject now due to your realisation that had they so desired large-scale civilian casualties all they needed to do was stop phoning in warnings?

Pickman you and N_igma drop the fucking goalposts.

This started when N_igma claimed killing civilians wasn't a dedicated tactic of the IRA. When clearly it was.

Or are you both going to deny that sticking bombs in pubs isn't the act of a terrorist organisation wanting to murder civilians.

 

[Pickman's model]

Actually it was a number of weeks ago. Keep up with the program.



Pickman you and N_igma drop the fucking goalposts.

This started when N_igma claimed killing civilians wasn't a dedicated tactic of the IRA. When clearly it was.

Or are you both going to deny that sticking bombs in pubs isn't the act of a terrorist organisation wanting to murder civilians.

i'm sorry, could you say which pub bombings you're on about? btw before we stray too deeply down this road, i would be grateful if you could answer my question in post 871. that's the way this thing works, you see, i answer your questions while you answer mine.

 

[8den]

i'm sorry, could you say which pub bombings you're on about? btw before we stray too deeply down this road, i would be grateful if you could answer my question in post 871. that's the way this thing works, you see, i answer your questions while you answer mine.

Birmingham pub bombings.

And No.

But I am loving the logic here. N_igma claims the IRA never engaged in the deliberate targeting of civilians. When called on this, you leap to his aid saying "ah but the IRA could have done much more damage and killed far more people" as if this was a mitigating argument (followed by the equally daft "sure didn't the UVF do much worse"). N_igma was lying when he claimed the IRA never targeted civilians.

The IRA did target civilians. End of discussion.

Now again please drop the goalposts.

 

[N_igma]

Birmingham pub bombings.

And No.

But I am loving the logic here. N_igma claims the IRA never engaged in the deliberate targeting of civilians. When called on this, you leap to his aid saying "ah but the IRA could have done much more damage and killed far more people" as if this was a mitigating argument (followed by the equally daft "sure didn't the UVF do much worse"). N_igma was lying when he claimed the IRA never targeted civilians.

The IRA did target civilians. End of discussion.

Now again please drop the goalposts.

Can you point to the post where I said the IRA didn't target civilians? I said it wasn't a dedicated tactic, wrong choice of words perhaps on my behalf. What I meant that their struggle was against British occupation not the targeting of civilians.

 

[Pickman's model]

Birmingham pub bombings.

And No.

But I am loving the logic here. N_igma claims the IRA never engaged in the deliberate targeting of civilians. When called on this, you leap to his aid saying "ah but the IRA could have done much more damage and killed far more people" as if this was a mitigating argument (followed by the equally daft "sure didn't the UVF do much worse"). N_igma was lying when he claimed the IRA never targeted civilians.

The IRA did target civilians. End of discussion.

Now again please drop the goalposts.

let's go through this in simple stages.

you say: the ira deliberately targeted civilians.
i say: if they had been deliberately targeting civilians then why did they bother phoning in warnings?

you've yet to answer that question. oh - and for the record i'm with N_igma in saying that it was not ira policy to target civilians.

 

[likesfish]

So you don't think there's any reason for attacking British soldiers in the framework of an armed struggle against British occupation?

Because the "occupation " was supported by the majority in the north and the southern irish goverment was less than supportive. it didnt and never could have worked

 

[Buckaroo]

Because the "occupation " was supported by the majority in the north and the southern irish goverment was less than supportive. it didnt and never could have worked

'Southern' Irish government

 

[N_igma]

Because the "occupation " was supported by the majority in the north and the southern irish goverment was less than supportive. it didnt and never could have worked

Well that's a different argument altogether. I mean you're saying Brits weren't legitimate targets. As members of armed forces whose sole job is to uphold the British state then they are more than fair game in a war.

 

[8den]

Can you point to the post where I said the IRA didn't target civilians?

Fucking. Hell.

THESE. ARE. YOUR. EXACT. WORDS.

killing civilians wasn't a dedicated tactic of the IRA

I said it wasn't a dedicated tactic, wrong choice of words perhaps on my behalf. What I meant that their struggle was against British occupation not the targeting of civilians.

Ah and bombing a pubs in Birmingham and Guilford wasn't targeting civilians then was it? What part of Guilford is in the Bogside? Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the tactical significance of Harrods or the London Hilton? Or a chipshop on the Shankhill road? Or the La Mon restaurant? Perhaps you can explain to me how the two children in Warrington were part of the british occupation?