Gerry Adams exposed , his lies demolished at brothers rape trial

[N_igma]

gaybo

When a known homophobe uses that word, instead of refering to Gaybo the person, it's clear what he's talking about. Are you man enough to admit your error in defending homophobic insults?

You're wrong in this instance.

 

[Pickman's model]

gaybo

When a known homophobe uses that word, instead of refering to Gaybo the person, it's clear what he's talking about. Are you man enough to admit your error in defending homophobic insults?

it's a pity you only read one word of Casually Red's post as the second makes it clear he's talking about west brits. there's no homophobic insult for me to defend.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Then please explain how a bomb at shopping center, or a hotel, or a pub hundreds of miles away from Northern Irelands isn't deliberately targeting civilians.

The way I was "taught", back in the mists of the age of flared trousers, while buildings used by civilians were targeted and evacuation warnings fairly scrupulously given (we can get into the British army and the RUC withholding warnings elsewhere, perhaps), devices were not set in order to specifically kill civilians (although I'll happily acknowledge that devices set to kill "enemy combatants" did also sometimes take a toll on civilians).

 

[ViolentPanda]

just so

Another fuckwit scion of the ruling classes who deserved everything he got.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I call bullshit on it.

You can't say that planting a massive bomb in a pub or shopping center isn't targeting civilians even if you phone in a warning.

Your reasoning is simply defective.

Armies (regular or irregular) have always targeted enemy infrastructure. In more modern times, that has also encompassed targeting what you might call "public infrastructure" - shopping centres and the like - but very few insurgent organisations delieberately-target civilians, because there's no political, moral or social mileage in doing so.
The whole idea behind phoning in a warning is to prevent death. As I said earlier, we can get into ignored warnings, etc elsewhere (also the relatively-few occasions that republican insurgents didn't phone in warnings, if you want), but I'm not sure you re-writing definitions to suit your own purposes is helpful, even if it does allow you to forcefully air your opinion.

 

[Pickman's model]

8den goldenecitrone any chance of a response?

 

[Pickman's model]

8den goldenecitrone any chance of a response?

 

[MAD-T-REX]

The whole idea behind phoning in a warning is to prevent death.

It's not bad for PR purposes when civilians inevitably die either.

I don't think the IRA wanted civilian deaths (except for the relatively rare sectarian massacres, of course), but there certainly wasn't any real aversion to causing them in the pursuit of the belief that bombing public spaces would somehow make a British withdrawal from the North more likely.

In the face of seemingly random destruction, when have civilians ever reacted in the way that the bombers - whether they use planes or cars - had hoped for? The only bombs that actually had the impact desired by the IRA were the ones that specifically targeted the financial establishment (Bishopsgate, etc), not a Boots on a random high street.

Everything else was reckless and counter-productive (unless the IRA's strategy was to harden attitudes and help ensure that it became politically impossible for Britain to withdraw, which they certainly succeeded at).

 

[Favelado]

The Hipercor attack in Barcelona is a good case of a phone warning gone wrong. Of course, there's never any accounting for incompetence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Hipercor_bombing

I'm aware that Barcelona isn't in Ireland. It just sprang to mind as I read the last few posts.

 

[Casually Red]

Back with your usual homophobic ranting, you rancid piece of shit. Why hasn't this dog turd been banned yet?

take yourself up the the yard you cunt

 

[Pickman's model]

8den won't you grace us with your presence? it's been a while - don't be a stranger

 

[grit]

gaybo

When a known homophobe uses that word, instead of refering to Gaybo the person, it's clear what he's talking about. Are you man enough to admit your error in defending homophobic insults?

LOL

 

[Casually Red]

and the fundamental point of guerilla warfare is not to have numerical superiority or training or equipment. It's to make life expensive and politically untenable for the greater forces masters. 'Would never have lasted five minutes if we had had our gloves off' misses the point. You didn't, the dirty war didn't work and eventually negotiations were had. Obvs not everyones happy with GFA anyway, the peace-wall segregation thing doesn't seem like a lasting soultion, cracks appearing already wrt the past. But. It was never an expectation to beat the might of the british in one on one toe to toe.

id say the dirty war very much did work. They ended up with british sovereignty being accepted over Irish sovereignty. British sovereignty had to be accepted as legitimate , and the republican position as illegitimate and criminal, before the provos were even permitted sit down at negotiations. leaving nothing of any substance to even negotiate when they got there. With the big stick of the death squads being used in the background as a none too subtle threat against the people . Mo Mowlam, the old bastard, expressing her fear the loyalists might do something horrific south of the border if articles 2 and 3 werent abandoned. Much like the kray twins expressing a worry your shop might burn down if you didnt pay them protection.

the point of bringing the british army out on the streets was to show the world there was an illegal occupation of Irish territory and a violation of national sovereignty. To ensure no form of localised british rule could ever function and that British rule could only be upheld and enforced at the point of a gun and military might. To have them realise their troops could only ever be withdrawn when they acknowleged and addressed the fact they were violating Irelands sovereignty. Britian of course wanted normalisation, ulsterisation and the resistance criminalised and refused to remotely acknowlege sovereignty was even an issue.

The british side won out, completely. The provos accepted that even their own existence as an armed body was illegitmate and criminal, that the struggle for national sovereignty was simply a criminal conspiracy. They now participate fully in the violation of their own national sovereignty, when the point of their struggle had been to uphold it . Republicanism ended up completely ideologically defeated. As regards the national position Ireland is now back pre 1916 politically. Republicanism has been expunged as the national position and replaced with a form of redmondism.

ultimately the gfa, Stormont and the PSNI are simply political tools with sole purpose and function of violating Irelands national sovereignty. Its what they are all specifically tailored to do. Sinn feins upholding of the British position in Ireland and legitimising this apparatus is simply an act of outright treachery against their own nation, active participation in the violation of their own nations sovereignty. An exercise in Vichyism Criminality in fact, treason is a criminal act . Its why Petains ilk were hanged afterall.

 

[Casually Red]

dp

 

[Casually Red]

8den won't you grace us with your presence? it's been a while - don't be a stranger

its certainly a novelty listening to someone asking why on earth an insurgency adopts the tactics of generalised mayhem

 

[Casually Red]

I call bullshit on it.

You can't say that planting a massive bomb in a pub or shopping center isn't targeting civilians even if you phone in a warning.

Your reasoning is simply defective.

yes you can, this is idiotic stuff. If youre phoning in a warning then plainly the purpose of that warning is to ensure civilians arent around when it goes off. Plainly they arent being targetted and the economic infrastructure of the occupying power is instead.

This is very simple and evident, so I can only assume youre deliberately feigning this ignorance in order to demonise a republican position youre plainly opposed to rather than addressing the issue. Youre adopting the tried and tested Gaybo approach of republicanism is wrong because its evil and insane. Rather than attempting to challenge republican seperatism politically with reasoned argument and debate, which you simply arent up to doing. The task is beyond you, and Gaybo too. Which is why they had Section 31 all those years, obviously your formative ones.

 

[Casually Red]

Gaybo is the nickname Gay Byrne presenter of the Late Late Show.
Gay has been affectionately known as and called Gaybo for years.....there was and is no link to the current use of the word Gay (as in homosexual).
Gay Byrne had the nickname Gaybo from a very early age....tying his first name Gabriel to his surname Byrne.
Please have a look...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Byrne

it actively scuppered his broadcasting career in the United States. Were at one point some US executives were hoping to make him the next Larry King. The name Gay was a total non starter for him over there. And he couldnt use Gabriel Byrne because of the Irish actor . So they suggested he use his middle name instead. Until it turned out his middle name was Mary.

poor Gaybo.

 

[Casually Red]

Please explain how planting bombs in pubs isn't the deliberate targeting of civilians.

Please explain how the murder of Patsy Gillispse wasn't the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Please explain how planting bombs in Birmingham and Guilford pubs or in Warrington wasn't the deliberate targeting of civilians.



Yeah I think lying in wait and planting a thousand bomb to kill 8 civilian construction workers. Or Omagh or Enniskillen. Jesus.

And then it's back to "yeah well whataboutry the British Army"



If you would just fucking man up and admit you were lying we'd all be alot happier.

well Patsy Gillespie was working directly for the occupation forces as a worker in their base. Under any rules of war such people plainly arent regarded as civilians, theyre working for the military and therefore fair game for any army, whether regular or insurgent. As were the civilian contractors at Teebane.
you wouldnt dream for one minute asking why insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam were targetting people contracted by the US military, constructing bases and fortifications and running the bases infrastructure. You wouldnt dream of asking why people in occupied france were denounced and jailed for assisting the germans in that way, its perfectly obvious they arent uninvolved civilians. You wouldnt dream either of regarding someone who accepted money from the IRA to build underground bunkers, firing platforms or engage in any part of the insurgents infrastructure as an uninvolved civilian. Neither would the British forces.

But when it comes to Ireland, youre own country, you deliberately feign this ignorance and astonishment. Its plain to see what your at, creating a fake argument based around the insurgencys inherent immorality and evil, rather than address the actual issue at hand. A fake moral panic in a sense. Because you know well that to challenge the republican position politically involves you publicly adopting the position of the British state itself, and thats were it starts to get very tricky. So this route of fakery and dishonesty is generally safer to persue. .

 

[Casually Red]

Proxy bombs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_bomb

war crimes, an illegitimate tactic adopted by the insurgency back then. Hopefully never to be repeated. The republican position is a perfectly legitimate one, it should only ever be upheld by legitimate methods. The end does not justify the means.

 

[Casually Red]

V important to pigeon hole and alienate your countrymen. Step 4 in the "building a United Ireland" handbook.

I'm not a "middle class self hating Irishman" (though some small kudos for not using the "west brit" cliche). I'm a realist and a pragmatist. And I'm not stuck moving about in the same delusional tiny pool of "republicanism". Don't believe for a moment that just because you and your mates can blather on about the rights and wrongs of "our struggle" than you represent anything other than a tiny minority here.

"self hating Irishman". LOL At least I dont wander about trying to justify murdering my countrymen for the sake of national unity.

im more than happy to call you a west brit because you simply are one . The phrase was coined by John Mitchell with your specific garrison mentality in mind . Its neither realism nor pragmatism to actively support the foreign military occupation of your own nation. Its treason against your nation. Youre a traitor to your own country. And you will also have to accept that your political support for the seizure of your nations territory by a foreign military involves support for a foreign military killing your fellow countrymen.
An issue your insistent people do not raise, naturally enough. Hardly surprising that . Your very far from being a realist, your more than a bit dishonest and a bit shy of being open with the argument youre flogging here. Which is the British imperialist one when alls said and done.

 

[8den]

How exactly do I actively support the foreign military occupation of Ireland?

Please. Give examples.

 

[Favelado]

How exactly do I actively support the foreign military occupation of Ireland?

Please. Give examples.

Why have have you said active instead of passive or tacit? Or modified the word "support" at all?

 

[8den]

well Patsy Gillespie was working directly for the occupation forces as a worker in their base.

And The Birmingham pub bombings? And La Mon? Harrods? Einskillen? Teebane (are go going to argue that the killing of a reservist justifies the deaths of the 7 people in the van with him?) How where the two children in Warrington working for the occupation forces?

 

[8den]

Why have have you said active instead of passive or tacit? Or modifed the word "support" at all?

Because he used it

actively support the foreign military occupation of your own nation

I'm genuinely curious to know how I actively support the occupation of Ireland. His words.

There is a epic amount of bullshit in his post I just picked out one accusation in the litany of hyperbolllock shite in his posts.

Apparently disagreeing with the concept of murdering civilians and blowing people up to achieve some weird nationalistic bullshit makes me a "traitor" according to the emotive shite being flung by the verbal slurry machine CR.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Haha you're a laugh mate. Fwiw I come from a well established Republican family in a staunch Republican area and I have my colours nailed to the mast. The 1916 proclamation reserves the right of Irish people to use physical force. I don't agree with it but I certainly won't condemn it.

Get off the fence.

 

[8den]

war crimes, an illegitimate tactic adopted by the insurgency back then. Hopefully never to be repeated. The republican position is a perfectly legitimate one, it should only ever be upheld by legitimate methods. The end does not justify the means.

It's always funny how republicans can condemn the tactics of others while justifying their own behaviour.

Diplock courts by the state. INHUMAN! Secret Republic "tribunals" and executions! Regrettable but necessary!

 

[Casually Red]

So you condemn all IRA actions that kill civilians but don't condemn their campaign. Despite the fact their campaign killed hundreds of civilians.

A Brain Surgeon you ain't.




Civilian killings wasnt a dedicated IRA tactic? What about Birmingham? Guilford? Blood Friday? La Mon? Harrods? Enniskillen? Teebane? Warrington? Shankhill Rd? or London Docklands? All bomb attacks on civilian targets.

Fuck off.

PS arguing that the UVF and their ilk killed more civilians than the IRA as a "percentage" is the finest piece of "whataboutery" I've ever heard.

amazing, a punter who prefaces his post with whatabout goes on to accuse others of whataboutery . Classic stuff
Its common knowlege the British state armed and ran these loyalist death squads. What right do you believe Britian has to occupy anyones country, bearing in mind this particular one under discussion is your own, and use clandestine murder gangs against its civilian population to create indiscriminate sectarian terror .
The logic of your own argument here is interesting . You state that supporters of Irish republicanism cant pick and choose which actions they support or not and have to support either all or none.
As a supporter of Britains violation of your own countrys sovereignty and the occupation of its territory you then , logically, must also support the means used to do this. Which means you not only support your own countrymen being massacred on Bloody Sunday , Springhill, New Lodge, Ballymurphy, plastic bullets, internment and torture, sectarian discrimination, base sectarianism as a political tool...you also support things like the Dublin Monaghan massacres, shankill butchers, numerous pub massacres...all that stuff too.

Is this what your pragmatism and realism entails ? Because plainly if what you loudly demand of others is applied to yourself, this collective moral guilt for all actions committed in the name of the position one espuses, then it doesnt make for pretty reading at all. Your own morality is well in the gutter, right down there with the worst excesses of Britians spooks and green slime. Although intheir defence theyre at least acting in what they perceive to be their own countrys national and strategic interest. Why you support them doing this stuff to your own country makes you a very different beast entirely.

Realism and pragmatism...I suppose one could call it that.

 

[Casually Red]

It's always funny how republicans can condemn the tactics of others while justifying their own behaviour.

Diplock courts by the state. INHUMAN! Secret Republic "tribunals" and executions! Regrettable but necessary!

I dont regard Diplock courts as inhuman at all. I simply regard them as a foreign legal apparatus of an occupation force in my country that has no legitimacy and no right to be there . You being a pro British Irishman however would regard them as perfectly legitmate because you support the Britih states occupation of your own country. Id regard you in turn as a quisling.

If Britian allowed republicns to have their own courts and jails im quite sure they would have been used. They dont though, so thats why that stuff is done covertly.

 

[Casually Red]

How exactly do I actively support the foreign military occupation of Ireland?

Please. Give examples.

you plainly support it in your arguments and go further to argue that opposition to it is intrinsically morally evil on every level.

 

[toggle]

If Britian allowed republicns to have their own courts and jails im quite sure they would have been used.

like the Dail Courts?