No danger of the 'Ra taking power.

So my revulsion is not so much that Mary Lou keeps company but with the company that she keeps.

And the aforementioned Bobby Storey no doubt had the blood of many victims, civilian and combatant, on his hands.
Storey, as we have mentioned, was sentenced to prison and subsequently released on license under the GFA.
The agreement, which political representatives of majority of main political parties in Ireland and Britain sat down with the political representatives of SF to negotiate and agree his release before serving his sentence.
Not only that, supported by the highest office of the USA, the British and Irish governments put this negotiation was put to all the people of Ireland who resoundingly endorsed it.
To cry foul now, because 22yrs later, MLM attends a funeral of Storey is nothing but political bluster.
I'm with the mainstream media and overall political thrust here, the apparent breakdown of social distancing being the main issue.




One atrocity alone, the killing in cold blood of 10 Protestant workmen, shows that the IRA were in a different league.

The Kingsmill massacre was a dreadful atrocity. You won't find me excusing or apologising these war crimes.
You are aware no doubt of overall blood-letting of the time, I think some 30 Catholics had been slaughtered in the weeks and months prior to Kingsmill? The Glenanne gang, consisting of members of British security forces.
I'm not condoning any of it, but to look at atrocities inflicted by any one side in isolation serves little to any purpose.

Either hang all the perpetrators of these crimes, or don't hang any.
We have chosen, North and South, not to hang.
 
Last edited:
Yeh I get all that @Betsy Og, but the point is, knowing what we now know, isn't it time our political leaders took down the portraits of Dev, Collins and Connolly?
Instead they perpetute the "gallant rebel" myth whilst knowing that they were engaged in war crimes.
 
Yeh I get all that @Betsy Og, but the point is, knowing what we now know, isn't it time our political leaders took down the portraits of Dev, Collins and Connolly?
Instead they perpetute the "gallant rebel" myth whilst knowing that they were engaged in war crimes.

They were the formation of our State....even Dev.... so they will always be historical figures, but yes we should be able to make a critical appraisal of what they did or did not do. The pictures on the wall are not a real issue, these were people in government in Ireland. If Mary Lou, as Taoiseach, were to put a picture of Thomas Begley on the wall, well it might be drawing connections between the Irish State and a campaign that the State (and the vast majority of its people) did not subscribe to. So its not about Collins or Dev or whoever being a saint, its to give over with the SF quest for equivalence between the PIRA volunteers and people who fought 100 years ago.
 
Last edited:
To cry foul now, because 22yrs later, MLM attends a funeral of Storey is nothing but political bluster.
I am just saying that I would not like my Taoiseach to keep the sort of company or friends that Mary Loy keeps. Not trying to rewrite the GFA.
I'm with the mainstream media and overall political thrust here, the apparent breakdown of social distancing being the main issue.
I have to say that I am really puzzled by this aspect. I agree with the following:
Stephen Collins in the Irish Times today said:
The manner in which SF leaders flouted social distancing has attracted widespread criticism, but the more sinister feature of the event was the paramilitary trappings that put the true nature of the republican movement on open display.
Even Arlene restricts her criticism to COVID. She realises that this one will be temporary. To criticise glorifying IRA terrorists would lead to a recurring and potentially terminal rift. Is she so desperate to hold on to power?
The Kingsmill massacre was a dreadful atrocity. You won't find me excusing or apologising these war crimes.
You are aware no doubt of overall blood-letting of the time, I think some 30 Catholics had been slaughtered in the weeks and months prior to Kingsmill?
Gerry Adams is not looking for parity with loyalists which would be way beneath republicans but he sees a parity between the IRA and the British Army. I for one believe that parity is a rare thing and that there is a spectrum of barbarity. I actually put the loyalist murder gangs, the Shankill romper room psychopaths at the very lowest point of the spectrum. The Provisional IRA are actually a distance better than that but it is SF fantasy that they are on a parity with the official security forces. The plain fact is that when the IRA called a ceasefire the fire ceased - it was they who kept the whole thing going for at least 25 years too long (the demise of the old Stormont regime was probably worth fighting for, achieved in 1973)
 
Maybe its the fact that the South has fully reopened, but I have to congratulate Arlene for having a neck like a jockeys........ Considering her presiding over cash for ash and not stepping aside, its a bit much to look for her counterpart to resign over social distancing breaches. Sure even the de facto head of her beloved UK government abandoned the rules long ago at a much more critical stage. #crocodiletears
 
We also need to bear in mind that the (new) IRA also carried out murders in the Republic (with whom they were not at war). And SF continually dodged the bullet (pardon the pun) when it came to the killing of Sgt. McCabe and others. And when the killers of McCabe were released, who collected them at the gates of the prison? None other than a SF TD. The hypocrisy of SF knows no bounds.
 
They were the formation of our State....even Dev....

We already had a State. It was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Representing ably the majority of Irish people in Westminster by many democratic leaders such as Parnell and Redmond.
And the viable quest for a parliament for Ireland, within the UK was attained through exclusively democratic and peaceful means.
Until that is, the gunmen of Ulster Volunteers arrived and hijacked the will of the Kings parliament.

The irony is that it was Redmond who pledged to stand by Britain by pledging support for the war effort in Europe. Unionism offered civil war in Ireland at Britain's time of need. Britain succumbed to the threat of Unionist violence, spawning a century littered with insurrection, civil and sectarian war.
As for Dev, he also fought against the establishment of the State.

The pictures on the wall are not a real issue, these were people in government in Ireland.

Pearse, Connolly were never in Government but they have adorned the walls of officialdom depending who was in power.

Somehow I dont think Tomás Begley would feature highly on MLM office wall, but perhaps Martin McGuinness would... after all McGuinness was in government too.

If Mary Lou, as Taoiseach, were to put a picture of Thomas Begley on the wall,

That would be a real issue for you? Presumably because of his hand in the slaughter of innocent Protestants. But Collins, who led an organisation that also saw the slaughtering of Protestant civilians, is not an issue?

I don't really need you to answer those questions, Ive heard all the excuses and revisionism before, "different time", "they fought for our freedom".

They were engaged in torture and sectarian murder of civilians and their memories are revered to this day by a political establishment that has whitewashed their crimes for political expediency

give over with the SF quest for equivalence between the PIRA volunteers and people who fought 100 years ago.

Tell me the difference between - abduction, torture, murder and disappearance of alleged informers, the sectarian murder of Protestant civilians, the murder of children, the recruitment of children to the ranks - 100yrs ago and today, and I will drop the equivalence.
 
Tell me the difference between - abduction, torture, murder and disappearance of alleged informers, the sectarian murder of Protestant civilians, the murder of children, the recruitment of children to the ranks - 100yrs ago and today, and I will drop the equivalence.
McGuinness was not in the govenment of Ireland.

I've already given you the difference. One was a widely supported brief conflict that had the prospect of success and achieved a lot of it in the short term (and more in the longer term).

The other was a protracted campaign (30 years), utterly without prospect of "success" with little popular support, and mostly civilian casualties. Including no warning bombs in shopping areas, incinerating folk at a hotel, chaining a cook to a car bomb etc. etc. etc.

Bar a few very isolated cases the protestants of the 26 were not the target of the War of Independence. You'll have to spell out a bit more about the child murder and child soldier thing. Nor were the men of 1916 to '21 known for their paedophilia and cover up of same...

So, not buying it in the slightest.
 
I am just saying that I would not like my Taoiseach to keep the sort of company or friends that Mary Loy keeps.

That's someway short of inferring that the Irish State is in danger of being run by the Provisionals.

I have to say that I am really puzzled by this aspect. I agree with the following:

I have to say, I'm somewhat puzzled by the referencing to 'paramilitary trappings'. Yes, there was an obvious Republican guard of honor, but no masks, no weapons, no beret and gloves, no military paraphernalia. This does not signify anything sinister to me.


The plain fact is that when the IRA called a ceasefire the fire ceased - it was they who kept the whole thing going for at least 25 years too long

Somewhat a simplified version of events. You are aware of the collapse of previous ceasefires and ultimately the non-existent element of trust between the protagonists?

I agree it could have ended earlier, and I'm sure we all wished it would have. In the words of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
"With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all."

As regards parity between IRA and BA, it depends on where you place authority. Authority is derives from complying with law & order. If the BA are not answerable for their crimes then they have lost all authority.
The despicable and brutal murder of Jean McConville is etched into the mind of most in my generation, rightly so.
But the murder of Joan Connolly and the continuing cover-up is no less a despicable act. The perpetrators of the murder and those who cover up have no authority. They are equivalent to the perpetrators of the Jean McConville murder.
You may hold a different perspective and that is fine, but I cannot imagine you don't at least understand my perspective?

*And with that, having defended my conscience in choosing to vote SF should I wish by exposing the demons of our patriot dead and relying on the words of the British monarch, I think I will call it a day on this topic! :)
 
That's someway short of inferring that the Irish State is in danger of being run by the Provisionals.



I have to say, I'm somewhat puzzled by the referencing to 'paramilitary trappings'. Yes, there was an obvious Republican guard of honor, but no masks, no weapons, no beret and gloves, no military paraphernalia. This does not signify anything sinister to me.




Somewhat a simplified version of events. You are aware of the collapse of previous ceasefires and ultimately the non-existent element of trust between the protagonists?

I agree it could have ended earlier, and I'm sure we all wished it would have. In the words of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
"With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all."

As regards parity between IRA and BA, it depends on where you place authority. Authority is derives from complying with law & order. If the BA are not answerable for their crimes then they have lost all authority.
The despicable and brutal murder of Jean McConville is etched into the mind of most in my generation, rightly so.
But the murder of Joan Connolly and the continuing cover-up is no less a despicable act. The perpetrators of the murder and those who cover up have no authority. They are equivalent to the perpetrators of the Jean McConville murder.
You may hold a different perspective and that is fine, but I cannot imagine you don't at least understand my perspective?

*And with that, having defended my conscience in choosing to vote SF should I wish by exposing the demons of our patriot dead and relying on the words of the British monarch, I think I will call it a day on this topic! :)
ok I don't think you are a wicked guy even though your sympathies seem to lie with folk that I would so categorise, but we obviously have different perspectives.
 
Last edited:
*Last one!

McGuinness was not in the govenment of Ireland.

He was in government in NI, a recognised authority across the world, and more importantly amongst the people of Ireland, unlike the Provisional Government of 1916.

One was a widely supported brief conflict that had the prospect of success

1916 had no mandate, no popular support, no prospect of success, save the retrospective mandate, support and success attributed to it now.
The same type of retrospective success some are concerned SF will attribute to the Provos.

The other was a protracted campaign (30 years), utterly without prospect of "success" with little popular support, and mostly civilian casualties. Including no warning bombs in shopping areas, incinerating folk at a hotel, chaining a cook to a car bomb etc. etc. etc.

The greatest casualty grouping throughout the conflicts were innocent civilians.
Some 260 Irish civilians killed in a week including some 40 children.
For this our President parades? The slaughter of innocent Irish civilians!

Bar a few very isolated cases the protestants of the 26 were not the target of the War of Independence.

The point is not how many, the point is the intent. We can't do anything about the intent now, but we can stop pretending that our gallant hero's are not without the blood of innocents.If we did then I could comfortably stand finger pointing at MLM and her tribute to Storey.
But to me it is glaring hypocrisy in our political class.

Nor were the men of 1916 to '21 known for their paedophilia and cover up of same...

Well... Pádraig Pearse? Maybe? It's just speculation.... let's finish with a poem from Pearse, make of it what you will.

LITTLE LAD OF THE TRICKS

by Padraig Pearse.


Little lad of the tricks,
Full well I know
That you have been in mischief
Confess your fault truly.

I forgive you, child
Of the soft red mouth
I will not condemn anyone
For a sin not understood.

Raise your comely head
Till I kiss your mouth:
If either of us is the better of that
I am the better of it.

There is a fragrance in your kiss
That I have not found yet
In the kisses of women
Or in the honey of their bodies.

Lad of the grey eyes,
That flush in thy cheek
Would be white with dread of me
Could you read my secrets.

He who has my secrets
Is not fit to touch you:
Is not that a pitiful thing,
Little lad of the tricks ?
 
Last edited:
He was in government in NI, a recognised authority across the world, and more importantly amongst the people of Ireland, unlike the Provisional Government of 1916.
The occupied 6 county area is not Ireland or the State, McGuinness was not in the government of Ireland. Fact.

1916 had no mandate, no popular support, no prospect of success, save the retrospective mandate, support and success attributed to it now.
The same type of retrospective success some are concerned SF will attribute to the Provos.

I've already described it as a suicide mission. The War of Independence clearly had a mandate (1918 election before war 1919 to 1921). There is no such thing as a retrospective mandate. It the Brits hadn't handled the aftermath so badly then 1916 would not have been the event it became, but if Home Rule was not delivered there would always have been a justifiable war.


The greatest casualty grouping throughout the conflicts were innocent civilians.
Some 260 Irish civilians killed in a week including some 40 children.
For this our President parades? The slaughter of innocent Irish civilians!

We'll have to ring Joe (Duffy) on this one (he wrote the book on it). I'm fairly sure most of the civilians were killed by the Brits. What the men of 1916 did not do was plant bombs in civilian areas, often crowded shopping areas, sometimes with no warning or sometimes at such a scale or intensity there would have to be lots of civilan casualties (Bloody Friday). Or sometimes they blew up young and old at a commemoration (Enniskillen). Or sometimes they blew up lads on the way to a building job (Teebane), or machine gunned a church (Darkley) and handpicked the 10 protestants to execute them (Kingsmill). So it is an absolute insult to those of 1916 to 1921 to equate them with the Provo bombers and sectarian murderers.

The point is not how many, the point is the intent.

Indeed. You have a 30 year sectarian campaign versus 3 or 4 isolated incidents (West Cork & maybe 1 in the midlands). So the numbers do matters. When Gerry Adams says "Show me a conflict without civilian casualties." He's right, there were always be some, the bit he leaves out that when you bomb recklessly you are knowingly the author of those deaths.

Pearse as I've said was a strange character, he didn't strap a bomb to himself but death was always on the agenda. He wrote some strange poetry, but that of itself is not a crime.
 
Last edited:
*it's a new day, I'm refreshed again!

The occupied 6 county area is not Ireland or the State, McGuinness was not in the government of Ireland. Fact.

He was a member of a government recognised by the Irish people as legitimate is the point.
The leaders of 1916 had no mandate from the Irish people to act as they did.
The portraits of these people who triggered an insurrection in which hundreds of Irish civilians would die violently, adorn the walls of the highest offices of this State. I'm suggesting, given that the political class is now opposed to such type of unsanctioned, unauthorised military actions, it is time to take down the portraits and stop commemorating them in gallant form?

The War of Independence clearly had a mandate (1918 election before war 1919 to 1921).

Again, factually incorrect. The 1918 election was not a vote to go to war, it was a Westminster election in which the SF proposed to use 'any means necessary' to establish an independent Ireland. 'Any means necessary' could mean anything. It could mean war, or it could mean agitating for international recognition, as De Valera sought to do in US, as is actually in the SF manifesto - war is not explicitly referred, albeit it is implied.
Nevertheless there was no vote, no authorisation given to go to war as a means to attaining Irish independence by the First Dáil. The war commenced when rebels, acting on their own authority (and presumably interpretation of the SF manifesto) took up arms by themselves.

There is no such thing as a retrospective mandate. It the Brits hadn't handled the aftermath so badly then 1916 would not have been the event it became,

If it had no mandate, it was illegal? That is my point. People in government who commemorate illegal suicide missions leading to the deaths of hundreds of Irish civilians are in no position to lecture others on their illegal violent insurrections.
Unless of course, they retrospectively legitimise the actions of 1916?
This i believe, is a concern of yours and others with regard to SF today?
That if they get into power that they will retrospectively legitimise the Provos just as the rest of our political class has retrospectively legitimised 1916 and WoI for their own political expediency.

but if Home Rule was not delivered there would always have been a justifiable war.

The Home Rule Parliament of 1914, as passed by Houses of Parliament has never been delivered. It was usurped by the threat of Unionist violence.
Until 1998, this State never recognised the authority of British rule in any part of Ireland. This State deemed it an illegal occupation.
Relative to previous insurrections, the justification to wage war against Britain has always been there, until 1998.

I'm fairly sure most of the civilians were killed by the Brits.

I know, you don't have to remind me of their atrocities. It's the atrocities of our own side that I don't gloss over.

What the men of 1916 did not do was plant bombs in civilian areas, often crowded shopping areas, sometimes with no warning or sometimes at such a scale or intensity there would have to be lots of civilan casualties (Bloody Friday).

No, they didn't. But innocent people they did kill. Without no authority other than their own self-imposed authority to murder innocent unarmed people as they went about their livelihoods. If you can legitimise that, and not recognise the crimes committed you have no moral authority over those who try to legitimise the atrocities you outline.

and handpicked the 10 protestants to execute them (Kingsmill)

This atrocity has been referenced earlier. It was a despicable criminal act. I took sometime to remind myself of events. This massacre followed a massacre of six Catholics the night before. The perpetrators were made up of British army and security personnel. The same British army which this State recognised as an illegal occupation, just as they did in 1916 and 1918.

We could spend all day selectively point scoring atrocities. It is futile.

In 1998 the people of Ireland, collectively,(Sunningdale was indeed for slow learners, even the Loyalists saw through the politics of exclusion inherent in it) expressed their will to take a different path in the interests of resolving our difficulties in a peaceful path.
There are many unpalatable aspects of this agreement. The release of murderers of Gerry McCabe for instance and SF waiting at the gates. But it wasn't SF who authorised their release in the first place. You have to thank Irish and British governments for that, as mandated by the people of Ireland.
Equally unpalatable is the continued cover-up by the PSNI of information relating to Miami Showband massacre. The implications of law & order authorities engaging in the cover up of murder is undoubtedly unpalatable to most . I know this because I know the how unpalatable the continued cover up of Robert McCartney murder by members of SF is.
The cover up of information pertaining to a murder investigation is unpalatable in one instance, it surely is in all instances? Yet, unpalatable as it is, I have to accept that PSNI are a lawful authority in this country.

PSNI files delay

You have a 30 year sectarian campaign versus 3 or 4 isolated incidents (West Cork & maybe 1 in the midlands)

In the interests of common sense, it wrong to describe the IRA campaign as a 30yr sectarian campaign. Yes, undoubtedly there were far more sectarian atrocities, but it wasn't waged by one side over another. The British State also participated and colluded in sectarian murders throughout the period.
It is the tragedy of the whole affair.
But for a sectarian campaign, the Provos were woeful as I think they actually killed more Catholics than Protestants.

He's right, there were always be some, the bit he leaves out that when we bomb recklessly you are knowingly the author of those deaths.

Reckless bombing, reckless shooting, is there an order of merit in how one should die in a conflict?
Do you think perhaps had the IRB got access to explosives they would have used it? Considering their abject disregard for the ordinary citizens of Dublin that week I think it highly likely. Not to mention, Tomás Clarke who had previously participated in an bombing campaign in Britain that included indiscriminate targets such as public bridges, train stations and London underground.
Clarke is revered amongst our political class. There are bridges, monuments named after him. His portrait adorns the walls of public institutions such as the National Library of Ireland.
By any measure today, he was surely a terrorist?
The actions of our political class in commemorating Clarke would suggest they think otherwise.

Pearse as I've said was a strange character, he didn't strap a bomb to himself but death was always on the agenda. He wrote some strange poetry, but that of itself is not a crime.

Indeed it is not, it is only speculation.
MLM attended the funeral of Bobby Storey, he too was not a paedophile nor an apologist for paedophilia.
 
Theo are you sure you are not a Jesuit? You have done an excellent job in rubbishing the heroes of 1916 including outing PP as a pedo (what a poem? did Oscar Wilde not do time for less?).

Yet this republican demolition job seems to be in justification of your sympathies with the current SF.
 
Theo are you sure you are not a Jesuit? You have done an excellent job in rubbishing the heroes of 1916 including outing PP as a pedo (what a poem? did Oscar Wilde not do time for less?).

Yet this republican demolition job seems to be in justification of your sympathies with the current SF.
:)

It's not so much a republican demolition job as I stand steadfastly with the principles of an Irish Republic as expressed in the Proclaimtion, including the right to use force where fundamental principles of democracy are usurped by force, or threat of (see Home Rule Act, 1914)

That said, anyone who takes it upon themselves to use force better be prepared for the consequences. The reality is, every armed campaign in the name of an Irish Republic is pocketed with acts of indiscriminate savergy against civilian populations and sectarian murder. There is no getting away from this albeit the political classes have done a mighty job in doing so in many respects when it comes to their own particular brand of freedom fighting.

I'm an All-Ireland man. I consider the unification of Ireland (in whatever form that takes) will be brought about through the economic and social orders of the day. For voting, I'm limited in choice with SF, Green and PBP.
If FF or FG ever get their act together in an All Ireland sense, I will consider voting for them based on policy.
Heck if the DUP were to open a branch in my constituency I'd have no hesitation in welcoming them aboard!
 
Last edited:
This is turning into the long goodbye again......

I've edited this comment, as I understand your comment now. Yes, my bad for calling time on my input and subsequently adding more comments.
My propensity to limit myself is weak I admit. I do try, honestly, but sometimes it is hard. :)
 
Last edited:
The inference here is that members of SF running for office, or elected to office, are pedophiles or, covering up for same?
These are of course outlandish, unsubstantiated allegations of a very serious nature. The information you hold should be passed onto the authorities lest you become complicit in the alleged cover up yourself. Can you substantiate these allegations and have you provided the information to the authorities?
For my part, if I knew anybody who was running for office was engaged in cover up or worse, I certainly wouldn't vote for them.
That's a total misrepresentation of what I said and you know it.
You keep grasping for straw-men to throw in front of the argument and constructing false equivalence. Your replies are just a long list of whataboutism.
 
I've edited this comment, as I understand your comment now. Yes, my bad for calling time on my input and subsequently adding more comments.
My propensity to limit myself is weak I admit. I do try, honestly, but sometimes it is hard. :)
I admire your endurance!
 
Back
Top