web analytics

so how’s that reconciliation goin’ then; fella?

By Mike Cunningham On January 31st, 2014

From a DVATW tweet:-

As he arrived the crowd hurled abuse and threw missiles at him before he was bundled in through a back door.

A heavy police presence held the crowd back before more reinforcements arrived on the scene.

The windows of two police vehicles were smashed during the violence and four officers sustained minor injuries.

At one stage a recycling bin was set alight by the mob and pushed into the middle of the Newtownards Road, blocking traffic.

The ultimate insult! The ritual burning of a recycling bin!

As Joseph Conrad wrote many years ago; ‘The horror; the horror!’

 

111 Responses to “so how’s that reconciliation goin’ then; fella?”

  1. //The windows of two police vehicles were smashed during the violence and four officers sustained minor injuries.
    At one stage a recycling bin was set alight by the mob and pushed into the middle of the Newtownards Road//

    Imagine, our host wanted to represent these people. Must have been out of his mind.

    But it would take more than Loyalist rowdies to faze Patrick Magee. He’s tough – tougher at least than his enemies.

  2. //At one stage a recycling bin was set alight by the mob and pushed into the middle of the Newtownards Road//

    Outragous, have these people never heard of ‘Global warming’ 😉

  3. Bundled in through the back door.

    The BBC news footage shows him walking in, quite calmly…

    Imagine, our host wanted to represent these people. Must have been out of his mind.

    It says a lot about the TUV that even this shower won’t vote for them 😉

  4. Here you are Mike:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGgeSfgLy2E

    I thought the ‘dirty fenian bastards’ remarks particularly classy.

  5. What an evil bastard!

  6. Noel – He doesn’t strike me as tougher than many of his victims. From what I’ve read he doesn’t seem particularly remorseful of his actions.

  7. From what I’ve read he doesn’t seem particularly remorseful of his actions.

    I suppose that it depends on what the subjective definition of ‘particularly remorseful’ is?

  8. Of course Magee is a convicted murderer. But he was appearing (again) with the daughter of one of his Brighton victims who has very publicly forgiven him. Peaceful protest against this would have been fine, but violence was an attack on free speech.

  9. Paul – he isn’t sorry he planted the bomb. Is that particular enough?

    Peter – I agree, peaceful protest against him would be fine (and understandable).

  10. I know Pat Magee Mahons and he’s told me that he’s sorry for the loss of life of the man that died in the bomb he planted. However, had senior Conservative politicians been killed in the bomb I suspect that he wouldn’t have the same feeling.

    And before you start about bombs being indescriminate etc. I can’t answer that.

  11. Paul – How generous of him. And he lectures on reconciliation? How precious.

    He was justly convicted. He was a terrorist and caused not merely 5 deaths but over 30 people to be injured. His acts were unjustified and deplorable.

  12. He was justly convicted. He was a terrorist and caused not merely 5 deaths but over 30 people to be injured. His acts were unjustified and deplorable

    Sorry, I thought that we were talking about him being sorry for the loss of life and not about justification for his actions and subsequent conviction.

  13. We were. Then you advised me that there was a degree of victimhood among the dead by which he measured his sorrow. Accordingly, I felt it necessary to expand upon my distaste for him.

  14. I felt it necessary to expand upon my distaste for him

    That’s fair enough but going back to the original point I suppose it depends on how much remorse is subjectively acceptable?

  15. For murder I think the standard of what would constitute remorse would be fairly objective.

  16. Can you expand on that Mahons?

  17. Paul – Is it late there? You would like me to expand on what a reasonable person would consider remorse for murder?

  18. Fourteen years in jail and feelings of personal remorse isn’t sufficient?

  19. For killing 5 people, wounding over thirty, and attempting to circumvent the democratic process by bombing a civilian target?

    Let me think. Um, no. No it is not sufficient.

    And you’ve told me his remorse is limited.

  20. I told you that he was sorry for the loss of life caused by the bomb he planted but if it had been senior Tory politicians I think he may feel differently.

    So what is sufficient?

  21. He is a murderer. I would prefer he be sorry in jail. 5 people were killed, many more wounded. His attack was not merely on the victims (which in itself would have been enough for life without parole) but on the democratic process itself.

    You told me he has remorse for the death of one of the people.

    And he is supposed to be a symbol of reconciliation?

    I understand that the likes of him were freed, and that such a concession was necessary to achieve peace given the horrible cycle of violence. But he got away with murder. Plain and simple.

  22. Apologies, I got caught up reading the article while typing I meant those killed in the bomb.

    This was just on of many attacks on the democratic process by everyone involved in the Irish conflict.

    And he is supposed to be a symbol of reconciliation?

    That’s the first time I’ve heard that particular claim.

    IMO fourteen years in prison is not getting away with murder, perhaps it may be deemed insufficient time spent for atonement but it is certainly not getting away with murder.

  23. Paul – We disagree then. At less than 3 years per murder victim I would say it is a farce. You say perhaps it was insufficient, which suggest you think he should have served less time or not at all.

    Allow me to ask a question, how much time do you think he should have served?

    I will return later, running out to catch a train, but I would be interested in your answer.

  24. Which suggests you think he should have served less time or not at all

    Except that it doesn’t suggest that at all.

    The UK penal system life sentence is typically twenty five years with muptiple life sentences normally being served concurrently. In this context 14 – 16 years is the norm. In this case I think that 20 years would have been enough to satisfy the tariff imposed by the court. Doubtless you think differently but what you or I think is largely academic as it’s what the system dictates which will decide.

    However, I thought this was about remorse as opposed to what you or I think is sufficient time incarcerated for atonement?

  25. Interesting a conversation on the remorse of a terrorist.

    Even as you have stated Paul if the “right” people were killed you believe his remorse is selective from your own conversations with him.

    The fact that you would have conversation with such a man is even more telling about who you are.

    Did this conversation take place in a pub with people reveling in the good ole days of bomb planting? Just curious as to the setting where you find yourself the convenience of conversation with a terrorist.

    Unless of course you had this conversation in a prison, and were writing an article on the subject.

  26. The fact that you would have conversation with such a man is even more telling about who you are

    Is it? What does it tell you? I’m having a conversation with you now and you have wished for children to be blown to bits by bombs. Is there such a great difference?

    Did this conversation take place in a pub with people reveling in the good ole days of bomb planting?

    As I said previously I know Pat Magee. You obviously have no idea that Belfast is a smallish to medium sized city with West Belfast being a fairly tight knit community. Perhaps if you ever visited the place you’d get an idea (and possibly learn something about the things that you comment on so knowledgeably.

  27. What about these children being blown to bits by American bombs Troll .. or do they not count?

    Hearts & Minds eh!

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Iraqi+and+Afghan+children+blown+to+bits+by+American+bombs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9BXtUruyCKWM7QblrYCIBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1067&bih=503#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=2LaQXj03fVoJhM%253A%3BDR5gAEAXk32_dM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmorallowground.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252Fafghan-civilian-casualties-by-rawa.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmorallowground.com%252F2011%252F06%252F02%252Fon-innocent-afghan-deaths-clinton-vows-u-s-will-do-all-it-can-to-express-regret%252F%3B400%3B261

  28. Paul

    no I need context unlike your use of my statement out of any to draw your conclusions and judgement about me, and my character. I wont slight you in the same manner as your slighting me.

    Instead I want to understand your point of reference as to draw a proper conclusion, something that most here refuse to do.

    If as you say “I said previously I know Pat Magee” It gives me some context same small town etc etc. It does not give a level of intimacy. You know him.

    For example does that mean you consider him a chum, an acquaintance that you have just in passing, or someone you travel the same circles in? You see that context means something.

    If he is just another resident of your neighborhood there is no bond. I once lived in the same neighborhood as nicky scarfo it had no relevance to who I am. Even though I saw him and those he was acquainted with, I never would have struck up a conversation. Because there was no bond.

    You on the other hand have had at least one conversation with this man, and not just any conversation but a conversation about this violent situation and felt comfortable enough to inquire on his emotional remorse or lack of regarding the deaths that he caused.

    That speaks of a level of intimate knowledge and familiarity with the terrorist. It leads to further questions as to just how intimate.

    What it tells me is that the man is more than someone you just pass by on the street. It tells me that you frequented some more relaxed social environment where the terrorist also feels relaxed.

    You see Paul people are influenced by their environment, their upbringing, and their associates. If you share any of these 3 things with the terrorist it leads to additional questions.

    The fact that both of you not only had the opportunity to have this conversation, but the familiarity with each other enough that you both felt comfortable having it suggests that this man that planted bombs felt safe with you.

    I ask simply why?

    Would you flesh out that familiarity? Would you reveal just what the setting was when this conversation took place. Was it a pub, a park, a social gathering, a fund raiser, over a meal? These are the questions I would start with.

    You like to take my words out of context and use them to judge me.

    I would like to take the circumstances of your knowledge and level of intimacy with a known terrorist to base an honest judgement about your character.

  29. Another example of the one sided peace processs where republican/nationalists can’t tolerate the countrys flag being flown from public buildings. But unionists/loyalists are expected to tolerate an unrepentant convicted murderer being brought into their community to lecture them. While not condoning any violence it was inevitable it was going to happen with such provocation.

  30. You see this is what I find in a lot of the conversations that we have. There are 1000 factors we do not know about each other. Factors that color how we view things other people say and how they view what they read.

    Aileen viewed my words with horror because of her personal experience with a bombing. Harri revealed why he can no longer have faith in any higher power due to horrendous events in his life. Paul has his views due to some familiarity with a terrorist.

    I am an outsider to you all, I have no tragedy except the normal ones that we all suffer in life. I’m just a guy from Philly trying to relate to you through my lens of reality. We all have our baggage.

    Paul my baggage comes from the people I grew up with and were raised by. When you make a statement “I said previously I know Pat Magee” I process that information in the manner and from the view in which I was raised. A family of Cops.

    You are admitting to an association with a known violent criminal. People share traits and perspectives of the people they associate with. So I ask you to provide context of that association. If you choose not to answer it is you who leaves the interpretation of the context of your association with a terrorist to everyone else to reach on their own.

    Is that what you want?

  31. Another example of the one sided peace processs where republican/nationalists can’t tolerate the countrys flag being flown from public buildings. But unionists/loyalists are expected to tolerate an unrepentant convicted murderer being brought into their community to lecture them.

    Without re-hashing the whole Flegs business, it was, and still is a democratic decision, reached by a majority, and only brings Belfast into line with the rest of the UK. Surely that is equality? What Turk and others here want is ‘Equality+’, where their wants and needs are more important than others’.

    ‘…tolerate an unrepentant murderer being brought into their community to lecture them.’

    Pat Magee and Jo Berry run http://www.buildingbridgesforpeace.org/ and have held talks such as this one across NI and the UK, as well as in Palestine and Israel, and have been invited to speak in many other countries. The event in the Skainos Centre, Listening to Your Enemies, was part of Four Corners Belfast, a cross-community religious event.

    Rather than take the opportunity to engage in debate with Pat Magee in the event itself, the Loyalist mob decided to ‘say it with bricks’, which took much of the focus off the fact that the Brighton Bomber was speaking in east Belfast, and instead focussed on a bunch of yobs attacking a community centre and the police.

  32. Aileen viewed my words with horror because of her personal experience with a bombing.

    Not true.

    That is an entirely false analysis.

    She viewed those words with horror because they called for the death of children.

    This is clear not just what she wrote this past week, but also what she’s written over the years here.

  33. Really Mr I know everything about everybody. Is that what she was feeling? Is that what emotions were evoked?

    Your source of information on that is of course that is what she told you so herself right?

    You know Phantom your just a schmuck. What’s the matter no one paying you any attention?

    The bile that you try to spew at me is just the reflection of your lonely life and pitiful soul. Crawl back under your rock.

  34. I take it Paul you lack the balls to answer the questions above.

    Conclusion reached is that you are sympathetic and supportive of those that plant bombs killing innocent people for political gain. Which is why you fraternize with known terrorists.

    You want to disparage me with your judgement by what I have said taken out of context, I judge you by your lack of words to put your relationship in context.

  35. The bile that you try to spew at me is just the reflection of your lonely life and pitiful soul.

    Your source of information on that is of course that it is what he told you so himself right?

  36. yes he did with his comment as you do with yours Petr

  37. It’s not bile- it’s observation.

    I’ve actually listened to what she has said over the years, not only on ATW.

    She has said before that her views opposing terrorism were not formed by the crime that impacted her family. She opposes it because it is morally wrong.

    You wish terror and death to be visited upon children, including the children of participants on this website. ( there are Sinn Fein supporters here. And you know that.)

    Such views repulse her, as they would repulse any decent person.

    Her words are clear. They come from a place of common morality, and they’re not new.

  38. it’s not observation it’s you just being you, pathetic as usual.

    The discussion that you bring up was the topic of another thread. I referenced it as part of an explanation in my questioning of paul

    Your just a ass that can’t help himself. You didn’t get the opportunity to jump in on the other thread so you just want to start it again here, a sad excuse of a man in need of attention.

    Whose only ability to get that attention is by trying to cause grief to others.

    If you had any character of your own you wouldn’t have to, but you don’t.

  39. I don’t want to pick sides between Phantom and Troll. I haven’t followed ATW close enough to do that fairly. I will say, I will never forget what Aileen said her brother told her after finding out her mother had been killed by an IRA bomb…something to the effect of: Be careful what you say and do; we don’t want retaliation.

  40. do you want to go into the dirt phantom?

    Lets do it between the two of us. Leave the woman out of it, I caused her discomfort and care not to again. If you feel that you have to callously keep the wound between her and I open to give you your pleasure than do so.

  41. Moron2 — Have you apologised to Colm and Phantom for your unseemly meltdown?

  42. My conversation was with Paul, you are welcome to join in. You are all welcome to watch and participate as Phantom and I descend into the abyss adding your own fire to it.

    I will however not involve someone who was obviously hurt and angered by what I said. She got caught in a crossfire that had nothing to do with her on the other thread and has probably left us. A loss for me if not the rest of you.

    As for you Tom, if you want to do another hate post on me I welcome it. Come on show us the person that crawls under your skin.

  43. Petr have you apologized to the world for the fact that you are in it?

  44. have you noticed when you ask certain people direct questions they never answer?

    Paul?

    Phantom?

  45. Petr…do you want attention wee pet? Colm wants to know if you’ve overlooked his misogynist transgressions. This ain’t about you, kid…*flick*

  46. haha The whole episode was cringe worthy. Don’t even bother blaming the meds. You’re a gobshite.

  47. Shut your mouth.

    You have wished death on the families of people here, not unknown persons in the world someplace.

    No one else, not nationalist or unionist or communist or leftist has done that here, or ever would. No one here has defended your death wish that I have seen.

    You call yoursef a Christian. Ask any Christian priest or minister in your town in the US or on the face of the earth if your death wish on children is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    Say something really nasty now. But you will never say anything worse than what you have already said, with your fantasies of the blood of children. You can never get lower than that.

    Now gor the rest of this game.

  48. Nobody blamed meds , wee pet. *flick*

  49. Troll, I don’t have a problem with Paul. I may not agree with him but I spent a lot of time in West Belfast and in NI in general and came into contact with ex-prisoners–guilty and not…not just Ireland but in NY. I’ve never been a member of INA or related group. It’s a ‘different’ world than what we know.

  50. Mairin I only asked Paul to put his conversation and relationship inthe context he chose so that I could come to an honest conclusion based on what he had to say. He chooses not to say.

  51. For what it’s worth…I avoid conversations with Paul and Seimi somtimes…West Belfast is that small and close-knit that there is no doubt we know the same people. I like my limited privacy. I can’t say anything about what you’ve asked of Paul except to say that he’s probably torn about having a relationship with McGee…however limited…and I bet he sometimes thinks “there but for the grace of God…” the one he doesn’t believe in 🙂

  52. no Phantom you started this.

    You bring up another thread another topic,. Use words of mine taken purposefully out of context to insinuate yourself into the middle of something that you had no part in.

    Your a piece of floatsom. Found drifting through a sewer.

    I don’t have to say anything, nasty or not. You choose to live in your made up lonely world where you have some relevance. You choose to believe about me what you will.

    No matter what picture you paint of me it doesn’t change the fact that you are the scum and the real troll of this site. Sad little man with no heart, no brains, and even less balls.

    Come on strike out, inject yourself into things with lies and insinuation. You only show who you are, not me.

    Oh but your watching the game … such a manly man… lol

  53. Not much of a game.

    There are Sinn Fein supporters on this site – no question about it.

    Do you include them and their families in your fervent ” wish ” – yes or no?

  54. Mairin, but there is my question. Does he feel that way?

    He won’t say, so how can I draw an honest conclusion?

    I say things that cause others to ask me questions I answer them. My answers may not be the things that people want to hear, but if it is how I feel I say it honestly.

    This has been used against me, but that’s ok because those who have taken the time to read my words in the context they are said usually get my point.

    Those that choose not to aren’t interested in my real perspective only what they can twist to use against my view when I say something they don’t like.

    I don’t want to do that to Paul. I would prefer to understand the why. Not arm myself with something to hit him with at another time.

  55. Phantom it is not my wish, and you know it.

    What it is though is something that they have chosen. Not me. If they voted for and support people that have used terror to gain political power than they condone the use of it.

    That is the reality of their support.

    You, your just an ass.

  56. and that is not a personal attack, it’s an observation.

  57. I said and I stand by it, that if you support people that planted bombs that killed or injured innocent bystanders I hope the same events befall your children.

    If you’ve tonight recanted and repented of the above comment, that’s a really good thing.

    Good night.

  58. That quote is crystal clear. Nobody’s taking anything out of context.

  59. I have not, nor will I ever.

    I can’t recant or repent what others condone only they can.

    but your to stupid to grasp that.

    no go run away, drink a beer, smoke a joint, and enjoy your lonely little bubble.

  60. Your right Petr it’s crystal clear I believe that those who support people that have committed acts of terror should suffer the actions they have supported.

    Why shouldn’t they?

  61. Troll feels persecuted, but if anyone else from any possible perspective had made a similar ” wish ” that person would have been called to account also by most here, or anywhere.

    I truly hope that this is the end of it – and that such comments never dishonor this site again.

    No one should rub his nose in it from here, if the comments are retracted, and if they never appear again.

  62. Well so much for that hope.

  63. Troll, I think that’s why Aileen is upset. She doesn’t want and truly believes there ahould be no retaliation. Otherwise it’s a vicious circle. That’s what happenend in Northern Ireland. The violance was perpetuated because of a tit-for-tat mindset. In NI, it wasn’t just words…eye for an eye was really carried out on innocent people.

  64. I don’t feel persecuted. and I have been taken to task time and time again by people like you that have no interest in reality for your own petty thrills.

    The fact that that you or they refuse to accept the concept that people are responsible for the actions of the terrorists that they support is not a failing in me but of you, and them.

    I ask how can I retract the support of those who have given that support to the IRA/SF?

    If they gave it to them they did so knowing that they gave it to people who planted bombs to kill children and civilians, They gave that support of their own volition not of mine. In giving the support to one side that employed these methods they give permission for those tactics to be used on them.

    It is the choice they have made, and the consequences they by their support of them give permission to be used on themselves.

  65. Mairin and those who vote IRA/SF are ok with that, Their votes and support say they are.

  66. look I’ll never retract my statement. There are consequences for who we support. It is something that must be said, because it is the truth.

  67. Those that vote for IRA/SF with their votes say that what she suffered was just, because it was in the name of their cause.

    That’s what their votes say.

  68. I’m done.

    Believe what you want. Vote for who you want. Just understand that your votes tie you to those actions, my words only point that fact out.

    good night.

  69. I do not think that Aileen stepped away because she didn’t want retaliation.

    Even if there was no possibility of retaliation, she would never pray for kids to be blown up. She’s not made that way.

    She most certainly didn’t step back because of the wrong that was done to her – she vehemently rejected that premise at least once on these pages, when she said that if someone had -not- been touched by terror or the threat of it, that they should reach an identical conclusion to hers, since such tactics were seen as wrong in all cases by her.

    She will clearly be reading some of this, and i’ll be surprised is she says otherwise when she returns, which all here hope that she does.

    On the last few comments, Troll says that he didn’t mean what he just reaffirmed and that he will never recant it in the event that anyone thought that he would.

    If anyone understands any of this, they’re a lot smarter than I am.

  70. I think, from what I’ve read, Troll, that’s where you and Aileen agree. A vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for the past (and the violence) and that putting people who’ve engaged in such violence in power is sanctioning it. I think where she might disagree is that children are exempt as targets under all circumstances. PERIOD. To be trite…children are the future and killing them is abhorent no matter what point you’re trying to make. Speak out against Sinn Fein and its supporters all you want and feel the need to…but don’t advocate tit for tat killing, especially when it involves children. Tit for tat murder sums up northern Ireland for too long…so many loved ones were lost…innocent people…someone has to be the one who stands up and says NO MORE. I think that’s where you and Aileen differ and that’s why she’s upset. She’s drawing the line.

  71. and really…try to ignore Phantom. He’s the most passive-agressive writer I’ve ever seen. If you aren’t looking for it, it will get under your skin. Just skip over him…answer him sometimes…tease him when it moves you…but it’s really not necessary to engage him often. You should contact David and see if you can clear up this issue with Aileen. She’s very valuable to this site. However, David has a tendenfy to let things be but I do hope he doesn’t let this be…

  72. tendenfy = tendency, of course.

  73. Aileen viewed my words with horror because of her personal experience with a bombing. Harri revealed why he can no longer have faith in any higher power due to horrendous events in his life. Paul has his views due to some familiarity with a terrorist.

    Very true Troll,and each to his own, I suppose if anyone has a modicom of ‘rights’ to be offended by children dying, them maybe I might be first in the queue on ATW, but although some of Trolls comments smart a bit, I would personaly never call for those comments to be ‘banned’ I might not agree with them but I will fight to keep ‘free speech’ exactly that ‘Free’

    I think most on ATW already know my personal views on ‘Banning stuff’ and that according to some non-existent ‘slippery slope’ well I have no intention of jumping off that slippery slope, I unlike some, will have to be pushed.

    I think Aileen has made her own personal choice, to stay away based on her own morals and principles, and to that end I think she should stick to it, as much as a loss it will be to ATW, it’s readers, and writers.

    Fair play to her.

    Me. I will stick with freedom of speech.

  74. In defence of Aileen she was not asking for Troll’s comments to be banned. She has simply chosen to exercise her free speech rights to respond in the way she chooses.

  75. Colm, on February 3rd, 2014 at 11:03 AM Said:

    In defence of Aileen she was not asking for Troll’s comments to be banned. She has simply chosen to exercise her free speech rights to respond in the way she chooses.

    Precisely Colm, Aileen has shown her free speech rights to stay away, based on her own morals and principals, who are we to ask Aileen to break her moral code and set of principals, what we can do is wish Aileen all the best for the future.

  76. Redact: to select or adapt (as by obscuring or removing sensitive information) for publication or release; broadly : edit. 3. : to obscure or remove (text) from a document.

    In effect, banning.

  77. Colm has reached out to her, and I did reach out to Colm. What her decision is he not responded.

    I wouldn’t deem it appropriate for me to reach out to her. I like the woman I think you ladies are vital parts to this community. Hopefully she will return.

  78. Aileen just wanted the comment taken down, I believe she is one of the few who originally understood it. She was feeling raw and it hit her.

    I would have taken it down if it was a passing part of the thread out of respect to her history, but I guarantee that the instant I did vile creatures would crawl out from under their rocks post it in their comments and if I removed them they would say I was editing them.

    The original comment was made years ago….. years mind you, yet it is the first thing pulled out whenever someone wants to try and pound on me or take away from what I’m saying.

    This time I tried to bring the statement back into context to place where it came from and what it really says.

    Those words are the words engraved on the soul of every vote and every penny raised for the IRA/SF they are what those people are saying by giving support.

    It is however easier to just say troll wants to kill children, because of course he has none of his own and doesn’t grasp what a horror that would be… oh wait I have two daughters. Well then I’m just evil.

    I never bring the statement up. It is always brought up by others like Phantom.

  79. you know one of the things ignored was the fact that the comment and following nonsense was put up to attack me on a post where I was condemning the British for their actions in the “troubles”.

    There are those that just revel in the muck, as a result we have lost another voice.

  80. ” Back into context “

    Translation;
    I meant it, I didn’t mean it, I don’t know what the hell I said or what I mean half the time, esp now.

  81. Harri

    Is it acceptable speech to hope for the death of children? Of anyone?

    Is that just another opinion?

    Serious question.

  82. you know one of the things ignored was the fact that the comment and following nonsense was put up to attack me on a post where I was condemning the British for their actions in the “troubles”.

    It was brought up again by myself, Troll, in a post where you attempted to report on an atrocity which took place here in NI. I and others pointed out the many, many mistakes you had made, and you countered by blaming everyone here for it, telling us we should be ashamed. I then pointed out that to be preached to by someone who had called for the bombing of children was a tad hypocritical.

    There are those that just revel in the muck, as a result we have lost another voice.

    Don’t try and blame anyone else for what you wrote.

  83. speak of refuse and it appears.

    You see I thank you Tom. You give weight and credence to the fact that if I had removed it you would just as you did on this thread. Bring it back into play for your amusement.

    Tom you may be good at your job, but your not a bright fella. You try to paint my soul as the dark one, but it’s you.

  84. oh bull Seimi.

    You brought it up because it applies to you, and eats at you that someone has the gaul to tell you so.

  85. oh bull Seimi.

    You brought it up because it applies to you, and eats at you that someone has the gaul to tell you so.

    What exactly eats at me, Troll? Please expand on this.

    What applies to me?

  86. You were invited repeatedly to take it down, incl by mahons and myself, and I said yesterday that no one should bother you if you did do that.

    You refused and restated that you stuck by every word of it.

  87. Draw your own conclusions, the real conversation is over.

    Another thread descends into hell. With bubbleboy and terror supporter Seimi refreshing the bile I have said all that I have to say.

    The statement is factual and I stand by it.

  88. Cut out the pathos, the lot of you.

    Agit8ed walked away because of Aileen, now Aileen walks away because of Troll.

    As a BBC Rabbi used to say: don’t take it too heavy. This is a site where the informed/misinformed, educated/uneducated, sane/insane exchange opinions. It’s the most unsuitable place, I’d say, for pitching a tent of principles. Get over it.

    //Is it acceptable speech to hope for the death of children? Of anyone?//

    Of course. I can’t think of anyone here who doesn’t wish for the death of someone, someone in politics, a mother-in-law perhaps. Let he who is without a death wish, cast the first insult.

    Is it free speech to hope for mass bombardment of innocent people, for terrorist attacks, for ethnic cleansing, to deny the wholesale murder of millions?

    Let all such stay away from this blog, and you’ll have nobody left.

  89. … terror supporter Seimi refreshing the bile…

    Show me where I have supported ‘terror’ anywhere on this site, or elsewhere, or apologise and withdraw this comment.

  90. please leave others threads to their topics.

    If you wish to continue, please do so but on the open thread that has been placed for you to do so.

  91. No, Troll. You have accused me of something on this thread. Now, produce your evidence or apologise and withdraw the comment.

  92. you get neither.

  93. you get neither.

    Because you can’t produce the former and you can’t bring yourself to produce the latter.

    Coward.

  94. Agit8ed walked away because of Aileen

    I was annoyed that one time because I felt I was being misrepresented.
    I’m over it.
    I thought it through and realised that part of the problem is that understanding the true meaning of a cyber comment can sometimes involve a lot of guesswork, even when it comes to humour. (I still don’t understand Mahon’s sense of humour.)
    People say things they didn’t mean, then the macho “I won’t back down” thing kicks in, and ipso fatso! you get a thread like this one
    Pretty pointless.
    I have upset Aileen a couple of times un-intentionally -both around child issues. I regret both because they weren’t meant to upset or be personal to her.
    The last time we misunderstood something was with mairin2, and that got resolved. So let’s all move on please.

  95. no because I moved to the other thread, if you lack the spine to follow that is a choice you have made just as it was your choice to start the whole thing 2 threads ago.

    for me this thread is closed I will gladly before I leave for work discuss what ever you want on the other thread I already put your last comment up there to give you a start….

    come on sunny show a little backbone

  96. You said it, you repeated it many times despite multiple face-saving invitations to retract it.

    You are what your record says you are, as the great Parcells said.

    This is your record.

  97. I’ve just logged onto this thread after being directed by a link on another thread.

    I haven’t noticed the questions before however I’m up fairly early in the morning and am just about to go to bed. I’ll go through this thread properly tomorrow evening and give a response then.

  98. Thanks Paul.
    and I’m not looking to pound on you I honestly want context, here is what I asked so it’s easy to read.

    Paul

    no I need context unlike your use of my statement out of any to draw your conclusions and judgement about me, and my character. I wont slight you in the same manner as your slighting me.

    Instead I want to understand your point of reference as to draw a proper conclusion, something that most here refuse to do.

    If as you say “I said previously I know Pat Magee” It gives me some context same small town etc etc. It does not give a level of intimacy. You know him.

    For example does that mean you consider him a chum, an acquaintance that you have just in passing, or someone you travel the same circles in? You see that context means something.

    If he is just another resident of your neighborhood there is no bond. I once lived in the same neighborhood as nicky scarfo it had no relevance to who I am. Even though I saw him and those he was acquainted with, I never would have struck up a conversation. Because there was no bond.

    You on the other hand have had at least one conversation with this man, and not just any conversation but a conversation about this violent situation and felt comfortable enough to inquire on his emotional remorse or lack of regarding the deaths that he caused.

    That speaks of a level of intimate knowledge and familiarity with the terrorist. It leads to further questions as to just how intimate.

    What it tells me is that the man is more than someone you just pass by on the street. It tells me that you frequented some more relaxed social environment where the terrorist also feels relaxed.

    You see Paul people are influenced by their environment, their upbringing, and their associates. If you share any of these 3 things with the terrorist it leads to additional questions.

    The fact that both of you not only had the opportunity to have this conversation, but the familiarity with each other enough that you both felt comfortable having it suggests that this man that planted bombs felt safe with you.

    I ask simply why?

    Would you flesh out that familiarity? Would you reveal just what the setting was when this conversation took place. Was it a pub, a park, a social gathering, a fund raiser, over a meal? These are the questions I would start with.

    You like to take my words out of context and use them to judge me.

    I would like to take the circumstances of your knowledge and level of intimacy with a known terrorist to base an honest judgement about your character.

    You see this is what I find in a lot of the conversations that we have. There are 1000 factors we do not know about each other. Factors that color how we view things other people say and how they view what they read.

    Aileen viewed my words with horror because of her personal experience with a bombing. Harri revealed why he can no longer have faith in any higher power due to horrendous events in his life. Paul has his views due to some familiarity with a terrorist.

    I am an outsider to you all, I have no tragedy except the normal ones that we all suffer in life. I’m just a guy from Philly trying to relate to you through my lens of reality. We all have our baggage.

    Paul my baggage comes from the people I grew up with and were raised by. When you make a statement “I said previously I know Pat Magee” I process that information in the manner and from the view in which I was raised. A family of Cops.

    You are admitting to an association with a known violent criminal. People share traits and perspectives of the people they associate with. So I ask you to provide context of that association. If you choose not to answer it is you who leaves the interpretation of the context of your association with a terrorist to everyone else to reach on their own.

    Is that what you want?

  99. Paul, don’t waste your breathe responding to this ignorant little man.

  100. //Paul has his views due to some familiarity with a terrorist.//

    I’d say more likely Paul has his views due to some familiarity with uniformed criminals.

  101. you see Paul this is why I ask. There are those here like these two who have no interest in actually hearing what someone has to say.

    They have all the answers to all the questions their lives will ever give or offer them. They never stop to ask. What’s your source of information?

    Rather than act like the flotsam and jetsam I would like to hear your side of it to make my judgement by.

  102. Troll is absolutely correct in some of what he says here –

    Those who support terrorism in any way, shape or form must live with the consequences of those actions.
    They deliberately give their support to the use of violence for ‘Political’ gain and i would hope that we would all agree that that is never the answer. Never.

    A vote for SF is a vote of support for the murder and maiming of innocents (including many many children).

    I don’t wish death upon their children obviously but the essential point that Troll is trying to make has been blown (excuse the pun) waaaay out of context and proportion.

  103. Hogwash. If that is the case then someone voting Unionist is responsible for Cromwell’s atrocities and Bloody Sunday. Troll doesn’t know anything about NI and just shuffles in with his customary ignorance. Anyway, his intention was, as it has ever been, to turn the discussion to himself. In that, he has succeeded once again.

  104. One thing is for sure is that someone who votes for the IRA fully supports the events of Bloody Friday!

  105. Anyway, his intention was, as it has ever been, to turn the discussion to himself. In that, he has succeeded once again.

    That seems to be the only reason this sociopath scribbles a post.

  106. JM
    I made my comment in a heated exchange years ago.

    Daphne, Seimi, Mahons and a couple of others are on a crusade to run me off the site. Facts and content mean nothing to them.

    The conversation between me a Paul is just that a conversation, but these 3 are so motivated by hate they can’t help themselves. I have a hard view of the world, but they have hate in their hearts, and it dictates their comments.

    I thank you for speaking your mind your fair and honest. I am more wrong than right on many issues, but none of my failings are done out of hate theirs are.

  107. Paul don’t answer the questions, I will not have our conversation corrupted by the hate of these 3.

    Let’s save it for another day.

  108. I know Troll.
    I have never had any problems with you whatsoever.
    If i ever get the chance i hope to one day shake your hand.
    I don’t comment very often these days as it seems that the Blog is now just infested with Irish Republicans.
    I’ve had many honest and forthright discussions with many of them over the years and think that, whilst i’ll never agree with them, it’s a good thing that people with vastly different outlooks can discuss things in a reasonably civil manner.
    Don’t let them grind you down.
    Continue to speak your mind.

  109. Daphne, Seimi, Mahons and a couple of others are on a crusade to run me off the site.

    Yet another outright lie.

    Facts and content mean nothing to them.

    For a good example of this, read Troll’s original post on Bloody Sunday. Not the comments, just the post itself.

  110. It is pointless, let him ramble.

  111. Do you want me to answer or to leave it for some other time?

    I don’t comment very often these days as it seems that the Blog is now just infested with Irish Republicans.

    Shouldn’t that be all the more reason to visit and argue your case JM? It’s a pity that you’re bowing out as you were one of the few unionist bloggers who I was able to enjoy a reasoned, civil debate with.

    I’d also like to answer some of your points above:

    Those who support terrorism in any way, shape or form must live with the consequences of those actions.
    They deliberately give their support to the use of violence for ‘Political’ gain and i would hope that we would all agree that that is never the answer. Never.

    The UVF got a whole state because of it in 1922.

    A vote for SF is a vote of support for the murder and maiming of innocents (including many many children)

    That is simply not true. I have been both an SF voter and party member and I have never held such a disgusting opinion

    One thing is for sure is that someone who votes for the IRA fully supports the events of Bloody Friday!

    Again JM, presumably as someone who has never voted SF, I don’t know where you get these ideas from. I, and ever other Republican I have ever spoken to about it, think that Bloody Friday was a horrific atrocity.

    I’d say more likely Paul has his views due to some familiarity with uniformed criminals.

    That’s closer to the truth than you could ever imagine Noel.