How he was treated by the club post attack was horrible, if all true.
But you could hardly blame nationalists for their stance towards the police as eary as 01/02 given what it had represented for decades ā¦ yes they siged up to peace but the police represented murder to them and it was very early in the peace process ā¦ it has only started receiving good will in the last 4/5 years, that will show you how scarred the nationalist community were by the treatment of the police. Not one person here is condoning the attack - the attack and the disdain for joining the police are not the same thing.
Except if you believe in the peace process, then you follow the terms of that. You could be wary, but being ostracised for a single act like that?
He wasnāt joining the RUC in 1975. As pointed out, the 1998 agreement set down the principle of share policing. 1999 set out the reforms. In 2001, the GGA made their gesture.
Even if one was to accept this ridiculous notion that what happened to him was understandable and fair enough, in 2010 they did nothing for him. This was after all reforms had gone through and SF supported policing.
What Brolly is pointing out is that since Good Friday there has been plenty of dragging of heels on both sides. The hardliner Unionists in the DUP are far worse granted, but you canāt absolve elements of the nationalist community for their own heel dragging.
I havent and I said the way he was treated afterwards was shameful.
As for the first point, I donāt think humans can just flick a switch and forget. It took a long time to build up some semblance of trust between police and nationalist community and tho they signed up for peace, there was and still is, an awful long way to goā¦ ergo, I concur with the over all message but between both articles he has painted the club as if they were the bombers.
Dont be so sure. It could just take one of them extending the hand of friendship, and this could all be done. Once upon a time, back before your time Iād say, there was another neverending butting of heads on this forum, but those two guys moved on and so too can these two.
Point out what Iām arguing that isnāt based on fact.
I can quite easily point out what is based on emotions rather than fact in the articles.
Letās start with the evidence-free allegations of attempted murder and being an accessory(ies) to attempted murder against the GAA club and its membership.
The headline of the October 29th article reads āSpurned, bombed and mimed by his own kindā.
The following quotes are also contained in the article.
āIād be fairly certain guys I played with passed on my details to others.ā
āPeople I knew well were arrested and questioned about the bomb but there were no prosecutions. Itās hard, with pricks like you defending themā. As he says that, he raises the middle finger to me."
Work out for yourself what these quotes imply and allege.
And read the rest of the article if you want to get the full context. That context is a clear implication that club members were involved in the bombing.
Can you quote me the part of either article that alleges the GAA club attempted murder or were accessories?
Closest Iāve read is āpeople from his own community set Peadar up for assassinationā which is a long way from linking the GAA club to it. It clearly means republicans which I donāt think anyone doubts.
The fact that youāve read those quotes and so obviously overlooked the very obvious meaning of them is proof that you have formed your opinions of this topic on feelings and attitude, not facts.
"A few days later in Joe OāBoyleās bar, one evening in January 2002 at the first team meeting of the new season, he waited until everyone had spoken, then stood up and told his band of brothers that he was joining the new force. āIt must have gone down like a bomb,ā I say.
āIāll pardon the pun. It did.ā
Yeah, no implication at all there that club members were involved in the bombing. Thatās sarcasm on my part, by the way.
You seem determined that the club should not be wholesale included when Brolly says that his club ostracized him. Yet you are twisting the language of him saying he thinks a few people he played with would have passed on ādetailsā (which is very open ended) about him to dissidents, to Brolly saying it was the club.
You are saying that the club is wholesale included when Brolly says the club ostracised him. They are, with the exception of a couple of isolated individuals.
By your logic, youāre actually now saying that the whole club bar a couple of individuals was alleged to have been involved in the bombing. I didnāt say that, your logic implies it.