You are the poster who has decided to give two different accounts of history because you no longer support a political.
History doesn’t change. Yet you have tried to rewrite your own version of history. Why? Because you no longer support a political party. This is why you have no credibility, you are duplicitous. You have used the same history to spin two different accounts of what happened, one to justify and now a few years later to condemn it.
And you do not want to address that. It’s embarrassing for you and there’s no way to make it look like anything other than a vindictive, personal and emotional crusade.
Like Eoghan Harris shifted from the being a member of the workers party to being a rabid, autocratic unionist you have drifted from someone who was a supporter of the PIRA who has dozens of posts on here as close back as 3 or 4 years ago justifying the PIRA and their campaign.
None of the facts changed, only your opinion and on both sides when you were pro SF and anti SF you used the same history to support different sides of that story. This shows you to be a duplicitous character, someone with zero conviction in what he says and go be hollow in the extreme.
You really to stop saying you have addressed this - that is a lie. None of the facts of that history has changed, nothing new has come to light. You just had a political pivot and attempted to rewrite history from previous version.
We’ll get plenty of inane and lame attempts by you to distract from this but it’s clear as day your views and accounts of The Troubles are duplicitous, contradictory, insincere and agenda driven and thst shows everything you have been contributing here to be hollow ego driven nonsense. It’s incredibly stupid and incoherent and doesn’t fool anyone.
History from 1969-1998 hasn’t changed in the past three years. Sid’s version of history has done a complete 180 in that time. We’ll get a further 2k posts and essays from Sid on this discussion but he won’t address that key issue. He has manipulated history to support two directly contradictory stances he has taken with the PIRA. Why? He can’t answer.
My own view is that he’s like a scorned lover, probably fell out with a few SF posters on politics.ie or something, has taken it very personally and his current agenda to rewrite history is done so out of an emotional need to get back at them.
Either way it’s not the working of a mature and rational adult.
I’ll let Sid answer for himself, but just an observation. It seems somewhat common in recent years for “progressives” to identify as pacifists and declare there is no such thing as a just war or justifiable violence. It’s a very confused ideology, and must require enormous cognitive dissonance to pull off mentally. Would Hitler have abandoned his march across Europe if more people had taken to the streets in protest?
In fairness marching as fighting back didn’t have a terribly good record in the North as marchers were first beaten off the streets, then shot off the streets, so it’s not all that surprising that this was abandoned as a main tactic in the early 1970s.
It’s clear you’re mortified at being exposed as a fraud.
You have been shown up as hollow and insincere. You have used the same history to spin two contradictory narratives and get quite hostile when this is rightly pointed out.
It’s hard to respect someone and their views who wants to lecture people and speak down to them when they are complete and utter hypocrites. It’s even harder still when they behave like arrogant bullies when those questions are put to them.
I’ll just continue to highlight the fact that you have manipulated the same history to spin two version events of it in order for it to support your agenda at that particular time.
