Gerry Adams says violence and armed actions "can be justified to reach political aims"

Irish Central ^ | April 08, 2018 09:56 PM | Freya Drohan

[Olog-hai]

It is not political.

The aims of demagogues cannot be compared to it.

[Olog-hai]

Thanks. Encapsulates Adams in a nutshell.

[campaignPete R-CT]

IRA are leftist Republicans like the ones in Spain

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

This is the guy who thought that people voting not join his "union" was a perfectly good reason to begin a campaign of terror against them.

He also is a communist.

[Olog-hai]

The IRA are communists. They are merely using the Catholics as a means to an end.

That said, the EU are also using them. There are lots of people in Ireland (i.e. the island) utterly oblivious to the bondage that “Europe” has them in. If the North does break away from the UK, it’s going to be subject to a worse master.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Like the US, most of Ireland is independent of England now. They used “violence and armed actions” against the same colonizer we did; not sure why an American would disagree with his statement.

The IRA is Communist. The Left has supported Irish nationalism since the days of the Jacobin Wolfe Tone.

It's amazing how many FReepers support Communism so long as white people benefit.

[kanawa]

Been a long time since I last heard his name.

[Wolfie]

If you don’t agree with the political aims, I’m sure there aren’t.

[Lurker]

“It is not political.”

So the American Revolution wasn’t political? How about the French Revolution, was that political? The Bolshevik Revolution was apolitical?

You’re defining words to suit you, my friend. The only dividing line you seem to have is whether you agree with the goals or not.

L

[minnesota_bound]

He killed one of the twin brothers who ran the Guinness book of world records among many others.

[Olog-hai]

I’m quite certain it was the most apolitical movement that ever came to be. It was the first of its kind that recognized the independence of the people to govern their own lives. Would anyone call God a politician, too?

It’s not just specious but mendacious to even compare the French and Bolshevik revolutions to the US one—those latter two were blatantly political. Now who is redefining terms to suit them, between the two of us?

[Lurker]

So it’s seriously your position that the American Revolution wasn’t about politics? I just want to be sure I understand you.

L

[Olog-hai]

Now you’re moving the goalposts. I did not say that it was “about politics”, using those words. If anything, it was the one governmental and public movement in the world that was against politics, especially when such are defined as small, powerful groups of people making decisions for the purpose of controlling larger groups of people, or the purpose of achieving power to do so (these all come from dictionary definitions).

Why did you compare it to the French and Bolshevik revolutions, again?

[kearnyirish2]

Does the IRA oppose freedom of religion, private property, or elections? Or did they seek aid from communists because the West had made their own deals with England?

I never thought I’d see the IRA referred to as “communist” by someone with “Zionist” in their screen name; are you familiar with the concept of a kibbutz?

[dfwgator]

F the IRA!

[Lurker]

“Why did you compare it to the French and Bolshevik revolutions, again?”

Because all of them used violence to achieve political goals.

Duh.

L

[Olog-hai]

So to you, they’re all the same. I see.

The Founding Fathers used violence to fend off violence, and to achieve liberty, not “political goals” as you now put it. Reducing the establishment of the most unique Constitution in human history to a mere “political goal” is to demean it, even worse to compare it to squalid leftist goals of taking political control.

[Lurker]

“So to you, they’re all the same. I see.”

Only in the sense that they were all done for political reasons. Sorry you’re missing that.

L

[Olog-hai]

The Founding Fathers acted to try to establish the rule of God in the USA and possibly the whole earth, the only way to do that being to fight against the tyrant that had literally attacked them and set up their own unique form of government with the most liberty that had been afforded man to do so. Not to establish another instance of the rule of man as Robespierre, Lenin and Adams all sought/seek to do (a.k.a. “political aims” as Adams put it).

How could it be possible that any Freeper (though I can only speak for myself) might fail to see that and fall to comparing the Founding Fathers to people as vile as those three aforementioned leftists? Calling something as noble as what the Founding Fathers intended to do mere “political reasons” . . . I can only shake my head at that, sorry.

[Lurker]

“The Founding Fathers acted to try to establish the rule of God in the USA and possibly the whole earth, ”

Wrong.

Better luck next time.

L