** Police officer shot dead in Armagh

FTA69

You're consistently defending republican ideology on this thread, but dancing away from it when the reality becomes too inconvenient.

Not at all, just fed up of you completely distorting points and creating straw-men.

You've said Duffy quietly resigned three weeks ago, perhaps and again (like you) I'm only speculating perhaps he'd re embraced violent republican ideology months ago, and only resigned as an afterthought weeks ago.

Maybe, but when you're a leading member of a different political organisation you would tend to give things more consideration and not leave it as an "afterthought".

The AUC is a right wing paramilitary organisation.

The inference is that the government of Columbia is neck deep in collusion with right wing paramilitaries.

The inference is there. You can quibble about semantics, it takes away from the thrust of the point.

Aspects of the Colombian state are colluding with the AUC, however I never said the AUC "ran the country", that isn't semantics at all to be honest.

What you call a strawman, I call semantics. Instead of answering the question that the 3 never gave a full account to justify their presence in the country, you're just desperately wandering off on a tangent.

Tangent? I've been quite clear on that issue to be honest; 1) I don't know what the men were doing. 2) They were subjected to legal proceedings which were an absolute farce. 3) Colombia has an appalling human rights record. These aren't semantics, they are significantly relevant issues when looking at this case.

You saying the above while you are also saying its simply impossible for Duffy to work with Éirigi while having sympathy or links with violent republicanism.

More straw-men. I said it was unlikely and that it didn't make sense in my eyes, and that "we'll see". I never said anything was "impossible".

Um, alot?

How would it make a lot of difference if I condemned this that or the other?

FTA69

Diogenes wrote: »

So while not exactly a "hurray up the RA!" response, there isn't a single word like "sorry" "regret" or "wrong" in mention to these specific murders.

Why should they be saying "sorry" or expressing "regret" over something they didn't do?

Eirigi are a bunch of cowards, not saying they condemn the murders specifically but not defending them.

It has nothing to do with cowardice. The fact is 1) Éirigi does not support armed struggle 2) It has no relationship with any group engaged in armed struggle. That's fairly clear cut to be honest, the fact they aren't howling from the rooftops in condemnation doesn't make a sh*te of a difference, they have their own programme to follow.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

[
It has nothing to do with cowardice. The fact is 1) Éirigi does not support armed struggle

Gosh lol is all I can say to that spin you are using,given the qualifications they've used with the phrase "at this time".
Heres a fact...the 90% + of the people of Ireland who voted for the good friday agreement voted in favour of Never having an armed struggle against the British.

2) It has no relationship with any group engaged in armed struggle. That's fairly clear cut to be honest,

Do you really believe that or are you just saying that ?
Most of the semantic play you've posted so far suggests the latter.

the fact they aren't howling from the rooftops in condemnation doesn't make a sh*te of a difference, they have their own programme to follow.

Wrong.
If ever there was an example of a post of yours displaying how removed from reality that type of mindset is,then you've just posted it.

Frankly at this stage,I find your postings and veiled agreement with the shootings [deny them all you like most don't believe you and for good reason] akin to my attitude towards white supremacists.
Reprehensible brainwashed wierd and unacceptable in a civilised society.

But how and ever to each their own.
The law is there for a reason to cope with the really tiny minorities like that when they resort to criminality.

FTA69

Do you really believe that or are you just saying that ?
Most of the semantic play you've posted so far suggests the latter.

Eh, it's not a matter of "belief", it's just a plain fact to be honest.

Frankly at this stage,I find your postings and veiled agreement with the shootings

Despite me posting umpteen times that I don't agree with them... :rolleyes:

See I don't believe you.
Most on this thread don't either.
Same old semantic codswallop.

See we're not fools.The people of Ireland aren't either.
There will always be a few who don't move on.
Reading verbal diaorhea is all I'm doing here.

FTA69

Righto, so in your eyes Éirigi aren't actually a campaigns-based party, rather a shadowy front inextricably linked to armed groups and I agree with these recent killings?

Is that what you're driving at?

In my eyes,they are laughing at the good of it yes.
And Yes.

FTA69

Laughing at the good of what? The fact you're suddenly revealing to me, someone who was once a member of Éirigi, that they are in fact, connected with armed groups, is a revelation to me indeed. Knocked me for six it did, thanks for removing the blindfold from my eyes. There was me thinking it was just a small political organisation, but nope, BB knows best, it's actually a front for the dastardly dissidents.

And they would have got away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

FTA69

Also, it is worth mentioning that Colin Duffy has now been on hunger strike for two odd weeks and has dropped from 12 and a half stone to 11 stone.

ah semantics in your reply and various word play again I see.
Carry on it's not as If I don't see through that.

I said yes,they're laughing at the good of the killings.


Don't know what Éirigí is a front for tbh-As far as I'm concerned they are in their own little world much divorced from reality.

All I said yes to in the second yes was that I don't believe you disagree with the recent murders.

mrtaylor1981

FTA69 wrote: »

Diogenes wrote: »

Why should they be saying "sorry" or expressing "regret" over something they didn't do?



It has nothing to do with cowardice. The fact is 1) Éirigi does not support armed struggle 2) It has no relationship with any group engaged in armed struggle. That's fairly clear cut to be honest, the fact they aren't howling from the rooftops in condemnation doesn't make a sh*te of a difference, they have their own programme to follow.

Just like Adams claiming he was never a member of the IRA. Your just a front for terrorist murderers just like the rest of them, Sinn Fein, Republican Sinn Fein etc

FTA69

ah semantics in your reply and various word play again I see.
Carry on it's not as If I don't see through that.

Ye're obsessed with the word "semantics", apparently disagreeing with you equates to engaging in semantics. To say that Éirigi as a party has nothing to do with armed groups or these recent killings isn't semanitcal at all, it's just plain fact. If you want to blame someone for Masserane, blame the Real IRA, you know, the people who actually did it like.

I said yes,they're laughing at the good of the killings.

Really? Where were they doing this? Were you talking to a few of them or something?

All I said yes to in the second yes was that I don't believe you disagree with the recent murders.

Despite me saying umpteen times I do disagree with them. Would you like me to take a polygraph to that effect officer?

Mrtaylor,

Your just a front for terrorist murderers just like the rest of them, Sinn Fein, Republican Sinn Fein etc

I'm not a front for anyone and nor am I member of any particular organisation, I only speak for myself. Out of curiosity though, what armed group do you believe Éirigi to be linked to?

Diogenes

FTA69 wrote: »

Also, it is worth mentioning that Colin Duffy has now been on hunger strike for two odd weeks and has dropped from 12 and a half stone to 11 stone.

Um why is it worth noting? What exactly is he hoping to achieve from going on hunger strike? A nice stint in a prison hospital bed?

Psst tell Dufffy he's about, ooooohhhhh three decades too late for the H block protests.

kleefarr

What's the story with Colin Duffy?
Was DNA evidence proved to be conclusive?

FTA69

Um why is it worth noting?

Well it's fairly relevant to the issue at hand, especialy considering we were discussing the man like.

Diogenes

FTA69 wrote: »

Well it's fairly relevant to the issue at hand, especialy considering we were discussing the man like.

Yeah, and again, you've not explained what he's trying to accomplish by going on hunger strike.

Until you explain the why of this "hunger strike" you're merely telling us Duffy is on the militant republican crash diet.

FTA69

Well considering the hunger strike is traditionally used as a method of protest I imagine he believes his imprisonment to be unjust, perhaps he thinks he is being set up and he feels this is the only recourse of protest available to him.

Diogenes-I'm surprised you even ask that question!
Isn't the answer obvious...he's a prisoner of war like... :rolleyes:

Diogenes

FTA69 wrote: »

Well considering the hunger strike is traditionally used as a method of protest I imagine he believes his imprisonment to be unjust, perhaps he thinks he is being set up and he feels this is the only recourse of protest available to him.

He's been charged with the cold blooded premeditated murder of a police officer, what on bloody earth does he think is going to fecking happen?

"Oh jaysus he's off his cornflakes, best let him out on bail till his trial?"

He's accused of a serious crime, he's in prison awaiting trial, what is this utter moron trying to accomplish?

Diogenes

Deleted User wrote: »

Diogenes-I'm surprised you even ask that question!
Isn't the answer obvious...he's a prisoner of war like... :rolleyes:

Thats very unfair, he's an innocent prisoner of war, a victim of a miscarriage of justice, despite the fact he's not been tried.

It's like an American pilot shot down over the Ruhr valley in 1944, and claiming he's is in fact from Dusseldorf, but demanding full Geneva Convention rights as a POW.

FTA69

He's actually been charged with the Massarene ambush, and I think he's off the strike now, but I'm not sure.

Diogenes

FTA69 wrote: »

He's actually been charged with the Massarene ambush,

Are semantics and pedantry all you have to bring to this?

Exile 1798

You perhaps don't know what the words semantics or pedantry mean, as getting right what an accused is charged with is neither.

djpbarry

No response to this as yet...

LordSutch

Diogenes wrote: »

Thats very unfair, he's an innocent prisoner of war,

What war?

ilkhanid

These fellas (eirigi etc) are what one guy (can't remember who exactly) used to call "snakin' regarders". As in "I wouldn't do anything like that myself....BUT I have a sneaking regard for them."

FTA69

Exile 1798 wrote: »

You perhaps don't know what the words semantics or pedantry mean, as getting right what an accused is charged with is neither.

Chalk it down. As I said above, disagreeing with someone or clarifying an innacurate statement on their part apparently equates with "semantics".

"He murdered an officer in cold blood!"
"Well, he didn't actually...."
"SEMANTICS!"

Djp,

Could he have done it? Possibly, as I said I doubt he did and as I'll say again for the third time, we'll see.

Diogenes

FTA69 wrote: »

Chalk it down. As I said above, disagreeing with someone or clarifying an innacurate statement on their part apparently equates with "semantics".

"He murdered an officer in cold blood!"
"Well, he didn't actually...."
"SEMANTICS!"

No I said he's accused of premeditated murder in cold blood.

The "accused" part is important. It means he will have a trial, and stands to be found not guilty or guilty.

But I guess the concept of due process and a fair trial are alien concepts to Republican terrorists sympathisers.

What you call "semantics" I call "law".

Could he have done it? Possibly, as I said I doubt he did and as I'll say again for the third time, we'll see.

No, you circulated demands for his release when he was brought in for questioning, and then when he was charged, you frothed at the mouth and mentioned every miscarriage of justice you could think of.

Hardly the behaviour of someone keeping an open mind here.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

Also, it is worth mentioning that Colin Duffy has now been on hunger strike for two odd weeks and has dropped from 12 and a half stone to 11 stone.

Probably less worth mentioning than the fact that the people that he's been charged with murdering have dropped to zero stone and are buried in graves.

IF you believe in justice and fairness, FTA, then change your signature to "Free Colin Duffy IF HE'S INNOCENT"; or if you believe him, change it to "Colin Duffy is innocent".

Saying "free him" on every one of your posts - without having the blatantly obvious requirement that he IS innocent (not that you "think" he might be, or that there's a victimisation campaign against him - which there might be, but then that would exist regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty) smacks of blinkered brainwashing, and leaves people open to reply in relation to whether they're as gullible in either direction as to what you perceive as a campaign against him.

If he's innocent, free him
If he's innocent and there's a campaign against him, free him
If he's guilty and there's a campaign against him, lock him up for life
If he's guilty and there's no campaign against him, lock him up for life

See the logic in that ? No-one could argue with your posts on that basis.

FTA69 wrote: »

...as I'll say again for the third time, we'll see.

And if "we see" that he is guilty, where does that leave your signature ? Will you still want him freed ? If not, why the sig ?

But like I said, not even his family's statement mentioned the word "innocent". Strange, that.

FTA69

I said "we'll see" because there is an obvious diversion in opinions that at this moment in time is irreconcilable. I'm firm in my belief that Colin Duffy is being felon-set due to his being a prominant Republican against whom the police have a vendetta, and I'm not the only one by the way.

Others believe that the PSNI is a fully accountable and professional force (which it isn't) and have already convinced themselves that Colin Duffy is responsible, because they cops wouldn't arrest him if he wasn't.

Others have an opinion in between. So, "we'll see".