Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

breaking: Gerry Adams Arrested in connection to McConville - MOD WARNING First Post

Options
1…112113115117118

Comments

  • Options
    #3422
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Gatling wrote: »
    Typo ,

    4 women previously questioned have had files sent to the pps

    Jaysus the amount of political policing going on these days is shocking, Sure if they arrest anymore there will be no one left to vote for poor Gerry. :D


  • Options
    #3423
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    sillyoulfool wrote: »
    crusher000 wrote: »


    You stated:
    Internment was detention without charge.
    You stated that people were prosecuted(that means faced a criminal charge) for being Catholic.
    You cant have it both ways, either they were prosecuted for being Catholic(no evidence at all of this), or a large number of suspected terrorists were interned and it just happened that they were Catholic (It also just so happened they were male, and white so why not just claim that was the reason they were interned?), so you cannot claim they were interned for being Catholic when quite clearly the reason they were interned was that they were suspected terrorists (albeit on lousy intelligence).
    In the end you are being defeated by your own contradictory posts.

    Prosecute.

    to seek to enforce or obtain by legal process.

    Is arresting someone not a legal process as defined under the meaning of prosecuted ?


  • Options
    #3424
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    crusher000 wrote: »
    sillyoulfool wrote: »

    many of those arrested were Catholics or Irish nationalists who had no links with republican paramilitaries.

    Are you going to spam the thread with this copy and paste ****e all day? Because i think i'll hit the ignore button if you are.


  • Options
    #3425
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    56 year old man in 2014 was born in 1958 he was 14 in 1972


  • Options
    #3426
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Jaysus the amount of political policing going on these days is shocking, Sure if they arrest anymore there will be no one left to vote for poor Gerry. :D

    Have you evidence of the four women being arrested being Sinn Fein voters ?

    What's the link with Gerry Adams ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3427
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    crusher000 wrote: »
    Have you evidence of the four women being arrested being Sinn Fein voters ?

    What's the link with Gerry Adams ?

    Note to self: He doesn't get sarcasm.:o


  • Options
    #3428
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    bumper234 wrote: »
    crusher000 wrote: »

    Are you going to spam the thread with this copy and paste ****e all day? Because i think i'll hit the ignore button if you are.


    If the questions and arguments being put to me are the same answer is yes .

    Quicker than typing you should try it sometime


  • Options
    #3429
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Note to self: He doesn't get sarcasm.:o
    Rich coming from you. Oops is that an accusation ?


  • Options
    #3430
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    crusher000 wrote: »
    sillyoulfool wrote: »

    Prosecute.

    to seek to enforce or obtain by legal process.

    Is arresting someone not a legal process as defined under the meaning of prosecuted ?

    According to your earlier post people were prosecuted for their religion.
    No such law allowing prosecution existed.
    Prosecution means facing a legal charge before a court.
    You have been caught out in your specific claim that people were prosecuted for their religion and should withdraw it.
    Furthermore not one single person was interned solely based on their religion, they were interned because lousy intelligence and sloppy investigation indicated that they were terrorists.
    Internment was a disgrace, but your claim that people were prosecuted because of their religion is a downright lie.


  • Options
    #3431
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    sillyoulfool wrote: »
    crusher000 wrote: »

    According to your earlier post people were prosecuted for their religion.
    No such law allowing prosecution existed.
    Prosecution means facing a legal charge before a court.
    You have been caught out in your specific claim that people were prosecuted for their religion and should withdraw it.
    Furthermore not one single person was interned solely based on their religion, they were interned because lousy intelligence and sloppy investigation indicated that they were terrorists.
    Internment was a disgrace, but your claim that people were prosecuted because of their religion is a downright lie.


    It was a religous war, are you denying this ?
    Protestants held the power and people were interred because they were catholic. Fact
    No trials because the law provided that they could be arrested and detained. Fact


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3432
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    crusher000 wrote: »
    sillyoulfool wrote: »


    It was a religous war, are you denying this ? YES! I am
    Protestants held the power and people were interred because they were catholic. Fact LIES
    No trials because the law provided that they could be arrested and detained. Fact

    And still you cannot back up your insane assertion that people were prosecuted because of their religion.
    Hoisted by your own petard.


  • Options
    #3433
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    pO1Neil wrote: »
    No it's not Britain only ruled Ireland by right of conquest which by last time I checked was illegal under international law. The last time I seen a poll the majority of people in the UK agreed with a United Ireland (obviously in your world only the minority of that poll counts as legit). There's a easy solution to all this - there's two islands close to each other on the edge of west Europe, neither attacks each other, both cooperate with each other on mutual concerns, they govern themselves according to the wishes of the inhabitants on each island - problem solved. Oh wait I forgot being practical is too radical & insane for you better find a more complicated system that leads to one bunch of people being upset & shouting boooooo to Johnny foreigner.

    You ignored the central point of my post and posted a load of crap I'm going to ignore. Let's get to the main issue.

    Given that you support Irish independence from the UK why do you not also support unionist independence from Ireland?

    Surely if a minority has the right to self determination then all minorities have a right to self determination and this right is by it's nature unconditional.

    As if you try to conditionalize it like that "right of conquest" nonsense you tried above it ceases to remain a right.


  • Options
    #3434
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    crusher000 wrote: »


    It was a religous war, are you denying this ?
    Protestants held the power and people were interred because they were catholic. Fact
    No trials because the law provided that they could be arrested and detained. Fact

    how narrowed minded of you. It was more than just a religious war.

    It was a war between unionists v nationalists FACT.

    The british government held the power fact.

    Your assumptions are based on ignorance not truth

    FACT


  • Options
    #3435
    on the river
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    sillyoulfool wrote: »
    Why are attributing a quote by Crusher000 to me?:confused:
    CRUSHER000


  • Options
    #3436
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    "The Troubles" refers to the three decades of violence between elements of Northern Ireland's Irish nationalist community (mainly self-identified as Irish and/or Roman Catholic) and its unionist community (mainly self-identified as British and/or Protestant).

    Them two words again Catholic and Protestant. I think they maybe terms used to descibe people of a certian religous persuasion. And they were fighting with each other.


  • Options
    #3437
    Lastlight.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 203 ✭✭Lastlight.


    crusher000 wrote: »
    "The Troubles" refers to the three decades of violence between elements of Northern Ireland's Irish nationalist community (mainly self-identified as Irish and/or Roman Catholic) and its unionist community (mainly self-identified as British and/or Protestant).

    Them two words again Catholic and Protestant. I think they maybe terms used to descibe people of a certian religous persuasion. And they were fighting with each other.
    You are right but its convenient for some to try and deny that aspect.


  • Options
    #3438
    pO1Neil
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 354 ✭✭pO1Neil


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You ignored the central point of my post and posted a load of crap I'm going to ignore. Let's get to the main issue.

    Given that you support Irish independence from the UK why do you not also support unionist independence from Ireland?

    Surely if a minority has the right to self determination then all minorities have a right to self determination and this right is by it's nature unconditional.

    As if you try to conditionalize it like that "right of conquest" nonsense you tried above it ceases to remain a right.

    Because Ireland was a majority & the people of Ireland had no choice or say in who they were governed by. The North was colonized for the reason to dived the people of the island the better for an imperialist government to rule it.

    I believe in the will of the majority of a nation & I don't believe in splitting up nations as it leads to false divisions & people who really suffer are the ordinary working class people which is evident from the break up of our own country, Vietnam, Palestine, Germany etc.... It's not really that hard to understand at all & candidly I don't believe you don't understand it the truth is you can't accept it. I wouldn't accept a minority breaking up the country in Cork, Dublin or Galway just like I don't accept it in Belfast or anywhere else in the country.


  • Options
    #3439
    Lastlight.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 203 ✭✭Lastlight.


    pO1Neil wrote: »
    Because Ireland was a majority & the people of Ireland had no choice or say in who they were governed by. The North was colonized for the reason to dived the people of the island the better for an imperialist government to rule it.

    I believe in the will of the majority of a nation & I don't believe in splitting up nations as it leads to false divisions & people who really suffer are the ordinary working class people which is evident from the break up of our own country, Vietnam, Palestine, Germany etc.... It's not really that hard to understand at all & candidly I don't believe you don't understand it the truth is you can't accept it. I wouldn't accept a minority breaking up the country in Cork, Dublin or Galway just like I don't accept it in Belfast or anywhere else in the country.
    Never has the Island of Ireland been a nation as a Republic.


  • Options
    #3440
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    pO1Neil wrote: »
    I believe in the will of the majority of a nation ....
    Seriously? You believe that you have some nation-type bond with the likes of Paisley and all the supremacists, as you like to call them?

    Not me. :cool:


  • Options
    #3441
    pO1Neil
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 354 ✭✭pO1Neil


    Lastlight. wrote: »
    Never has the Island of Ireland been a nation as a Republic.

    Even tho the vast majority of the people on the island voted for it. It did have it's own separate Kingdom & parliament before the idea of nation-states came around & a few people in a building taught in London lets take a bit of that for oursleves & kill anyone who gets in the way or disagrees.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3442
    pO1Neil
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 354 ✭✭pO1Neil


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    Seriously? You believe that you have some nation-type bond with the likes of Paisley and all the supremacists, as you like to call them?

    Not me. :cool:

    I think Loyalists are confused & have just been used as pawns in a bigger game of cheese & like their opposite Republican neigbhours it's the working class communities who suffered on both sides most.


  • Options
    #3443
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    pO1Neil wrote: »
    I think Loyalists are confused & have just been used as pawns in a bigger game of cheese & like their opposite Republican neigbhours it's the working class communities who suffered on both sides most.

    So is that yes or no?


  • Options
    #3444
    Lastlight.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 203 ✭✭Lastlight.


    pO1Neil wrote: »
    Even tho the vast majority of the people on the island voted for it. It did have it's own separate Kingdom & parliament before the idea of nation-states came around & a few people in a building taught in London lets take a bit of that for oursleves & kill anyone who gets in the way or disagrees.
    Kings and Kingdoms. You advocate that too? It has never been a Republic and the people in Northern Ireland didn't want to join a Republic, so they formed a new state.


  • Options
    #3445
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    pO1Neil wrote: »
    Because Ireland was a majority & the people of Ireland had no choice or say in who they were governed by. The North was colonized for the reason to dived the people of the island the better for an imperialist government to rule it.

    That's.. a tad inaccurate. For one thing, most of the colonisers of Ulster had no particular love for the crown. The earlier, less successful plantations were primarily imperialist ventures, however.
    pO1Neil wrote: »
    I believe in the will of the majority of a nation & I don't believe in splitting up nations as it leads to false divisions & people who really suffer are the ordinary working class people which is evident from the break up of our own country, Vietnam, Palestine, Germany etc.... It's not really that hard to understand at all & candidly I don't believe you don't understand it the truth is you can't accept it. I wouldn't accept a minority breaking up the country in Cork, Dublin or Galway just like I don't accept it in Belfast or anywhere else in the country.

    But you accept a minority like Ireland splitting from the UK, Or the Czechs breaking from Czechoslovakia, Poles from Germany, Hungarians from Austria, etc.

    How does it work for one, but not the other?

    Because Ireland is too small for borders?

    So the Vatican State, Monaco, Andorra, Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, etc. should be forced to cede their sovereignty to their larger neighbours?

    Start making sense, man.


  • Options
    #3446
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    pO1Neil wrote: »
    I think Loyalists are confused & have just been used as pawns in a bigger game of cheese & like their opposite Republican neigbhours it's the working class communities who suffered on both sides most.

    I'm interested in this game. Is it good with crackers and port?


  • Options
    #3447
    pO1Neil
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 354 ✭✭pO1Neil


    Lastlight. wrote: »
    Kings and Kingdoms. You advocate that too? It has never been a Republic and the people in Northern Ireland didn't want to join a Republic, so they formed a new state.

    I support the will of the majority if that happens to be a Republic than so be it, if it happens to be Union than so be it. Apart of the country breaking up over the fact they don't like the religion of members of the government doesn't cut it for me.


  • Options
    #3448
    pO1Neil
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 354 ✭✭pO1Neil


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I'm interested in this game. Is it good with crackers and port?[/QUOTE]

    No funnily enough it's cost the lives of the best part of ten thousand people & injured or maimed the best part of a hundred thousand people.


  • Options
    #3449
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    pO1Neil wrote: »
    No funnily enough it's cost the lives of the best part of ten thousand people & injured or maimed the best part of a hundred thousand people.

    A bit of a pickle, you could say.


  • Options
    #3450
    pO1Neil
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 354 ✭✭pO1Neil


    Lastlight. wrote: »
    Kings and Kingdoms. You advocate that too? It has never been a Republic and the people in Northern Ireland didn't want to join a Republic, so they formed a new state.

    Well that's just like saying Britain was never a United country until it united Scotland & England together or that France wasn't a Republic until 1789. What's your point?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3451
    pO1Neil
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 354 ✭✭pO1Neil


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    A bit of a pickle, you could say.

    Or a bloody conflict created by terrible political decisions.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement