12 years for ex-shinner

Wheeliebin30

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't 'justify' anything. I said, and you don't want to hear, that actions have consequences.
All killing/violence is wrong and you will only stop it when you recognise why it is happening. You still don't want to accept that.

Since when did rape and kneecapping fall under your definition of what is happening?

FrancieBrady

LordSutch wrote: »

I (most people) DON'T AGREE WITH TERRORISM.

GET IT.

LOOK AT LONDON TONIGHT.

I don't agree with violence in pursuit of your aims. It happens and has always happened and has consequences. Look at the history of the world.
I happen to believe the violence in London has a cause as did the violence here.

When those with responsibility did the right thing and created equality for all the main violence ended.
Any lesson there for you?

LordSutch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't agree with violence in pursuit of your aims. It happens and has always happened and has consequences. Look at the history of the world.
I happen to believe the violence in London has a cause as did the violence here.

When those with responsibility did the right thing and created equality for all the main violence ended.
Any lesson there for you?

Lessons for me? yes, to keep on condemning terrorism, from whatever organisation it comes from, whether it by your lot in the PIRA, or the INLA, UVF, the UFF, ISIS or whoever . . .

Terrorism is not to be excused or supported.

RabbleRouser2k

So I'm wondering if the concert scheduled for tomorrow will be cancelled? No, I'm not trying to sound trite, or sarcastic, but I cannot see it going ahead with the new security threat.

Or if it does, it's to send a message.

FrancieBrady

LordSutch wrote: »

Lessons for me? yes, to keep on condemning terrorism, from whatever organisation it comes from, whether it by your lot in the PIRA, or the INLA, UVF, the UFF, ISIS or whoever . . .

Terrorism is not to be excused or supported.

The above are none of 'my lot'.

What do you think a middle eastern person calls those raining bombs down on them?
'Terrorist' is a meaningless and pointless word if you have a view of the world that sees everyone as equal and every country as sovereign.
When you can accept that you might see a solution to the latest group who wish to see Britain and the west pay for their actions. Simple as.

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

PIRA-Good.

Isis-bad.

Figure that one out.

Never thought the PIRA wanted to declare a worldwide caliphate and kill all the unbelievers because they said God/Allah etc told them to do so.

LordSutch

Deleted User wrote: »

Never thought the PIRA wanted to declare a worldwide caliphate and kill all the unbelievers because they said God/Allah etc told them to do so.

Of course not, but they did want to bomb & shoot their way to a "United Ireland" ... which didn't work.

Goodnight.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Never thought the PIRA wanted to declare a worldwide caliphate and kill all the unbelievers because they said God/Allah etc told them to do so.

No, but they did kill many people by bombing the **** out of them, kidnapped people & horses! Kneecapped anyone they felt like.
They shot people.
They disappeared people.
They committed armed robberies.
Etc etc etc
Do you think they are better than Isis because they didn't blame god?

FrancieBrady

LordSutch wrote: »

Of course not, but they did want to bomb & shoot their way to a "United Ireland" ... which didn't work.

Goodnight.

Neither did the suprematist, bigoted sectarian, British supported statelet.
We have a Taoiseach talking about a UI now though. Must be tough for some?

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

No, but they did kill many people by bombing the **** out of them, kidnapped people & horses! Kneecapped anyone they felt like.
They shot people.
They disappeared people.
They committed armed robberies.
Etc etc etc
Do you think they are better than Isis because they didn't blame god?

Merely one actor in a wider conflict. They became part of and involved in a process that eventually lead to the GFA being signed. So yes they are better than Isis.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

No, but they did kill many people by bombing the **** out of them, kidnapped people & horses! Kneecapped anyone they felt like.
They shot people.
They disappeared people.
They committed armed robberies.
Etc etc etc
Do you think they are better than Isis because they didn't blame god?

Do you think the middle eastern person I mentioned earlier would think the people dropping bombs on them is 'better than Isis'?

Take your time there and apply some perspective from outside the parish of faux outrage.

timthumbni

A shinner torturing someone.... hardly surprising ffs.

I suppose it's better than raping your own daughter like that shinner gerrys nonce brother Liam for example.... wonder how he is getting on in pokey?

Possible Future SF TD in Louth in the future.(Snigger)

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

A shinner torturing someone.... hardly surprising ffs.

I suppose it's better than raping your own daughter like that shinner gerrys nonce brother Liam for example.... wonder how he is getting on in pokey?

Possible Future TD in Louth in the figure. (Snigger)

You forgot to mention the horse hi.

timthumbni

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You forgot to mention the horse hi.

So is Liam not a "good republican" whilst the smuggler and anti tax man slab is a "good republican"...

It's hard to know sometimes with republicans. Did Gerry go for "long walks" on the beach with slab too??? Or was that just with child rapist paedophile Liam?

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

So is Liam not a "good republican" whilst the smuggler and anti tax man slab is a "good republican"...

It's hard to know sometimes with republicans. Did Gerry go for "long walks" on the beach with slab too??? Or was that just with child rapist paedophile Liam?

We have already established that all political parties have members who subsequently commit crime. Did you miss that?

timthumbni

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have already established that all political parties have members who subsequently commit crime. Did you miss that?

Well this is a thread about some wee shinner apparently "water boarding " someone. A pal of Gerry and Mary Lou by the looks of it. Was it going to be a training video for irish republicans or what???? Wouldn't surprise me to be honest.....

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

Well this is a thread about some wee shinner apparently "water boarding " someone. A pal of Gerry and Mary Lou by the looks of it. Was it going to be a training video for irish republicans or what???? Wouldn't surprise me to be honest.....

Nah, plenty of videos and accounts of American and British soldiers torturing people available. Pointless.

timthumbni

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nah, plenty of videos and accounts of American and British soldiers torturing people available. Pointless.

Is paedophile irish republican Liam Adams likely to share a cell with this sf lad then? Maybe they could have some

craic????

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

Is paedophile irish republican Liam Adams likely to share a cell with this sf lad then? Maybe they could have some

craic????

Not unless one of them is deported.

FTA69

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What does that even mean? Knew about it as a party? Does as a party mean a few people? All members?

To be honest it looks like they figured out Dowdall was upto something and thats why he left.

It means that Dowdall carried out a horrendous attack on somebody unbeknownst to anybody else, later left the organisation to join a different crowd and a while down the line the cops accidentally discovered video footage of it,

Nobody knew about this incident at all so the notion that SF were facilitating him and encouraging his behaviour is b*llocks to be honest.

FTA69

LordSutch wrote: »

I do understand that there are several of you PIRA types on here, and as such the Provos are your brave bomb planting heroes . . . . but if you view your heroes from the perspective of the victims for just one moment, then your brave IRA bombers become nothing more than Irish Republican versions of Salmon Abedi, or the Paris bombers . . . . The victims are always blown to pieces due to a struggle which the perpetrators​ can't or won't convey by normal means, hence they resort to planting bombs and shooting people in order to attain their aims.

Thankfully in recent years the IRAs political wing (Sinn Fein) now condemn such bombings. Better late than never I guess, unless of course you sit beside an empty space at the table where your loved one (murdered by brave Republican heroes) used to sit

The British Army murdered unarmed demonstrators and the police killed children in their beds.

From the point of the victims therefore there is no difference between the British Army and the RUC and ISIS and the Paris bombers.

(See how utterly f*cking stupid such reductionism is?)

AudreyHepburn

And people wonder why I have never and will never vote for Sinn Feinn.

Criminals and sympathisers, the lot of them as far as I'm concerned.

FrancieBrady

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And people wonder why I have never and will never vote for Sinn Feinn.

Criminals and sympathisers, the lot of them as far as I'm concerned.

As one of those 'people' I can assure you I have never 'wondered' about why you vote the way you do, because I know why you do.
I do wonder how so many are hypocrites in Ireland and merrily vote for parties born out of the same calibre of men and women and who are probably blood related to men and women who did the exact same things in the past.

'The lot of them...'

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I do wonder how so many are hypocrites in Ireland and merrily vote for parties born out of the same calibre of men and women and who are probably blood related to men and women who did the exact same things in the past.

'The lot of them...'

Don't think Wolfe Tone, the Fenians, the men and women who gave their lives in 1916 or the War of Independence were involved in protection and racketeering or ran around holding kangaroo courts to punish those who raped kids but whose surname wasn't "Adams"...but always eager to learn.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't think Wolfe Tone, the Fenians, the men and women who gave their lives in 1916 or the War of Independence were involved in protection and racketeering or ran around holding kangaroo courts to punish those who raped kids but whose surname wasn't "Adams"...but always eager to learn.

You don't think they had internal discipline back then? Think you might wanna read a bit of history.
You got shot by firing squad for spying, informing, desertion etc.
The rape of kids was ignored more or less back them, sadly.

Another deluded poster who has managed to sanitise the past and be hypocritical.

Wheeliebin30

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't think they had internal discipline back then? Think you might wanna read a bit of history.
You got shot by firing squad for spying, informing, desertion etc.
The rape of kids was ignored more or less back them, sadly.

Another deluded poster who has managed to sanitise the past and be hypocritical.

Man how you try normalise and justify this stuff.

I dunno.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't think they had internal discipline back then? Think you might wanna read a bit of history.
You got shot by firing squad for spying, informing, desertion etc.
The rape of kids was ignored more or less back them, sadly.

Another deluded poster who has managed to sanitise the past and be hypocritical.

What Republican leaders of the past knew of incidents of child rape and turned a blind eye, praising the rapist, telling the victim not to publicise it?

FrancieBrady

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Man how you try normalise and justify this stuff.

I dunno.

Which bit of; violence is 'normally' the reaction to violence is not clear to you this morning of all mornings?

Violent events by organised groups happen for a reason, a variety of reasons. You may not recognise those reasons from ignorance or arrogance or whatever but I can tell you that those organised groups are trying to get you to recognise why they are attacking you.

The British could have created the conditions for peace at the start of the conflict in NI by accepting that people in Ireland had a right to equality and parity of esteem and a role in governance. They simply didn't take responsibility for delivering that, they allowed a conflict to spiral out of control and then eventually did what was necessary. Nothing changed, only their attitude and sense of responsibility.

And peace grew out of that.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

What Republican leaders of the past knew of incidents of child rape and turned a blind eye, praising the rapist, telling the victim not to publicise it?

I wouldn't know would I?
But I can assure you children were raped and abused and people knew, leaders knew. etc

Now if you want to discuss politics through the prism of an isolated event and a family tragedy, fire away.

You will be doing it without my contribution.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wouldn't know would I?
But I can assure you children were raped and abused and people knew, leaders knew. etc

Now if you want to discuss politics through the prism of an isolated event and a family tragedy, fire away.

You will be doing it without my contribution.

I don't think any leader of any other political party knew of a child being raped, asked her to stay silent and praised the rapist.

The accusations of other victims of child rape suggests it was not isolated at all.

The victim of the family tragedy, Gerry Adams niece, has decided it is appropriate to discuss it. Why are you running away from the implications? Granted, they are awkward for the SF leader and those like Mary Lou MacDonald who defended him during it all...

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think any leader of any other political party knew of a child being raped, asked her to stay silent and praised the rapist.

The accusations of other victims of child rape suggests it was not isolated at all.

The victim of the family tragedy, Gerry Adams niece, has decided it is appropriate to discuss it. Why are you running away from the implications? Granted, they are awkward for the SF leader and those like Mary Lou MacDonald who defended him during it all...

If the rape was a political act, maybe you would have a point.

What I see is a horrible family tragedy that wasn't handled properly, but eventually was. Adams admitted he did the wrong thing and explained why he did the wrong thing for a while. The man is in jail where he should be.

The 'implications' are that he is a leader who can admit when he was wrong. Would we had more of them.

An organisation had free rein in this country to abuse children for decades, and nobody in leadership cared to look too closely.

Regarding the other accusations from Cahill and McGahan etc, they are trenchantly denied and there is evidence in the form of witness statements and letters that SF tried to advise Cahill on the right course of action to get justice and to get her attacker off the street.
He is still a free man by the way.

For me the jury is out on those cases.

diomed

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

The whataboutery is strong in this thread.

Yeah, what about it?

Annasopra

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have already established that all political parties have members who subsequently commit crime. Did you miss that?

And do all parties actively cover it up like SF did with Mairia Cahill and others?

Annasopra

FTA69 wrote: »

It means that Dowdall carried out a horrendous attack on somebody unbeknownst to anybody else, later left the organisation to join a different crowd and a while down the line the cops accidentally discovered video footage of it,

Nobody knew about this incident at all so the notion that SF were facilitating him and encouraging his behaviour is b*llocks to be honest.

Why was he forced out of SF?

FrancieBrady

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And do all parties actively cover it up like SF did with Mairia Cahill and others?

Did they 'actively' cover it up though?
Cahill and SF did not recognise the now disgraced RUC for reasons we very clearly know.

Far as I can see (Cahills attacker still free to abuse) all the major parties used this woman for political capital and then walked away.
They claimed there were 'multiple' cases of abuse being covered up etc. Yet not one of these has materialised into an actual case. That I am aware of anyhow. Strange eh?

Annasopra

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did they 'actively' cover it up though?
Cahill and SF did not recognise the now disgraced RUC for reasons we very clearly know.

Far as I can see (Cahills attacker still free to abuse) all the major parties used this woman for political capital and then walked away.
They claimed there were 'multiple' cases of abuse being covered up etc. Yet not one of these has materialised into an actual case. That I am aware of anyhow. Strange eh?

So basically Cahill made the whole thing up?

FrancieBrady

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So basically Cahill made the whole thing up?

No. Who said that?

Ash.J.Williams

FF FG and sin féin are as bad as each other
... I like Mary lou and yer man in Donegan.

FrancieBrady

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

FF FG and sin féin are as bad as each other
... I like Mary lou and yer man in Donegan.

Yep, they are all political parties and all have members and ex members who have done things they shouldn't have done.

To claim that the actions of one or two are indicative of the party as a whole is just ridiculous.

jh79

But what about the reason why the house was raided , how much of his relationship with the Hutch drug gang did they know about?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But what about the reason why the house was raided , how much of his relationship with the Hutch drug gang did they know about?

The gardai clearly knew enough to raid.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The gardai clearly knew enough to raid.

And the Sunday World too yet Sinn Fein didn't, some might think that the Hutch gang paid their "taxes".

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

And the Sunday World too yet Sinn Fein didn't, some might think that the Hutch gang paid their "taxes".

When you have the relevant evidence that a political party knew of this guys associations then to the barracks you go.

I presume, if he was involved in criminality then he wouldn't have been broadcasting it. I know loads and loads of workmen and contractors in the city but I wouldn't know who they were associating with.
Easy accusation to make though I suppose.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you have the relevant evidence that a political party knew of this guys associations then to the barracks you go.

I presume, if he was involved in criminality then he wouldn't have been broadcasting it. I know loads and loads of workmen and contractors in the city but I wouldn't know who they were associating with.
Easy accusation to make though I suppose.

It is an easy accusation to make granted but the IRA obviously could not raise funds in a traditional sense so you have to it admit it is a resonable assumption to make. Whether it is true or not we'll never know.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

It is an easy accusation to make granted but the IRA obviously could not raise funds in a traditional sense so you have to it admit it is a resonable assumption to make. Whether it is true or not we'll never know.

Well there are no grants available for rebellion or insurrection.

And no, it isn't a reasonable assumption to make. If a number of councillors are taking bribes (and we have seen that they were) is it 'reasonable' to assume that taking bribes is party policy or sanctioned by the leadership? Would you need a smidgeon more evidence to make that stick?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well there are no grants available for rebellion or insurrection.

And no, it isn't a reasonable assumption to make. If a number of councillors are taking bribes (and we have seen that they were) is it 'reasonable' to assume that taking bribes is party policy or sanctioned by the leadership? Would you need a smidgeon more evidence to make that stick?

So how sid the IRA raise funds ? And to be fair it was hardly transperant , your assumptions hold no more weight than mine.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So how sid the IRA raise funds ? And to be fair it was hardly transperant , your assumptions hold no more weight than mine.

You don't know how they raised funds?

They robbed banks, raised funds aboard etc. Pretty much what any revolutionary/rebellious/freedom group have ever done.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't know how they raised funds?

They robbed banks, raised funds aboard etc. Pretty much what any revolutionary/rebellious/freedom group have ever done.

And taxing drug dealers isn't a possibility? Training FARC rebels suggests they didn't have too much of an issue with drugs.

Phoebas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yep, they are all political parties and all have members and ex members who have done things they shouldn't have done.

To claim that the actions of one or two are indicative of the party as a whole is just ridiculous.

Support for the IRA terrorist campaign was a SF policy position, so that rather sets them apart.

FrancieBrady

Phoebas wrote: »

Support for the IRA terrorist campaign was a SF policy position, so that rather sets them apart.

SF didn't see the IRA as 'terrorists'. There are a few people who need to get over that fact.