Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

FrancieBrady

Nobelium wrote: »

yep, it's called people who don't defend and endorse the murdering of women and kids

'it's'????

Have you touched them to make sure they are real?

Nobelium

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have you touched them to make sure they are real?

Sinn Fein the pedophile party.

FrancieBrady

Nobelium wrote: »

Sinn Fein the pedophile party.

There should be slogan writing competition for party's based on what one or two of their members do:

Fine Gael - the insurance fraud pary
Fine Gael - the glass in your face party
Fianna Fail - the drink driving party
Fine Gael - the sterling for political favours party.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There should be slogan writing competition for party's based on what one or two of their members do:

Fine Gael - the insurance fraud pary
Fine Gael - the glass in your face party
Fianna Fail - the drink driving party
Fine Gael - the sterling for political favours party.

One of two? How many hundreds or thousands of s.f. members were involved in paramilitaries?

Nobelium

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There should be slogan writing competition for party's based on what one or two of their members do:

Fine Gael - the insurance fraud pary
Fine Gael - the glass in your face party
Fianna Fail - the drink driving party
Fine Gael - the sterling for political favours party.

It's been a lot more than one or two members in Sinn Fein , and they ruined lots of innocent peoples lives. I suppose in their eyes moving from blowing up women and kids to raping and abusing them, and then covering it up with intimidation, bulling and lies is seen as progress.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

One of two? How many hundreds or thousands of s.f. members were involved in paramilitaries?

The ones that say they were?

They don't have a problem with being in the IRA, you do know that?

FrancieBrady

Nobelium wrote: »

It's been a lot more than one or two members in Sinn Fein , and they ruined lots of innocent peoples lives. I suppose in their eyes moving from blowing up women and kids to raping and abusing them, and then covering it up with intimidation, bulling and lies is seen as progress.

:D You have it bad don't you?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The ones that say they were?

They don't have a problem with being in the IRA, you do know that?

Some members had a problem with being in the Pira, and all of society had a problem with the Pira, that is why it was an illegal organisation. You do know that?

Nobelium

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D You have it bad don't you?

No, the people who's lives they destroyed have, and you think SF rape and sexual abuse is funny . . all grins and smiley faces. You people are sick in the head.

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

we didn't forget murderers of women and kids

Less of the Brit bashing there, horse. Time to move on.

Nobelium

Deleted User wrote: »

Less of the Brit bashing there, horse. Time to move on.

Shinners calling themselves Brits now, that's a good one.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Some members had a problem with being in the Pira, and all of society had a problem with the Pira, that is why it was an illegal organisation. You do know that?

All of society? I don't think those who continue to elect SF have a problem...that is a silly consensus you have invented yet again.

FrancieBrady

Nobelium wrote: »

No, the people who's lives they destroyed have, and you think SF rape and sexual abuse is funny . . all grins and smiley faces. You people are sick in the head.

'SF rape and sexual abuse' is like saying Fine Gael insurance fraud or Fine Gael corrupt payments.

Please stop digging holes will you, we understand you don't like them.

Nobelium

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'SF rape and sexual abuse' is like saying Fine Gael insurance fraud or Fine Gael corrupt payments.

Please stop digging holes will you, we understand you don't like them.

SF don't like anyone telling the truth . . digging holes like the good old days, where you could threaten to bury anyone who spoke out ?

FrancieBrady

Nobelium wrote: »

SF don't like anyone telling the truth . . digging holes like the good old days, where you could threaten to bury anyone who spoke out ?

SF buried people for telling the truth in the good old days...really?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF buried people for telling the truth in the good old days...really?

Was Jean McColville abducted, tortured and secretly buried because she went to the aid of a dying British soldier or was she abducted and killed because she was a law abiding citizen and spoke the truth?
The armed wing of SF buried people they did not like. Fact. Sometimes they just disappeared them so their family did not even have a body to grieve over.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Was Jean McColville abducted, tortured and secretly buried because she went to the aid of a dying British soldier or was she abducted and killed because she was a law abiding citizen and spoke the truth?
The armed wing of SF buried people they did not like. Fact. Sometimes they just disappeared them so their family did not even have a body to grieve over.

SF buried Jean McConville?..I've heard it all now.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF buried Jean McConville?..I've heard it all now.

I said "the armed wing of S. F." Who do you think buried her?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I said "the armed wing of S. F." Who do you think buried her?

It was as far as I know 'the IRA'. It was a much warned about sanction against informers, in a particularly bloody and chaotic time in the conflict.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was as far as I know 'the IRA'.

And do you think "the IRA" was the armed wing of Sinn Fein at the time?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

And do you think "the IRA" was the armed wing of Sinn Fein at the time?

If SF and the IRA where one and the same then why couldn't the British arrest and charge somebody who was a member of SF?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If SF and the IRA where one and the same then why couldn't the British arrest and charge somebody who was a member of SF?

Because it is possible for people to be in an organisation but not in the armed wing of it at the time. Now please answer the question without deflecting again.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Because it is possible for people to be in an organisation but not in the armed wing of it at the time. Now please answer the question without deflecting again.

So now the question is: Was the IRA the armed wing of only some in SF?

I think SF represented the political views of the IRA. They were separate and distinct organisations and were treated as such.

Wheeliebin30

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So now the question is: Was the IRA the armed wing of only some in SF?

I think SF represented the political views of the IRA. They were separate and distinct organisations and were treated as such.

Isn’t there former IRA members in SF?

FrancieBrady

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Isn’t there former IRA members in SF?

Yep. And there are some who aren't in SF.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So now the question is: Was the IRA the armed wing of only some in SF?

.

No. The question was " Do you think the IRA was the armed wing of Sinn Fein at the time"?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

No. The question was " Do you think the IRA was the armed wing of Sinn Fein at the time"?

No Jan I don't. They were separate organisations. You could be in SF and not in the IRA and vice versa.

janfebmar

Nobelium wrote: »

SF don't like anyone telling the truth . . digging holes like the good old days, where you could threaten to bury anyone who spoke out ?

I do not think Francie agree with you there.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were separate organisations. You could be in SF and not in the IRA and vice versa.

Of course they were "separate organisations", but do you not think there was some overlap? Of course "You could be in SF and not in the IRA and vice versa" but do you not think more than a few were in both organisations?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I do not think Francie agree with you there.




Of course they were "separate organisations", but do you not think there was some overlap? Of course "You could be in SF and not in the IRA and vice versa" but do you not think more than a few were in both organisations?

I don't really care anymore who was in the IRA and who wasn't. The conflict/war is over for over 20 years.
I care about creating a society were there is no need for any army.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Of course they were "separate organisations", but do you not think there was some overlap? Of course "You could be in SF and not in the IRA and vice versa" but do you not think more than a few were in both organisations?

Surely you could argue same point in relation to any organisation??

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't really care anymore who was in the IRA and who wasn't.

Or indeed who was in the parachute regiment or who was not. Time to move on, isn't that not right Francie? Oh wait...

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Or indeed who was in the parachute regiment or who was not. Time to move on, isn't that not right Francie? Oh wait...

My position has always been - justice for everyone or justice for no-one. A 'truth' commission.

What has yours been? Justice for the victims of one side and defend or forget about the rest. You should give Willie Frazer a call.

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Surely you could argue same point in relation to any organisation??

One movement was unique in using the slogan about "an armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other hand". I think it fair to say it improved its performance at the ballot box when it gave up the armalite.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

One movement was unique in using the slogan about "an armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other hand". I think it fair to say it improved its performance at the ballot box when it gave up the armalite.

Meh....shift goalposts all you want....your complaining about overlap in memberz of organisations

Fact remains,you must basically be complaining about virtually every organisation in the state at the time....if your to be consistant

FrancieBrady

The Rockall (the subject of the thread Jan...this one isn't about your obsession either) story seems to have died a death. Did not see any Sunday papers, was there any coverage?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My position has always been - justice for everyone or justice for no-one. A 'truth' commission.

What has yours been? Justice for the victims of one side and defend or forget about the rest.

Indeed, there should be justice for all, but very hard to find justice when certain people do not even admit being in the pIRA, even though other pIRA members say they were. As said before, between 1971 and 1989 there were 203 murders in the Fermanagh and south Tyrone area alone, of which about 178 were carried out by republican paramilitaries. Only 14 convictions followed. So an awful lot of people were not prosecuted. Do you think a truth commission would solve some of those murders, or why has there not being calls for investigations in to those murders?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Indeed, there should be justice for all, but very hard to find justice when certain people do not even admit being in the pIRA, even though other pIRA members say they were. As said before, between 1971 and 1989 there were 203 murders in the Fermanagh and south Tyrone area alone, of which about 178 were carried out by republican paramilitaries. Only 14 convictions followed. So an awful lot of people were not prosecuted. Do you think a truth commission would solve some of those murders, or why has there not being calls for investigations in to those murders?

Open a thread on it Jan.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Open a thread on it Jan.

Well, Republicans could'nt be bothered condemning the 178 murders carried out by republican paramilitaries, out of a total of 203 murders carried out in that area in those decades for example, and you and others do not care who was in the IRA and who wasn't, so not much chance of any progress ever being made in solving those crimes (oh sorry, they were not crimes) now.

Anyway, back to Rockall, any word on if Irish boats are still fishing in that area?

Hamsterchops

According to RTE news, Iceland have now joined the affray!

Apparently Rockall is part of the Icelandic continental shelf.

steddyeddy

Yes Iceland have reaffirmed their claim on it too. It's worth remembering Iceland won the Cod wars against Britain.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0621/1056733-iceland-rockall/

SexBobomb

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes Iceland have reaffirmed their claim on it too. It's worth remembering Iceland won the Cod wars against Britain.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0621/1056733-iceland-rockall/

So they have form ?

FrancieBrady

It would be great to see this get into an international court.

droidman123

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It would be great to see this get into an international court.

Would be interesting,the old bullying tactics of the british is long gone,manners has been put on them.i would love to see how they cope with getting some land by actual legal means.might be a bit confusing for them

janfebmar

droidman123 wrote: »

Would be interesting,the old bullying tactics of the british is long gone,manners has been put on them.i would love to see how they cope with getting some land by actual legal means.might be a bit confusing for them

Might be a bit confusing to you to understand the land is much closer to them than anyone else, they were the first ones to land on it and claim it, and they were the only ones to live on it for any period of time, so why would it not be theirs?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Might be a bit confusing to you to understand the land is much closer to them than anyone else, they were the first ones to land on it and claim it, and they were the only ones to live on it for any period of time, so why would it not be theirs?

You cannot claim an uninhabitable rock;

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

I know you have had a difficult relationship with facts but as you have been told several times...the SAS loon was wasting his time.

RobMc59

janfebmar wrote: »

Might be a bit confusing to you to understand the land is much closer to them than anyone else, they were the first ones to land on it and claim it, and they were the only ones to live on it for any period of time, so why would it not be theirs?

I wonder if these Viking nations claiming jurisdiction be as conciliatory as the UK has been over rockall?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot claim an uninhabitable rock;

Like some islands off our Irish coast?
Some British people did live on Rockall for some time so that means it was habitable.

Kivaro

janfebmar wrote: »

Like some islands off our Irish coast?
Some British people did live on Rockall for some time so that means it was habitable.

Oh right. This is the Island before the Brits arrived on this bit of paradise:





And this is the rock after they arrived:




Will you go away, will ya.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

janfebmar wrote: »

Like some islands off our Irish coast?
Some British people did live on Rockall for some time so that means it was habitable.

This odd transferred nationalism is odd.

Dr Turk Turkelton

janfebmar wrote: »

Like some islands off our Irish coast?
Some British people did live on Rockall for some time so that means it was habitable.

Are you sure people lived on Rockall?