Gardaí: Provo Army Council oversees PIRA & SF

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Weren’t you a FF voter, Francis?

I am given them a vote before.

My vote doesn't 'belong' to anyone and never has Johnny. I suggest that is a good way to practice being a good democrat or republican BTW. Don't allow anyone to 'own' your vote.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am given them a vote before.

My vote doesn't 'belong' to anyone and never has Johnny. I suggest that is a good way to practice being a good democrat or republican BTW. Don't allow anyone to 'own' your vote.

Aboy francie you tell em!
Las character I heard coming out with that kind of stuff was the Bird O'Donnell in the Field, nobody owned him either.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

Aboy francie you tell em!
Las character I heard coming out with that kind of stuff was the Bird O'Donnell in the Field, nobody owned him either.

You have a wee sit down and consider the con you were sold about Dan Breen lad!

Try and live in a real world not a mythical one.

Runaways

Leo : SF are controlled by the IRA army council!!

Also Leo: it’s up to SF to form a government given they have the mandate



Both of these things cannot be true simultaneously


Could it possibly be Leo is talking out of his hole about imaginary army councils? Surely as Taisoiseach he has the responsibility and power to tackle this situation if it indeed it is true?
And stop SF from ever getting near Government?


Hint-hes lying to you. And you fell for it. Hook line and sinker.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have a wee sit down and consider the con you were sold about Dan Breen lad!

Try and live in a real world not a mythical one.

Breen went out and fought for his country and when asked if had any regrets said he regretted that on occasion his gun misfired.
Your crowd OTOH hadn't even have the balls to fight themselves or admit that they were involved. One charmer was so brave that all he did was make explosives and send young fellas out to plant them.

Runaways

Runaways wrote: »

Leo : SF are controlled by the IRA army council!!

Also Leo: it’s up to SF to form a government given they have the mandate


Both of these things cannot be true simultaneously

Could it possibly be Leo is talking out of his hole about imaginary army councils? Surely as Taisoiseach he has the responsibility and power to tackle this situation if it indeed it is true?
And stop SF from ever getting near Government?

Hint-hes lying to you. And you fell for it. Hook line and sinker.

What are you talking about?
Leo was reacting to the Garda commissioner, who was himself answering questions about the IRA.

And, obviously both things can be true simultaneously.

dundalkfc10

bubblypop wrote: »

What are you talking about?
Leo was reacting to the Garda commissioner, who was himself answering questions about the IRA.

And, obviously both things can be true simultaneously.

He stated recently the opposite view to what he said last week

golfball37

realdanbreen wrote: »

Breen went out and fought for his country and when asked if had any regrets said he regretted that on occasion his gun misfired.
Your crowd OTOH hadn't even have the balls to fight themselves or admit that they were involved. One charmer was so brave that all he did was make explosives and send young fellas out to plant them.

If you are going to troll at least have some facts about your username to hand.
Report says must try harder I'm afraid.

James Brown

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

They aren’t though. There’s a large majority of people in this country who will never vote for SF while they continue to ignore issues in their ranks like being controlled by a load of murdering thugs from West Belfast, their eulogising of murdering thugs, their shït attempts to cover up child sex abuse by the IRA etc.

Not a normal party and they don’t operate with the same moral compass as normal society. Not our fault people feel this way.

Dude, the same can be said of FF and FG, (covering for child abuse, arms smuggling, fraud, tax avoidance etc.). Also the ex-IRA aren't controlling SF, they are in SF. You didn't know this? Isn't it great that the armed struggle evolved into politics?
FF/FG have some neck IMO. I treat SF like the political affiliates of the IRA. That's my take. I see them as the same thing. I am also aware that historically speaking the troubles conflict is not over that long, so of course wounds are still fresh for many, but we need treat them with the same respect as any other political party. You don't have to like them or vote for them but FF/FG constantly trying to undermine them and sh*t on the GFA is disgraceful IMO.
All this bitterness is the FF/FG sore arse from the election 2020 paddling. Little sleeveen characters whinging and bratty because a third party did well.
It's a very healthy thing for any voter who would be picking FF or FG depending on who ****ed up last.
I think it's a very apt tag for the failure of the FG PR campaign. 'Not a normal party', coming from FG, that's a compliment surely?

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

What are you talking about?
Leo was reacting to the Garda commissioner, who was himself answering questions about the IRA.

And, obviously both things can be true simultaneously.

I asked you a question a while back. Genuine. If a party are taking orders from an illegal terrorist organisation are they not guilty of something? I would have thought so.

FrancieBrady

Bowie wrote: »

I asked you a question a while back. Genuine. If a party are taking orders from an illegal terrorist organisation are they not guilty of something? I would have thought so.

The pair of them, FF and FG let legal organisations terrorise the people for nearly 100 years, what good would they be if an illegal one was operating.

The screeching hypocrisy of some of these guys after the last two nights docs and what these 2 parties have stood over in this country.

tipptom

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm sure Gerry, as he sits in his holiday home counting his sterling and euro pensions really apprecites his followers coing out to bat for SF and getting all worked up! As somebody once said " there's a sucker born every minute "

Yeah,go and learn a bit of history boy, and take down that name you have appropriated from the Breen family.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

Breen went out and fought for his country and when asked if had any regrets said he regretted that on occasion his gun misfired.
Your crowd OTOH hadn't even have the balls to fight themselves or admit that they were involved. One charmer was so brave that all he did was make explosives and send young fellas out to plant them.

Did you learn Irish history from a comic?

realdanbreen

tipptom wrote: »

Yeah,go and learn a bit of history boy, and take down that name you have appropriated from the Breen family.

If only you knew Tommie, if only you knew.

tipptom

realdanbreen wrote: »

If only you knew Tommie, if only you knew.

Cmon lets hear it, if you are trying to say you are in any way related to him.

This should be fun.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

I asked you a question a while back. Genuine. If a party are taking orders from an illegal terrorist organisation are they not guilty of something? I would have thought so.

This question was answered comprehensively a week ago, when your comrade Francie posed it. Reminders of the answer were posted several times as well. Repeating a question that has been answered before is not the action of someone with a genuine interest in the answer.

blanch152 wrote: »

People shouldn't go down rabbit-holes with this type of nonsensical arguments. We have been here before.

We know that Gerry Adams is a liar. He told one story to Spotlight about his knowledge and cover-up of child sexual abuse by his brother, and another story to a court. Francie asked why wasn't he convicted of perjury. The reason being is that the reasonable defence of lying to the tv programme not the court meant that a conviction would be extremely unlikely especially as Liam Adams wouldn't testify, so no objective evidence exists as to which story was the truth.

This case would be similar. Firstly, you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both the existence and membership of the IRA Army Council. Secondly, you would have to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Army Council is exercising control and direction over Sinn Fein, such evidence having to consist of hard documentation, recordings of phone conversations, meetings etc. Then finally, you would have to prove that Sinn Fein wouldn't have taken those decisions anyway.

So while the Gardai and the PSNI would probably have some such evidence and almost certainly inside informer information, they would be a long way short of being able to produce such evidence for a criminal court case with the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I believe that they would have enough evidence to stand up in a civil case where the evidence standard is on the balance of probabilities. Why would I say that? Because Mary-Lou and Sinn Fein could easily have sued the PSNI and the Gardai if that wasn't the case. That they haven't tells you all you need to know.

Francie knows all this, but he is trying to drag posters down a rabbit hole into a warren of claim and counter-claim, bluff and buster that ultimately won't change the fact that the evidence demonstrates that on the balance of probability Sinn Fein is controlled by the IRA Army Council.

Of course, a real danger of Sinn Fein being in government for even a short while is that the names of informers within the IRA become known to them and retribution is taken making the job of the PSNI and the Gardai to monitor the activities of the IRA Army Council that more difficult.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you learn Irish history from a comic?

I'll say one thing for you Frankie, your posts are getting a bit more mature, well done.:cool:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you learn Irish history from a comic?

An Phravda is not a comic, don't put down your own history book like that. Many people died so that august publication could educate the world.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This question was answered comprehensively a week ago, when your comrade Francie posed it. Reminders of the answer were posted several times as well. Repeating a question that has been answered before is not the action of someone with a genuine interest in the answer.

Not at all this is your reprint of your opinion based on ifs, buts and what ifs. 'Tis a fine opinion English, but 'tis no barn.

My query is regarding; if you are taking orders from a criminal or terrorist illegal organisation, are you criminally culpable in some way?

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Not at all this is your reprint of your opinion based on ifs, buts and what ifs. 'Tis a fine opinion English, but 'tis no barn.

My query is regarding; if you are taking orders from a criminal or terrorist illegal organisation, are you criminally culpable in some way?

My point is that even if it is illegal (and you haven't produced a piece of legislation that says it is, despite your certainty that it is), it is close to impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, it is defamatory and whatever leader of Sinn Fein who was defamed by it could easily win damages in court, unless the Garda Commission could prove on the balance of probability that it was true. What's stopping Mary-Lou? I can tell you - the fear of losing the case.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

This question was answered comprehensively a week ago, when your comrade Francie posed it. Reminders of the answer were posted several times as well. Repeating a question that has been answered before is not the action of someone with a genuine interest in the answer.

And it was a self serving cop out laced through with plenty of hypocrisy a couple of weeks ago too.

To think a cohort of the vote is going 'sit down the back' just because you have suspicions is a ridiculous notion in a democracy.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

This question was answered comprehensively a week ago, when your comrade Francie posed it. Reminders of the answer were posted several times as well. Repeating a question that has been answered before is not the action of someone with a genuine interest in the answer.

Right that's it ladies and gentlemen, blanch has spoken. He's given a reasoned and unbiased answer which should be taken as gospel.

He 110% has not just given his opinion on something, and passed it off as the definitive legitimate answer we have all been waiting for and needed to be told.

Wrap it up for the day and everyone go home.

Peasants.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

An Phravda is not a comic, don't put down your own history book like that. Many people died so that august publication could educate the world.

Are you buying into his sanitised version of Dan Breen too today blanch?

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Right that's it ladies and gentlemen, blanch has spoken. He's given a reasoned and unbiased answer which should be taken as gospel.

He 110% has not just given his opinion on something, and passed it off as the definitive legitimate answer we have all been waiting for and needed to be told.

Wrap it up for the day and everyone go home.

Peasants.

It would be fairer to say that the core argument in the post - Mary-Lou's failure to take a case for defamation tells you all you need to know - has not been addressed in any way in any response.

Your deflection only adds to that.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

My point is that even if it is illegal (and you haven't produced a piece of legislation that says it is, despite your certainty that it is), it is close to impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, it is defamatory and whatever leader of Sinn Fein who was defamed by it could easily win damages in court, unless the Garda Commission could prove on the balance of probability that it was true. What's stopping Mary-Lou? I can tell you - the fear of losing the case.

So I can infer you might be in the 'RA because your posts criticising SF make me more inclined to discuss SF even if I'm discussing FG? I can't prove it, but you know, feels.

In closing there is no proof the IRA are still operating and that SF take orders from this IRA, still operating.
'balance of probability'

On that, FG are working with and for vulture funds so, specifically Goldman Sachs, I mean 'balance of probability' right?

What's stopping ML is nobody has made a solid charge, so what is she defending? The onus is on Drew Harris and Varadkar to cease engaging in hearsay IMO.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

I asked you a question a while back. Genuine. If a party are taking orders from an illegal terrorist organisation are they not guilty of something? I would have thought so.

I would guess that unless the orders were somehow illegal themselves, or ordering some illegal acts, I wouldn't think so. It's an interesting question though

I would imagine most people, like myself, don't like the idea of a political party in our country being beholden to some shadowy figures living in a different jurisdiction. Particularly if that party were to actually be in government.

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

I would guess that unless the orders were somehow illegal themselves, or ordering some illegal acts, I wouldn't think so. It's an interesting question though

I would imagine most people, like myself, don't like the idea of a political party in our country being beholden to some shadowy figures living in a different jurisdiction. Particularly if that party were to actually be in government.

The idea. I don't like the idea FG working for private profits above the tax payer. So I guess we vote based on gut. That said Harris had absolutely no business, nor did wee Harris or Varadkar inferring to the Irish public that the IRA still existed and controlled Sinn Fein. It's at best unprofessional.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

The idea. I don't like the idea FG working for private profits above the tax payer. So I guess we vote based on gut. That said Harris had absolutely no business, nor did wee Harris or Varadkar inferring to the Irish public that the IRA still existed and controlled Sinn Fein. It's at best unprofessional.

He answered a question, I'm no huge fan of the commissioner, but what he said was fair enough I reckon.

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

He answered a question, I'm no huge fan of the commissioner, but what he said was fair enough I reckon.

I believe the people who were the IRA are politically active within Sinn Fein. Harris could have been clearer. He gave the kids, (Harris/Varadkar) enough to go off scaremongering like lads in army fatigues are up in some hut in the mountains passing codes to ML.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

I believe the people who were the IRA are politically active within Sinn Fein. Harris could have been clearer. He gave the kids, (Harris/Varadkar) enough to go off scaremongering like lads in army fatigues are up in some hut in the mountains passing codes to ML.

No. That's not what the report said.
The army council of the IRA are still in position & they direct the IRA & Sinn Fein.
Now, if they were politically active in Sinn Fein, they would be legitimate members of a political party.
They are not.
That is the problem.