Is it just me or have SF vanished?

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

The police robbed the bank????. Get real.

40 years it took to stop people saying 'The soldiers deliberately shot innocent people on the street? Get real'.

For a good portion of those 40 years the British were more than happy to point the finger at somebody else...again without the slightest bit of actual evidence.


Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that we are being lied to again?

First thing I do when somebody asks me to believe something they have NO evidence of, is ask myself...who does it help to have this story believed?
When the answer includes this list I get very cautious believing a word of it:
The British Government,
Unionists who are anti- GFA
Elements of the police who are anti-GFA
elements of the south's political power share who need to keep SF at bay.

Truthvader

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have to laugh really.......

That lad compares everyone who dont agree with him to trump supporters.......meanwhile spends all day,everyday posting conspiracy theories,then cries foul when anyone dare ask for proof or the obvious flaws are pointed out

This is pathetic stuff even if you're on the Sinn Fein IRA payroll. The country is awash with criminals who got away with their evil deeds. Still did them

Here's the Wikipedia link with a good synopsis for those too young to remember. Make up your pwn minds. I'm done with this pretendy argument


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Bank_robbery

No actual convictions though as the Sinn Fein IRA supporters so joyfully proclaim. Doesn't mean they didn't do it. As innocent as Jimmy Saville or the heroes who murdered Paul Quinn who Francie tells us "everyone knows"

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

This is pathetic stuff even if you're on the Sinn Fein IRA payroll. The country is awash with criminals who got away with their evil deeds. Still did them

Here's the Wikipedia link with a good synopsis for those too young to remember. Make up your pwn minds. I'm done with this pretendy argument


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Bank_robbery

No actual convictions though as the Sinn Fein IRA supporters so joyfully proclaim. Doesn't mean they didn't do it. As innocent as Jimmy Saville or the heroes who murdered Paul Quinn who Francie tells us "everyone knows"

The IMC have said the 'IRA were not involved in the murder of Paul Quinn' Truth.

The IMC have not withdrawn what they said the killing was about either ...'that it was not unconnected to local criminal activity'.

You 'choose' not to believe them on that one I suppose?

And yes, everybody local who has an interest knows who did it, the PSNI know and the IMC know - they MUST DO because they ruled out IRA involvement in it.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IMC have said the 'IRA were not involved in the murder of Paul Quinn' Truth.

The IMC have not withdrawn what they said the killing was about either ...'that it was not unconnected to local criminal activity'.

You 'choose' not to believe them on that one I suppose?

And yes, everybody local who has an interest knows who did it, the PSNI know and the IMC know - they MUST DO because they ruled out IRA involvement in it.

Again here's a wikipedia link so people can make up their own mind. Think the IMC found it was "not authorised" - because Sinn Fein IRA are of course entitled to "authorise" killings as it suits them - but can always slither away and claim it was "not Authorised" as it suits

Anyway heres the link and everyone can make up their own minds

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Paul_Quinn

Truthvader

Truthvader wrote: »

This is pathetic stuff even if you're on the Sinn Fein IRA payroll. The country is awash with criminals who got away with their evil deeds. Still did them

Here's the Wikipedia link with a good synopsis for those too young to remember. Make up your pwn minds. I'm done with this pretendy argument


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Bank_robbery

Im aware of the details .....just dont think its possible to simutaneously believe they are riddled with informers....while also belive they robbed a bank,with months of planning and disappeared into thin air without sight nor trace of culprits or money,2 decades later

You posting 2 seperate conspiracies,which simply arent compatible and now throwing a strop,when this is pointed out



Im not on any payroll......another demented conspiracy of yours :rolleyes:

No actual convictions though as the Sinn Fein IRA supporters so joyfully proclaim. Doesn't mean they didn't do it. As innocent as Jimmy Saville or the heroes who murdered Paul Quinn who Francie tells us "everyone knows"

Quite what jimmi saville and paul quinn have to do with nortern bank robbery is beyond me....plz say this isnt another wild conspiracy theory

FrancieBrady

I do love uncovering a 'I'll believe what I want to believe', selective democrat.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I do love uncovering a 'I'll believe what I want to believe', selective democrat.

A “selective democrat” isn’t one who believes what they want. A “selective democrat” is one who uses democracy when it suits and non democratic, even violent means to achieve their objectives when it suits.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A “selective democrat” isn’t one who believes what they want. A “selective democrat” is one who uses democracy when it suits and non democratic, even violent means to achieve their objectives when it suits.

That's what I meant. The British and their apologists here = selective democrats -use democracy when it suits and non democratic, even violent means to achieve their objectives when it suits.

'Cover-up' and 'Collusion' being a prime example of undemocratic violent means while preaching high moral ground democracy to the faithful.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's what I meant. The British and their apologists here = selective democrats -use democracy when it suits and non democratic, even violent means to achieve their objectives when it suits.

'Cover-up' and 'Collusion' being a prime example of undemocratic violent means while preaching high moral ground democracy to the faithful.

You will understand if I am disinclined to take democracy and high moral ground lectures from an apologist for a party which regarded the IRA army council as the legitimate government of the Irish Republic, claiming this legitimacy stemmed from a piece of paper signed by 7 former members of the 2nd Dail.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You will understand if I am disinclined to take democracy and high moral ground lectures from an apologist for a party which regarded the IRA army council as the legitimate government of the Irish Republic, claiming this legitimacy stemmed from a piece of paper signed by 7 former members of the 2nd Dail.

I wasn't lecturing you.

I was explaining something that you misunderstood in my post.

I note you totally ignored that point when you diverted to lecture me on something I already know. 'Democracy' is always the first victim in a conflict or war.

So would you agree that it dangerous and foolish to believe something that comes out of the mouths of 'selective democrats'?

*I have already said clearly, I don't believe either the British version or the IRA version of 'who robbed the NI Bank'. I simply don't know who did it.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't lecturing you.

I was explaining something that you misunderstood in my post.

I note you totally ignored that point when you diverted to lecture me on something I already know. 'Democracy' is always the first victim in a conflict or war.

So would you agree that it dangerous and foolish to believe something that comes out of the mouths of 'selective democrats'?

*I have already said clearly, I don't believe either the British version or the IRA version of 'who robbed the NI Bank'. I simply don't know who did it.

More nonsense. “Democracy” hasn’t been the first victim in most wars in history because “democracy” wasn’t present to begin with. Truth as the first victim of war is the cliche you were looking for.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

More nonsense. “Democracy” hasn’t been the first victim in most wars in history because “democracy” wasn’t present to begin with. Truth as the first victim of war is the cliche you were looking for.

Yes it is a cliche. Because I believe that most wars/conflicts have been started by governments without the approval of the 'people'. Democracy is the will of the people of any given state.

So I hold by what I said...democracy is generally the first victim.

So any chance you can quit diverting and get back to the point... selectively believing the word of a government proven to have lied before? All around the parts of the world that they colonised and policed they have done this stuff.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it is a cliche. Because I believe that most wars/conflicts have been started by governments without the approval of the 'people'. Democracy is the will of the people of any given state.

So I hold by what I said...democracy is generally the first victim.

So any chance you can quit diverting and get back to the point... selectively believing the word of a government proven to have lied before? All around the parts of the world that they colonised and policed they have done this stuff.

If you are asking me if I believe politicians, democratically elected or otherwise then we are in agreement.

When you say you don’t believe the IRA in what they say about the Northern Bank Robbery, they say they didn’t do it. So you don’t believe they didn’t do it?

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it is a cliche. Because I believe that most wars/conflicts have been started by governments without the approval of the 'people'. Democracfy is the will of the people of any given state.

So I hold by what I said...democracy is generally the first victim.

So any chance you can quit diverting and get back to the point... selectively believing the word of a government proven to have lied before? All around the parts of the world that they colonised and policed they have done this stuff.

By "without the approval of the people" Francie of course means whatever people Gerry Adams and his merry men decide they represent from time to time. Not a majority in Northern Ireland. Not a majority in the Republic (the Free State which they want to break).

Plus wars are started by eveil people who want to kill other people. Ie parachute regiment thugs, Shankill Butcher thugs and Sinn Fein IRA thugs. All of the same kind

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

By "without the approval of the people" Francie of course means whatever people Gerry Adams and his merry men decide they represent from time to time. Not a majority in Northern Ireland. Not a majority in the Republic (the Free State which they want to break).

Plus wars are started by eveil people who want to kill other people. Ie parachute regiment thugs, Shankill Butcher thugs and Sinn Fein IRA thugs. All of the same kind

Wars and conflict start because of the absence of democracy invariably and sometimes because democracy is intolerable to some people.


The war/conflict here started indisputably because of the absence of democracy.

PS. I don't believe in the concept of 'evil'. It is a quaint little ruse promoted by religious organisations. As history shows us, when you allow war/conflict to break out anybody is capable of carrying out horrible crimes against others.

As a true democrats your duty is to stop war/conflict breaking out in the first place by holding those vested with power responsible if they behave as sectarian, bigoted governors.
I never supported the IRA and I am glad they are gone, but they stopped the violence when they negotiated an agreement. As an aside but wholly relevant, the government responsible for the absence of democracy here and who attempted to shore up and maintain the bigoted sectarian state have not stopped killing/covering up/lying for what they want to achieve though...have a look around the world.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rogue-sas-afghanistan-execution-squad-exposed-by-email-trail-7pg3dkdww

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you are asking me if I believe politicians, democratically elected or otherwise then we are in agreement.

When you say you don’t believe the IRA in what they say about the Northern Bank Robbery, they say they didn’t do it. So you don’t believe they didn’t do it?

No, I don't believe anybody on face value.

Show me evidence, until then my stance is 'I don't know'.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I don't believe anybody on face value.

Show me evidence, until then my stance is 'I don't know'.

Clearly nonsense. The second world war was largely fought between democratically elected governments (bar Japan)

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Clearly nonsense. The second world war was largely fought between democratically elected governments (bar Japan)

If you cannot look beyond propaganda and spin, I cannot help you.

Governments may have wanted war, but did the people? Do your research.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wars and conflict start because of the absence of democracy invariably and sometimes because democracy is intolerable to some people.


The war/conflict here started indisputably because of the absence of democracy.

PS. I don't believe in the concept of 'evil'. It is a quaint little ruse promoted by religious organisations. As history shows us, when you allow war/conflict to break out anybody is capable of carrying out horrible crimes against others.

As a true democrats your duty is to stop war/conflict breaking out in the first place by holding those vested with power responsible if they behave as sectarian, bigoted governors.
I never supported the IRA and I am glad they are gone, but they stopped the violence when they negotiated an agreement. As an aside but wholly relevant, the government responsible for the absence of democracy here and who attempted to shore up and maintain the bigoted sectarian state have not stopped killing/covering up/lying for what they want to achieve though...have a look around the world.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rogue-sas-afghanistan-execution-squad-exposed-by-email-trail-7pg3dkdww

Firstly I think it is simplistic to say that wars start because of the absence of democracy. Indeed, Athens, the “first democracy” fought many wars, some of which, were only ended following the abandonment of democracy, not due to its absence.

The duty of a democrat is not to stop war/conflict from breaking out in the first place as you say rather it is to peacefully accept the decision of the majority when those decisions are taken democratically.

Your euphemistic “holding those vested with power responsible”, for a democrat does not mean shooting, bombing etc, etc.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Your euphemistic “holding those vested with power responsible”, for a democrat does not mean shooting, bombing etc, etc.

I never said it did. I have said again and again here that the violence was wrong from the start.

The war/conflict happened here because those in power abdicated their responsibilities- it was inevitable and if you properly inform yourself you will see that those ib power in Britain and indeed Ireland knew what was likely to happen.
Just as those in power abdicated their responsiblities to the Treaty of Versailles during the 30's have some responsibility for what inevitably happened.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said it did. I have said again and again here that the violence was wrong from the start.

The war/conflict happened here because those in power abdicated their responsibilities- it was inevitable and if you properly inform yourself you will see that those ib power in Britain and indeed Ireland knew what was likely to happen.
Just as those in power abdicated their responsiblities to the Treaty of Versailles during the 30's have some responsibility for what inevitably happened.

So you are saying that the conflict happened because those Democratically elected to Power abdicated their responsibilities and also saying that conflict inevitably happens in the absence of democracy. Let me guess, you are now going to qualify what you mean by democracy.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So you are saying that the conflict happened because those Democratically elected to Power abdicated their responsibilities and also saying that conflict inevitably happens in the absence of democracy. Let me guess, you are now going to qualify what you mean by democracy.

You seem to believe that NI was a democratic place...would that be correct?

Do you believe that what happened happened because them Taigs were born with a bloodlust?

The evidence or facts show that the side with a century's old prediliction for killing and oppression is the British one.
I respect the IRA for sitting at a table and stopping their violent campaign when they got an agreement.
The British continue to build their war machines.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said it did. I have said again and again here that the violence was wrong from the start.

The war/conflict happened here because those in power abdicated their responsibilities- it was inevitable and if you properly inform yourself you will see that those ib power in Britain and indeed Ireland knew what was likely to happen.
Just as those in power abdicated their responsiblities to the Treaty of Versailles during the 30's have some responsibility for what inevitably happened.

Yeap, yet you are on record time and again defending the murder of a 3 year old boy as collateral damage and the consequences of 'war' and some how helped Nationalists in the north.

Critism of people in power is one thing. Perpetual bad faith arguments and 'whatbaoutism' is another.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yeap, yet you are on record time and again defending the murder of a 3 year old boy as collateral damage and the consequences of 'war' and some how helped Nationalists in the north.

Critism of people in power is one thing. Perpetual bad faith arguments and 'whatbaoutism' is another.

Lies again Mark.

You asked a question 'Did the bombing of Warrington help the nationalist cause'.
The answer I gave was not a defense of Warrington but a fairly widely accepted view that the bombing campaign in Britain did bring the British to the table. The GFA, which did most certainly help the nationalist cause, followed.

You can hold that appraisal of the history without defending either side.
Just as you can see that Hiroshama and Nagasakai brought the Japanese to surrender without defending the bombing itself.

But you know this anyway, just another of your many cheap shots in the absence of anything substantial to offer.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lies again Mark.

You asked a question 'Did the bombing of Warrington help the nationalist cause'.
The answer I gave was not a defense of Warrington but a fairly widely accepted view that the bombing campaign in Britain did bring the British to the table. The GFA, which did most certainly help the nationalist cause, followed.

You can hold that appraisal of the history without defending either side.
Just as you can see that Hiroshama and Nagasakai brought the Japanese to surrender without defending the bombing itself.

But you know this anyway, just another of your many cheap shots in the absence of anything substantial to offer.

No, the question I actually asked was, how did the murder of a 3-year-old toddler and 12-year-old boy help Nationalists in the North.

All I got was world-class 'Whataboutism' and some long-winded defence of that bombing.
As per this post, going on about atomic bombs in WWII Japan.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you cannot look beyond propaganda and spin, I cannot help you.

Governments may have wanted war, but did the people? Do your research.

Poor Francie, his eyes dancing in his head with Sinn Fein IRA spin. Now like Pavlov's dog salivating to the sad lie that Sinn Fein IRA were "peacemakers". Agreeing to abandon a useless campaign of indiscrimiate murder in exchange for power doesn't make you a peacemaker.

maccored

his eyes are dancing in his head due to waffle like above. Pavolv's dog? What in the hell are you on about?

efanton

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

It appears not. SF got highest support of any party in the Sunday Times poll today.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

No, the question I actually asked was, how did the murder of a 3-year-old toddler and 12-year-old boy help Nationalists in the North.

All I got was world-class 'Whataboutism' and some long-winded defence of that bombing.
As per this post, going on about atomic bombs in WWII Japan.

And you got told how it helped 'nationalism' but you are in denial about it so you keep asking the question. Sad stuff really.

The IRA brought the campaign to the British and they got results...look at the timeline...look at the commentary.
You don't have to be a fan of the IRA to see that it worked.

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Poor Francie, his eyes dancing in his head with Sinn Fein IRA spin. Now like Pavlov's dog salivating to the sad lie that Sinn Fein IRA were "peacemakers". Agreeing to abandon a useless campaign of indiscrimiate murder in exchange for power doesn't make you a peacemaker.

Are you gonna deal with the points made or try to taunt ghosts in your own head?