Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Hamsterchops

No chance of Sinn Fein vanishing, that's for sure, not with all the SF threads running on boards.ie...

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Killing toddlers and young boys got 'results'.

Lovely stuff Francie.
Your sycophantic defence for child-killers is disappointing.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Killing toddlers and young boys got 'results'.

Lovely stuff Francie.
Your sycophantic defence for child-killers is disappointing.

Desperate today Mark?

I didn't defend anything...you asked a question. I answered it.

Did the bombing campaign bring results...nobody denies that...the timeline underlines the fact the British attitude changed and the GFA got signed. Is the GFA a help to nationalists...most certainly.

Join the dots.
The killing of anyone was abhorrent, the killing of innocent children despicable.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

The Fenians were bombing England since 1867, the IRA since 1939 and the provisionals since 1974. Yeah they got results alright. Just like the Luftwaffe in the blitz.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The Fenians were bombing England since 1867, the IRA since 1939 and the provisionals since 1974. Yeah they got results alright. Just like the Luftwaffe in the blitz.

Another in denial of what is historical fact.
You cannot handwave away or snide meaningless comment away the fact that the British when bombed in their retail and financial heart lands negotiated with a still fully armed group to reach an agreement.

You don't have to defend or praise to properly assess the facts.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Another in denial of what is historical fact.
You cannot handwave away or snide meaningless comment away the fact that the British when bombed in their retail and financial heart lands negotiated with a still fully armed group to reach an agreement.

You don't have to defend or praise to properly assess the facts.

I think you so want to believe that the IRA campaign achieved something which could not have been achieved by negotiation that you are blinded to the reality.

The British establishment had negotiated with a still armed IRA, as they have done with many other groups, for 30 years, under 5 prime ministers, both Conservatives and Labour. To claim that the IRA bombing campaign in England suddenly brought the British government to the negotiating table is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think you so want to believe that the IRA campaign achieved something which could not have been achieved by negotiation that you are blinded to the reality.

The British establishment had negotiated with a still armed IRA, as they have done with many other groups, for 30 years, under 5 prime ministers, both Conservatives and Labour. To claim that the IRA bombing campaign in England suddenly brought the British government to the negotiating table is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

SS the British had been insisting the IRA disarm before they would talk. John Major quietly dropped that demand and the deal got done.
Fact.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SS the British had been insisting the IRA disarm before they would talk. John Major quietly dropped that demand and the deal got done.
Fact.

They were already talking and had been talking for sometime. How you jump the conclusion that the bombing campaign in England won the IRA the little victory of dumping their arms after, rather than before their capitulation is telling.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They were already talking and had been talking for sometime. How you jump the conclusion that the bombing campaign in England won the IRA the little victory of dumping their arms after, rather than before their capitulation is telling.

You are trenchantly ignoring what it meant for the British government to negotiate with an armed group.
Quite simply they could see the deal evaporating and it was they who climbed off the high horse and quietly dropped their demand.

Keep talking the Brits up...I never supported the IRA but the facts are the facts.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are trenchantly ignoring what it meant for the British government to negotiate with an armed group.
Quite simply they could see the deal evaporating and it was they who climbed off the high horse and quietly dropped their demand.

Keep talking the Brits up...I never supported the IRA but the facts are the facts.

They were already negotiating with the IRA while still fully armed. Your assertion that the IRA bombing campaign in England, somehow forced the British to the negotiating table is demonstrably untrue.

Ignoring what it meant for the British to negotiate with an armed group? Are you being serious. Even in the context of this island. Do you think the provisional IRA were the first armed group the British have negotiated with? Facts are facts but you appear to have a very selective grasp of them.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They were already negotiating with the IRA while still fully armed. Your assertion that the IRA bombing campaign in England, somehow forced the British to the negotiating table is demonstrably untrue.

Ignoring what it meant for the British to negotiate with an armed group? Are you being serious. Even in the context of this island. Do you think the provisional IRA were the first armed group the British have negotiated with? Facts are facts but you appear to have a very selective grasp of them.

You clearly dont know the facts. SF were not going to be allowed to the table until the IRA disarmed.

What hapoened? Do your research. Dont read the version put out by those with a vested interest in pretending they won.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You clearly dont know the facts. SF were not going to be allowed to the table until the IRA disarmed.

What hapoened? Do your research. Dont read the version put out by those with a vested interest in pretending they won.

Why don’t you take your own advice Francie.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why don’t you take your own advice Francie.

You are the poster who gave their ignorance away. The British were not 'negotiating' they were trying to get the IRA to disarm...you are either wilfully ignoring this or you didn't know.

You bought a version of the story and it is wrong, wholly wrong.

The British who said they never would, did negotiate with a fully armed group after they flexed their muscle and bombed the heart lands of Britain.

Fact.

If it happened any other way you need to demonstrate that. Don't be making a fool of yourself make trite remarks for like...those liking your posts are equally ignorant of the facts.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are the poster who gave their ignorance away. The British were not 'negotiating' they were trying to get the IRA to disarm...you are either wilfully ignoring this or you didn't know.

You bought a version of the story and it is wrong, wholly wrong.

The British who said they never would, did negotiate with a fully armed group after they flexed their muscle and bombed the heart lands of Britain.

Fact.

If it happened any other way you need to demonstrate that. Don't be making a fool of yourself make trite remarks for like...those liking your posts are equally ignorant of the facts.

Well it looks like the British got what they wanted then Francie.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Well it looks like the British got what they wanted then Francie.

More triteness because you cannot debate the facts.


What did the British want SS when they gunned down innocent people all over this island?


The British 'wanted' expediency...they didn't care about the Union Jack toting Sandy Rower or the Tricolour toting Falls Roader. They got the political expediency they wanted and they capitulated to do it. Then they sold a story of victory over a spy ridden IRA (good old James Bond gung ho stuff) that you bought because you are too lazy to look at the facts.
The British saw a deal they wanted slipping away because of the demands they were making and they folded. Simple as.

Thankfully they did and thankfully the IRA went with it.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More triteness because you cannot debate the facts.


What did the British want SS when they gunned down innocent people all over this island?


The British 'wanted' expediency...they didn't care about the Union Jack toting Sandy Rower or the Tricolour toting Falls Roader. They got the political expediency they wanted and they capitulated to do it. Then they sold a story of victory over a spy ridden IRA (good old James Bond gung ho stuff) that you bought because you are too lazy to look at the facts.
The British saw a deal they wanted slipping away because of the demands they were making and they folded. Simple as.

Thankfully they did and thankfully the IRA went with it.

They say a fanatic is one who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

You have to face facts Francie. You have lost all faculties of subjective analysis. Only someone who is, at heart, riven by doubt can be as irrationally dogmatic in following the republican narrative of the last 50 years.

You have made statements in the last number of posts that are simply untrue.
The British negotiated many times with armed groups.

The IRA were heavily infiltrated with those working for British intelligence. Even their head of counter intelligence was a British agent.

Do you think the IRA would have survived post 2001, after 9/11 and the war on terror, when the political atmosphere in Washington was not so welcoming of former or would be former terrorists?

You said yourself the British wanted the IRA to disarm. That is the reality we are living with now.
Fact. (The ending of any statement with the word fact is pathetic, in my opinion).

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They say a fanatic is one who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

You have to face facts Francie. You have lost all faculties of subjective analysis. Only someone who is, at heart, riven by doubt can be as irrationally dogmatic in following the republican narrative of the last 50 years.

You have made statements in the last number of posts that are simply untrue.
The British negotiated many times with armed groups.

The IRA were heavily infiltrated with those working for British intelligence. Even their head of counter intelligence was a British agent.

Do you think the IRA would have survived post 2001, after 9/11 and the war on terror, when the political atmosphere in Washington was not so welcoming of former or would be former terrorists?

You said yourself the British wanted the IRA to disarm. That is the reality we are living with now.
Fact. (The ending of any statement with the word fact is pathetic, in my opinion).

Wow.

The British wanted the IRA to disarm before SF were allowed to the table. They did much high moral grounding about this stance as did Unionists. Bombs went off in the heartland of their economic and business communities...John Major quietly dropped the demand and the talks moved on resulting in an agreement that brought power sharing and parity of esteem for nationalists.

To avoid that reality of FACT you now want to discuss navel gazing stuff about the aftermath of 9-11???

I am, as I said, no supporter of the IRA or anyone who used violence, but you SS are as brainwashed as anyone on here.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wow.

The British wanted the IRA to disarm before SF were allowed to the table. They did much high moral grounding about this stance as did Unionists. Bombs went off in the heartland of their economic and business communities...John Major quietly dropped the demand and the talks moved on resulting in an agreement that brought power sharing and parity of esteem for nationalists.

To avoid that reality of FACT you now want to discuss navel gazing stuff about the aftermath of 9-11???

I am, as I said, no supporter of the IRA or anyone who used violence, but you SS are as brainwashed as anyone on here.

Perhaps you could remind us who John Major was due to meet in Downing Street on the day the Docklands bomb, in which 2 people were killed and over 100 injured, was detonated?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't defend anything...you asked a question. I answered it.

In this case, the answer you provided is defending the murder of children.

Did the bombing campaign bring results...nobody denies that...the timeline underlines the fact the British attitude changed and the GFA got signed. Is the GFA a help to nationalists...most certainly.

Plenty of people deny it. John Hume for one!

The Provo's wanted a UI by the bomb and gun, they failed... so again how exactly did the murder of a 3-year-old boy help the average nationalist in the North?

markodaly

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you think the IRA would have survived post 2001, after 9/11 and the war on terror, when the political atmosphere in Washington was not so welcoming of former or would be former terrorists?

This.

The provos knew they were done.
Omagh did them and their cause incredible damage.
9/11 was the final nail in the coffin, due to their reliance on arms and money from nostalgic Irish Americans.

Add to that, the leadership of SF and the Provo's were riddled with informers.
Loyalists too seemed to have their number and were killing more and more Republicans.

In essence, by anyone recognising, the Provo campaign was a failure, if one was to look at the demands they had set out in the late 60's/early 70's. They kept these demands up for decades until they stole the clothes from the SDLP and told us all that killing kids and women was really about equality after all. Only the brainwashed really believe that.

Today, the North is still British and armed crown forces still dominate the streets.
What they got in return is a glorified talking shop in Stormont where they can make no decisions of substance.

FrancieBrady

Were SF allowwd to the negotiatong table SS?
I never said anything about 'meetings'.

costacorta

maccored wrote: »

the only facts are the 50 grand found in the ruc leisure centre.

feel free to show me the court rulings where anyone in SF or in the IRA was convicted of anything to do with the robbery.

until you have that then Im afraid you cant pin the blame on anyone - certainly not until the almost 20 year old investigation is finished.

Then again, sure if enough people say it then it must be true - thats the kind of logic you two geniuses seem to be following

You forgot to mention the thousands that were found in wheelie bins in Farran Co Cork in a house of a known sympathiser . I suppose the RUC planted it there as well lol ...

mattser

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Perhaps you could remind us who John Major was due to meet in Downing Street on the day the Docklands bomb, in which 2 people were killed and over 100 injured, was detonated?

You know they're struggling when they have a pop at the thankers :D

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

so again how exactly did the murder of a 3-year-old boy help the average nationalist in the North?

If you are to believe the ira was riddled with informers and provided info surronding location of bomb......surely you must admit then, this is the fault of the british??




How did this killing help.the british security effort?

BloodyBill

maccored wrote: »

This id the second time to repeat and third time over all to explain to you, so focus really hard or do whatever you need to do to get that little brain thing of yours to start working.

50 thousand euro has been found in an RUC leisure centre

theres no-one in sf or the ira who are being held under investigation of or indeed accused or convicted of anything to do with the fobbery (bar the ira guy who was accused of the robbery and when they couldnt pin that on him, they jailed him for being in the IRA instead)

Both of those are facts - therefore the evidence to date points to the RUC. There has never been anything pointing to the IRA.

You can misrepresent that in any fashion you like in order to avoid admitting those two facts are correct - but it’d be very obvious thats what you're hoping to do.

You keep blaming the ira, you get asked if you can back that up and in reply you say the security forces say so. If that were true then either the investigation is a pretty **** one considering theres no movement in 16 years, or else its just crap.

In society, we say innocent til proven guilty. Its the founding stone of the justice system. You obviously arent a fan of that idea

The IRA robbed the bank. They planted 50,000 grand bizarrely to see if they could muddy the waters. They couldn't. That you could imagine the police robbing the bank is hilarious.

FrancieBrady

BloodyBill wrote: »

The IRA robbed the bank. They planted 50,000 grand bizarrely to see if they could muddy the waters. They couldn't. That you could imagine the police robbing the bank is hilarious.

The reality was the 'police' was so mired in very much non hilarious collusion and partisan policing their name had to be wiped and they were restructured.
There have been persistent allegations that there are elements of the old guard politically policing still.
Again, who does it help for you to believe without proof that a certain side did this?

In the context of NI 'I don't know' is a safer point of view until you have proof.

maccored

costacorta wrote: »

You forgot to mention the thousands that were found in wheelie bins in Farran Co Cork in a house of a known sympathiser . I suppose the RUC planted it there as well lol ...

'known sympathiser' ... so neither in the IRA or SF. Thats cleared that up. I did say no hearsay btw, only actual facts linking to SF or the IRA.

maccored

BloodyBill wrote: »

The IRA robbed the bank. They planted 50,000 grand bizarrely to see if they could muddy the waters. They couldn't. That you could imagine the police robbing the bank is hilarious.

the ira planted 50 grand in a high security, camera'd up to the eyeball RUC leisure centre where RUC officers wouldnt have immediate access to their arms, and therefore would be secure as **** - yeah right. where'd you read that, The Dandy?

surely they should never have had to mortor ruc stations then since they could have just walked in and planted bombs rather than 50 grand packages. Thats hilarious thinking.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are to believe the ira was riddled with informers and provided info surronding location of bomb......surely you must admit then, this is the fault of the british??




How did this killing help.the british security effort?

PIRA plants a bomb in the middle of an English market town on a Saturday afternoon which kills a 3 year old toddler and 12 year old boy.... who to blame?
The British.

Weren't you blaming the PSNI for the death of Lyra McKee earlier?

I don't think anyone should take your views on the matter seriously.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In the context of NI 'I don't know' is a safer point of view until you have proof.

Like when Gerry Adams was never in the IRA?

Adams is like Donald Trump with his bare-faced lies. He lies so much he doesn't even know it. And we have our MAGA hat-wearing cheerleaders here to match those across the pond with zealot brainwashing.