Sinn Fein Omerta

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Theory?

Look at Scotland, the SNP didn't have to kill anyone to get their shot at independence Francie.
Ghandi's achievements in India are well documented.

There are numerous examples of non-violent opposition achieving results, but some people just cannot even believe that such a possibility could even exist because then they have to ask the harder questions.... why on earth did SF/IRA go ahead and kill all those men, women and children when the same thing could have been achieved without all the murder.

Where the British Army shooting innocents on the streets of Scotland as they mounted their campaign? Where the police made up of exclusively UNionists beating Independence activists off the streets? Have the Scots endured almost 80 years of sectarian, religiously bigoted gerrymandered rule?

Oh, and I thought this thread was about SF and ONLY SF?

thomas 123

markodaly wrote: »

Theory?

Look at Scotland, the SNP didn't have to kill anyone to get their shot at independence Francie.
Ghandi's achievements in India are well documented.
.

Scotland is a lot older than the SNP to be fair.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Tell me, when the BA was deployed in the North, were they not welcomed by the Nationalist population?
They were also welcomed by the IRA because the IRA was useless at protecting its own population and people.

Wait a minute, are you now suggesting that someone needed to protect the Nationalist people in the north, and the IRA welcomed it, because they couldn't do it by themselves?

You are basically justifying the IRAs existence, and recognising that the Nationalist people needed protection.

I feel you might have inadvertently made a rather good point with a rather poor effort to try score a bit of a gloat, but you have my attention now non the less.

Can I ask who they needed protection from Mark, why weren't the police or local government protecting them?

/strokes beard.

mynamejeff

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Complete lie.
It's a complex issue for anyone who is interested. Still haven't gotten my head around it all if truth be known, so cannot talk about. Unlike some jumping to the Daily Mail version.

if you don't understand the issue then how can you claim its a lie ?


ye are just trying to shout down anyone who ye don't like the sound of ,

same old same

FrancieBrady

mynamejeff wrote: »

if you don't understand the issue then how can you claim its a lie ?


ye are just trying to shout down anyone who ye don't like the sound of ,

same old same

Because I am doing what anyone would do when they 'don't know something' I am reading up on it.
Some others might too and they'll realise very quickly that is not a trite issue.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Tell me, when the BA was deployed in the North, were they not welcomed by the Nationalist population?
They were also welcomed by the IRA because the IRA was useless at protecting its own population and people.

of course they were. if you lived like some had to, you;d have welcomed them. The PIRA didnt exist and the IRA in the south had turned to marxism. once though people realised it was the same old same old, and that the british army were going to help the unionists and RUC in beating catholics up, then people turned against them

Its all in these things called 'history books'. You should read a few

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Complete lie.
It's a complex issue for anyone who is interested. Still haven't gotten my head around it all if truth be known, so cannot talk about. Unlike some jumping to the Daily Mail version.

Ah, so my version is a 'lie' but your version is.... still being processed!
SF love money, sure they are the richest party in the country by a country mile.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

But aren't most of the IRA on MI5 pensions already?
Would this payroll come from taxation or the Empire magic money tree? Is NI not part of the UK now?

As NI is still part of the United Kingdom and Westminster still rules supreme, then yes, this money will be coming out of the 'Crown's' pocket.

Its funny, SF Republicans never said no to the Queen's Shilling, sure that may be the reason why many of them turned informer and the rest of them, started laundering diesel.

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

Wait a minute, are you now suggesting that someone needed to protect the Nationalist people in the north, and the IRA welcomed it, because they couldn't do it by themselves?

You are basically justifying the IRAs existence, and recognising that the Nationalist people needed protection.

I feel you might have inadvertently made a rather good point with a rather poor effort to try score a bit of a gloat, but you have my attention now non the less.

Can I ask who they needed protection from Mark, why weren't the police or local government protecting them?

/strokes beard.

Justifying their existence? Nope, the goal of the IRA was to kick the Brits out of Ireland by military and terrorist means. Something they failed to do even to this day, thus their surrender.

They also failed to protect their own people and welcomed the British Army being deployed. Yes, that is true, the IRA at the time welcomed the BA. They won't tell you that little bit at SF school.

Of course, this embarrassed the IRA deeply, so they started taking potshots at them, the BA started searching houses for arms, detaining would-be terrorists etc... the honeymoon didn't last long, because the IRA started a useless war.

It could all have been very different if the IRA worked with the BA in protecting its people, and letting guys like John Hume fight it out on the political side.
But no, some wanted to play soldier.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

As NI is still part of the United Kingdom and Westminster still rules supreme, then yes, this money will be coming out of the 'Crown's' pocket.

Its funny, SF Republicans never said no to the Queen's Shilling, sure that may be the reason why many of them turned informer and the rest of them, started laundering diesel.

So its their own tax monies. Just checking.

Thats the silly argument like any left leaning person should be living under a vow of poverty.
If I were paying tax in the UK or occupied north I wouldn't expect anywhere else to spend its taxes.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Justifying their existence? Nope, the goal of the IRA was to kick the Brits out of Ireland by military and terrorist means. Something they failed to do even to this day, thus their surrender.

They also failed to protect their own people and welcomed the British Army being deployed. Yes, that is true, the IRA at the time welcomed the BA. They won't tell you that little bit at SF school.

Of course, this embarrassed the IRA deeply, so they started taking potshots at them, the BA started searching houses for arms, detaining would-be terrorists etc... the honeymoon didn't last long, because the IRA started a useless war.

It could all have been very different if the IRA worked with the BA in protecting its people, and letting guys like John Hume fight it out on the political side.
But no, some wanted to play soldier.

I asked you to clarify this part yesterday, who were the IRA protecting Nationalists from? I would have thought protection of either Nationalist/Unionist communities would have fallen under the remit of the police or local government at the time?

You can't make a statement like that without clarification tbh.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, so my version is a 'lie' but your version is.... still being processed!
SF love money, sure they are the richest party in the country by a country mile.

Yes it was a trite, sensationalist lie. The redtop version that you guys engage in all over the site.

It is a much more nuanced and complex issue than you commented.

You did what the SF rep did, you had a little intemperate rant.

Edgware

markodaly wrote: »

As NI is still part of the United Kingdom and Westminster still rules supreme, then yes, this money will be coming out of the 'Crown's' pocket.

Its funny, SF Republicans never said no to the Queen's Shilling, sure that may be the reason why many of them turned informer and the rest of them, started laundering diesel.

And some did both

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

and welcomed the British Army being deployed. Yes, that is true, the IRA at the time welcomed the BA. They won't tell you that little bit at SF school.

there was no ira of any strength in 1969 in the north. the brits arrived in august and the pira wasnt formed until december

i believe you are once again talking through your arse

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

As NI is still part of the United Kingdom and Westminster still rules supreme, then yes, this money will be coming out of the 'Crown's' pocket.

Its funny, SF Republicans never said no to the Queen's Shilling, sure that may be the reason why many of them turned informer and the rest of them, started laundering diesel.

take her for every penny if you ask me. back to the brits fighting the brits theory again? You do know how stupid that is?

blanch152

Hubertj wrote: »

I have a question. Is the only reason SF wouldn’t enact this bill because they wanted convicted terrorists to also get a pay out?

Yes is the short answer.

batman75

Always fascinated me why Denis Donaldson was taken out while Stakeknife wasn’t. Stakeknife ‘murder’ might be an admission of British infiltration at the core of the IRA perhaps?

When you consider that their was two attempts to kill Martin McPartland it is strange how Stakeknife is untouchable.

The other strange thing is if someone breaks SF omertà they are ridiculed as ‘unwell’, as in not right in the head, in the care of Brendan Hughes and Dolors Price when they spoke out against Gerry Adams.

maccored

batman75 wrote: »

Always fascinated me why Denis Donaldson was taken out while Stakeknife wasn’t. Stakeknife ‘murder’ might be an admission of British infiltration at the core of the IRA perhaps?

When you consider that their was two attempts to kill Martin McPartland it is strange how Stakeknife is untouchable.

The other strange thing is if someone breaks SF omertà they are ridiculed as ‘unwell’, as in not right in the head, in the care of Brendan Hughes and Dolors Price when they spoke out against Gerry Adams.

MI5 obviously didnt need Donaldson, which was probably why MI5 killed him.

batman75

maccored wrote: »

MI5 obviously didnt need Donaldson, which was probably why MI5 killed him.

That seems very far fetched unless you have information the Gardai don’t

Truthvader

batman75 wrote: »

That seems very far fetched unless you have information the Gardai don’t

Think you will find that when it comes to matters that suit Sinn Fein the mere suggestion of wrongdoing or dishonesty (usually disseminated by themselves) on the part of others is absolutely acceptable as the truth while nothing but absolute proof (which often boils down to Gerry Adams confirming or denying it) will suffice for issues that do not suit them. For example you will notice that they repeatedly make vague allegations of "corruption" against FF/FG or Michael Noonan and others without any shred of evidence but will argue and demand "evidence" to deny a range of ludicrous positions, like Gerry being in the IRA or that they did not rob the Northern Bank etc. Even recently when a jury found Aason Brady guilty of murder several Sinn Fein supporters were on here challenging the verdict. You will find that the truth just means whatever Gerry or Slab say it is from time to time

James Brown

Truthvader wrote: »

Think you will find that when it comes to matters that suit Sinn Fein the mere suggestion of wrongdoing or dishonesty (usually disseminated by themselves) on the part of others is absolutely acceptable as the truth while nothing but absolute proof (which often boils down to Gerry Adams confirming or denying it) will suffice for issues that do not suit them. For example you will notice that they repeatedly make vague allegations of "corruption" against FF/FG or Michael Noonan and others without any shred of evidence but will argue and demand "evidence" to deny a range of ludicrous positions, like Gerry being in the IRA or that they did not rob the Northern Bank etc. Even recently when a jury found Aason Brady guilty of murder several Sinn Fein supporters were on here challenging the verdict. You will find that the truth just means whatever Gerry or Slab say it is from time to time

I assume you're ignoring the contradictory nature of your post here?
Or are we going with the 'sure we all know' school of proof? I think Adams was involved with the IRA but likely not a card carrying member. Not much difference IMO. I've no proof. Be foolish to admit, it being an illegal organisation.
I know Michael Noonan acted inappropriately on the Projecr Eagle/Cerberus deal but even though it was all allegedly above board, we need await the outcome of the outside investigation to get the details.
The times I met with potential contractors I wasn't allowed take a company key ring or mug off them. Numerous meals? certainly not. But I wasnt the Minister of communications.

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

Think you will find that when it comes to matters that suit Sinn Fein the mere suggestion of wrongdoing or dishonesty (usually disseminated by themselves) on the part of others is absolutely acceptable as the truth while nothing but absolute proof (which often boils down to Gerry Adams confirming or denying it) will suffice for issues that do not suit them. For example you will notice that they repeatedly make vague allegations of "corruption" against FF/FG or Michael Noonan and others without any shred of evidence but will argue and demand "evidence" to deny a range of ludicrous positions, like Gerry being in the IRA or that they did not rob the Northern Bank etc. Even recently when a jury found Aason Brady guilty of murder several Sinn Fein supporters were on here challenging the verdict. You will find that the truth just means whatever Gerry or Slab say it is from time to time

Convicting people solely on the basis of allegations is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.
That goes for Shinners, FGers FFers the British or anybody else.

Remove the 'conflict/war' stuff from the equation, the truth of which will never be fully known until all submit to a transparent truth process, and what you are left with is the cut and thrust of fairly ordinary politics.

Unless you are suggesting that political parties put their hands up and admit they are wrong and don't criticise other parties?

Truthvader

Bowie wrote: »

I assume you're ignoring the contradictory nature of your post here?
Or are we going with the 'sure we all know' school of proof? I think Adams was involved with the IRA but likely not a card carrying member. Not much difference IMO. I've no proof. Be foolish to admit, it being an illegal organisation.
I know Michael Noonan acted inappropriately on the Projecr Eagle/Cerberus deal but even though it was all allegedly above board, we need await the outcome of the outside investigation to get the details.
The times I met with potential contractors I wasn't allowed take a company key ring or mug off them. Numerous meals? certainly not. But I wasnt the Minister of communications.

"I know Michael Noonan acted inappropriately"........."we need to await the outcome of the outside investigation". Lets just run with the latter without the constant smearing

Do not believe for second that Noonan did anything dishonest - but lets wait and see.

As to Gerry Adams really don't have the energy to consider whether he was on their register of members filed in the Company's Office or not. Agree not much or any difference. If Gerry wanted you dead you were found on the side of the road the next day

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it was a trite, sensationalist lie. The redtop version that you guys engage in all over the site.

It is a much more nuanced and complex issue than you commented.

You did what the SF rep did, you had a little intemperate rant.

Ah the 'it's complicated line' when it suits.

The mask slipped two days ago when an elected SF MLA equated victims of the troubles to be collaborators. Now, is there a more nuanced version of that tweet I have yet to grasp?

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

there was no ira of any strength in 1969 in the north. the brits arrived in august and the pira wasnt formed until december

i believe you are once again talking through your arse

What we do know is that the Nationalist population welcomed the British Army.
It is a pity the PIRA started taking potshots at them though, that was the start of the slippy slope to war. If only they held back and let John Hume and the SDLP work the politics.

mynamejeff

maccored wrote: »

take her for every penny if you ask me. back to the brits fighting the brits theory again? You do know how stupid that is?

greed and a holiday home in Donegal and another one in Bulgaria supersedes politics it seems

although only a drop in the ocean of the wealth for the working class people party right ?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

What we do know is that the Nationalist population welcomed the British Army.
It is a pity the PIRA started taking potshots at them though, that was the start of the slippy slope to war. If only they held back and let John Hume and the SDLP work the politics.

Within days of arriving they were at the behest of the RUC raiding catholic houses and intimidating.
Eamonn McCann and Hume fearex them leaving only because of the threat from the RUC and Stormont.
Your grasp of the factual history is watery to say the least.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

I assume you're ignoring the contradictory nature of your post here?
Or are we going with the 'sure we all know' school of proof? I think Adams was involved with the IRA but likely not a card carrying member. Not much difference IMO. I've no proof. Be foolish to admit, it being an illegal organisation.
I know Michael Noonan acted inappropriately on the Projecr Eagle/Cerberus deal but even though it was all allegedly above board, we need await the outcome of the outside investigation to get the details.
The times I met with potential contractors I wasn't allowed take a company key ring or mug off them. Numerous meals? certainly not. But I wasnt the Minister of communications.

I have highlighted two phrases in bold which amply demonstrate the constant bias shown in every single one of your posts on these subjects. The way they closely follow one another in the same post is the crucial point.

You only think Adams was "involved" with the IRA, but you know Michael Noonan acted inappropriately.

To be fair to you, you may not be self-aware enough to recognise your unconscious biases and may believe that you are an independent thinker, but the language doesn't lie.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Within days of arriving they were at the behest of the RUC raiding catholic houses and intimidating.
Eamonn McCann and Hume fearex them leaving only because of the threat from the RUC and Stormont.
Your grasp of the factual history is watery to say the least.

Oh, you mean I need to grasp a more nuanced version of the Tweet by Martina Anderson? Please do tell.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, you mean I need to grasp a more nuanced version of the Tweet by Martina Anderson? Please do tell.

Ah, what a novel debating tactic when called out on nonsense...deflect.