The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

dundalkfc10

Before 12 I'd just like to say a happy birthday to Gerry Adams, a Leader and Hero to millions over the years.

markodaly

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Before 12 I'd just like to say a happy birthday to Gerry Adams, a Leader and Hero to millions over the years.

Yes, happy birthday to the protector of child abusers and pedophiles of NI.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Hey Francie,

Can you answer these questions for me?





Why are you ignoring these pertinent questions? The invasion of the north by the Irish Army was your idea after all.

Not interested Mark as long as you insist on the misrepresentation. You could have a stab at those answers yourself if you researched a bit.

blanch152

Nobotty wrote: »

I'll just leave this here

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/army-made-northern-ireland-invasion-plans-in-1980s-1.2937732

Thanks for that, interesting that as far back as the 1980s, the Irish government considered an independent Northern Ireland as a real possibility.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not interested Mark as long as you insist on the misrepresentation. You could have a stab at those answers yourself if you researched a bit.

Then this is your chance to 'correct the record' so the speak.

These are fairly straight forward questions, after all it was you that brought up the possibility that the Irish Army take over parts of NI to protect Nationalists?

How long would this deployment last?
Would it be under the consent or guidance from the UN?
If not would it be unilateral?
What if the British said no? Go in anyway?
What casualties would be accepted as part of the deployment?
How would the Irish state manage the obvious and rampant Unionist response?

dundalkfc10

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, happy birthday to the protector of child abusers and pedophiles of NI.

Has Gerry been charged and convicted of these crimes?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Then this is your chance to 'correct the record' so the speak.

These are fairly straight forward questions, after all it was you that brought up the possibility that the Irish Army take over parts of NI to protect Nationalists?

How long would this deployment last?
Would it be under the consent or guidance from the UN?
If not would it be unilateral?
What if the British said no? Go in anyway?
What casualties would be accepted as part of the deployment?
How would the Irish state manage the obvious and rampant Unionist response?

I didn't say anything about a 'take over or and invasion'.

You are lying now, you have been corrected on this so many times.

We get it, you would have remained a subject and oppressed had others not come along and changed that. It's called a 'colonial mindset' it can skip generations.

markodaly

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Has Gerry been charged and convicted of these crimes?

He was aware of his brother's crimes and didn't report them to the police.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-24373055

He also presided over a kangaroo court in relation to IRA abusers.
The Maria Cahill incident being the most known of these.

The facts are clear, he harboured and protected child abusers and pedophiles.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say anything about a 'take over or and invasion'.

You don't have to. If a foreign military force enters another country, without the consent of said country, that is an invasion.


From Oxford.

INVASION:

an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain

We get it, you would have remained a subject and oppressed had others not come along and changed that. It's called a 'colonial mindset' it can skip generations.

No, I want you to answer these simple questions of your master plan to use the Irish Army to protect nationalists.
Instead like, the IRA of old, you are running away.

Simple questions Francie.

How long would this deployment last?
Would it be under the consent or guidance from the UN?
If not would it be unilateral?
What if the British said no? Go in anyway?
What casualties would be accepted as part of the deployment?
How would the Irish state manage the obvious and rampant Unionist response?

dundalkfc10

markodaly wrote: »

He was aware of his brother's crimes and didn't report them to the police.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-24373055

He also presided over a kangaroo court in relation to IRA abusers.
The Maria Cahill incident being the most known of these.

The facts are clear, he harboured and protected child abusers and pedophiles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, in Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, you are only Guilty of a charge if convicted in a court of law.

Has things changed?

If they havnt the answer to my question was No

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

You don't have to. If a foreign military force enters another country, without the consent of said country, that is an invasion.


From Oxford.

INVASION:





No, I want you to answer these simple questions of your master plan to use the Irish Army to protect nationalists.
Instead like, the IRA of old, you are running away.

Simple questions Francie.

How long would this deployment last?
Would it be under the consent or guidance from the UN?
If not would it be unilateral?
What if the British said no? Go in anyway?
What casualties would be accepted as part of the deployment?
How would the Irish state manage the obvious and rampant Unionist response?

It is not an 'invasion' if you clearly signal it as a peacekeeping mission.

Think of the headlines after the world had seen the British security forces in a sectarian bigoted state opening fire on a peacekeeping force from a smaller military weaker country. That was why Wilson did not want a spat with the Irish. Context is everything here.


How long would this deployment last? Unquantifiable and as it would be designed to bring pressure to bear on the British may not have been necessary at all if diplomatic channels worked.(which most certainly would have opened up). The purpose was relief for Nationalist communities not a land grab or invasion.

Would it be under the consent or guidance from the UN? Unlikely due to Britain's standing at that time.
If not would it be unilateral? No
What if the British said no? Go in anyway? Yes, no point saying it if you aren't prepared to do it
What casualties would be accepted as part of the deployment? Yes, that would have to have been considered as it would be in any peacekeeping deployment
How would the Irish state manage the obvious and rampant Unionist response? Protect themselves if necessary but don't attack.


In essence, a move that would show that if Britain would not intervene and establish a proper democracy as the GFA did, then we would not stand by.

markodaly

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, in Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, you are only Guilty of a charge if convicted in a court of law.

Has things changed?

If they havnt the answer to my question was No

What about in the Kangero courts of SF/IRA?

A former IRA member and senior Sinn Fein TD admitted the republican movement held kangaroo courts to investigate allegations of serious criminal behaviour within the organisation.

And Dublin TD Dessie Ellis also admitted IRA volunteers were not equipped to deal with allegations of sexual assault or rape such as those made by Mairia Cahill. “If an allegation was made against a volunteer it would have to be investigated,” he said. “I don’t want to comment on specific cases but it would have happened.

“To be honest they were not qualified to deal with something like sexual abuse,” he added. Mr Ellis’s comments follows widespread calls for the Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams to address fresh claims that the IRA and Sinn Fein covered up sex abuse allegations made against their members.

Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin said Mr Ellis’s comments were a “startling revelation” and it was “benign” to say IRA members did not have the skills to deal with abuse claims.

“That’s what the Catholic Church and other institutions were been accused of for years – not reporting things to the police,” Mr Martin said.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sinn-fein-td-ira-did-hold-kangaroo-courts-30673567.html

Where are the transcripts of these court cases?

dundalkfc10

markodaly wrote: »

What about in the Kangero courts of SF/IRA?



https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sinn-fein-td-ira-did-hold-kangaroo-courts-30673567.html

Where are the transcripts of these court cases?

My question was, is Gerry Adams convicted of any of these offences you claimed he done?

The asw is No, a simple 2 letter word answer was only required

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is not an 'invasion' if you clearly signal it as a peacekeeping mission.

How would they do that? Send smoke signals?
What if the British said, "Cross the border, we start shooting". Still go in?

The unionists would certainly see it as an invasion as would the larger British public opinion. Does that matter at all to you?

Think of the headlines after the world had seen the British security forces in a sectarian bigoted state opening fire on a peacekeeping force from a smaller military weaker country.

I see the headlines differently as a country, invading a permanent member of the UN security council against international law and being given a hiding
You simply do not live in reality if you think the British would have just stood aside.

Q:How long would this deployment last?

A:Unquantifiable

So, an open ended foreign engagement. Hmmm, that always goes to plan, right? :D

Q: Would it be under the consent or guidance from the UN?

A:Unlikely due to Britain's standing at that time.

So not under the UN flag, right so there goes the peacekeeping idea.

Q:If not would it be unilateral?

A:No

But you already dismissed the idea of the UN helping out.
So whose soldiers would be coming along for the ride? What NGO or agency? NATO? :pac:
What country would be siding with us on this great idea?

Q:What if the British said no? Go in anyway?

A:Yes, no point saying it if you aren't prepared to do it

LOL, just LOL.
So, let me guess this straight.
We signal our intent to cross the border with a military force to take over parts of NI as a 'peacekeeping' force.
The British say, get the **** out of it and send in their own troops and set up their defences to make sure.
We then just go, **** it, lets go for it regardless, cant appear to be weak, while a much bigger, better trained and equipped force is just waiting down the road to shot at us..... oh and they have helicopters while we are at it...

Just LOL.
You clearly have not thought this through at all.
Call of Duty is probably the extent of your military thinking.

Q:What casualties would be accepted as part of the deployment?

A:Yes, that would have to have been considered as it would be in any peacekeeping deployment

Well, the British lost well over 1,000 personal during the conflict. One would have to expect at least the same for Irish defence forces personnel given they would be up against, the British Army, the UDR and Loyalists.
But feck it, sure its other people dying, not you.

Q:How would the Irish state manage the obvious and rampant Unionist response?

A:Protect themselves if necessary but don't attack.

So, they would end up like sitting ducks, kinda like how the British Army was at the beginning?

What if the loyalists in these places the Irish army controlled had arms dumps or weapons caches or if they were planning an attack. Sit by till fired upon?

This is exactly how the situation escalated with the British Army. The PIRA, embarrassed that the BA had to save the Nationalist bacon started taking potshots at them, where the BA responded to raiding nationalists areas in search of weapons and ammo. It didn't go well.

Even after 30 years of the conflict, and the lessons of hindsight, we have you, an arm chair major-general advocating that Ireland repeat the same mistakes of yester year.

Again, its unhinged lunatic wishful thinking.

Remember the time you wished the British government would have asked the Ulster Volunteers nicely to stand down, thus we could have avoided partition? Or invade? ROFL!! :D:D:D

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

How would they do that? Send smoke signals?
What if the British said, "Cross the border, we start shooting". Still go in?

The unionists would certainly see it as an invasion as would the larger British public opinion. Does that matter at all to you?



I see the headlines differently as a country, invading a permanent member of the UN security council against international law and being given a hiding
You simply do not live in reality if you think the British would have just stood aside.




So, an open ended foreign engagement. Hmmm, that always goes to plan, right? :D



So not under the UN flag, right so there goes the peacekeeping idea.



But you already dismissed the idea of the UN helping out.
So whose soldiers would be coming along for the ride? What NGO or agency? NATO? :pac:
What country would be siding with us on this great idea?



LOL, just LOL.
So, let me guess this straight.
We signal our intent to cross the border with a military force to take over parts of NI as a 'peacekeeping' force.
The British say, get the **** out of it and send in their own troops and set up their defences to make sure.
We then just go, **** it, lets go for it regardless, cant appear to be weak, while a much bigger, better trained and equipped force is just waiting down the road to shot at us..... oh and they have helicopters while we are at it...

Just LOL.
You clearly have not thought this through at all.
Call of Duty is probably the extent of your military thinking.



Well, the British lost well over 1,000 personal during the conflict. One would have to expect at least the same for Irish defence forces personnel given they would be up against, the British Army, the UDR and Loyalists.
But feck it, sure its other people dying, not you.



So, they would end up like sitting ducks, kinda like how the British Army was at the beginning?

What if the loyalists in these places the Irish army controlled had arms dumps or weapons caches or if they were planning an attack. Sit by till fired upon?

This is exactly how the situation escalated with the British Army. The PIRA, embarrassed that the BA had to save the Nationalist bacon started taking potshots at them, where the BA responded to raiding nationalists areas in search of weapons and ammo. It didn't go well.

Even after 30 years of the conflict, and the lessons of hindsight, we have you, an arm chair major-general advocating that Ireland repeat the same mistakes of yester year.

Again, its unhinged lunatic wishful thinking.

Remember the time you wished the British government would have asked the Ulster Volunteers nicely to stand down, thus we could have avoided partition? Or invade? ROFL!! :D:D:D

Lies and misrepresentation. Mixed with the cringeworthy awestruck deference and hat doffing of the partitionist.

I have never characterised this as a 'take over' or 'invasion' but a measure to protect people whom the entire world could see (even Wilson and Callaghan could see ffs) NEEDED immediate protection.

We DID NOTHING about this, to our lasting shame.

I also never said anything about 'asking Ulster Lyalists 'nicely' to stand down, I proposed that the British should have treated that move as the sedition and attack on democracy that it was. Hint: see how they treated Irish people who attempted similar. We had to wait for over 3000 people to die for the British to govern with anything remotely resembling an even hand.

Of course what we miss here is evenhanded criticism of that from our hat doffing forgiving partitionists.

Take your lies and misrepresentation somewhere else.

Hamsterchops

RTE made a docu-drama type thingy a few years ago about what might have happened if the Irish army had crossed the border during the Troubles. The gist of the programme was that it was all over in about three days, such was the firepower turned on an army that dared to try and invade part of UK.

Can't remember what it was called.

blanch152

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, in Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, you are only Guilty of a charge if convicted in a court of law.

Has things changed?

If they havnt the answer to my question was No

No, that is not true, see the Omagh bombers for an example.

They were acquitted in court due to insufficient evidence but there was sufficient evidence to ensure that they were deemed liable by a civil court.

That is why Gerry Adams has never sued any publication in relation to membership of the IRA, harbouring child abusers, organising kangaroo courts etc., because he knows he would lose.

dundalkfc10

blanch152 wrote: »

No, that is not true, see the Omagh bombers for an example.

They were acquitted in court due to insufficient evidence but there was sufficient evidence to ensure that they were deemed liable by a civil court.

That is why Gerry Adams has never sued any publication in relation to membership of the IRA, harbouring child abusers, organising kangaroo courts etc., because he knows he would lose.

So you are aware what Gerry Adams is thinking? That's some mind you have

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lies and misrepresentation. Mixed with the cringeworthy awestruck deference and hat doffing of the partitionist.

I have never characterised this as a 'take over' or 'invasion' but a measure to protect people whom the entire world could see (even Wilson and Callaghan could see ffs) NEEDED immediate protection.

We DID NOTHING about this, to our lasting shame.

I also never said anything about 'asking Ulster Lyalists 'nicely' to stand down, I proposed that the British should have treated that move as the sedition and attack on democracy that it was. Hint: see how they treated Irish people who attempted similar. We had to wait for over 3000 people to die for the British to govern with anything remotely resembling an even hand.

Of course what we miss here is evenhanded criticism of that from our hat doffing forgiving partitionists.

Take your lies and misrepresentation somewhere else.

You are correct in one aspect - you have never characterised it as an invasion.

However, to the rest of us, if it walks like a duck...........

So it is up to you to explain credibly how it is not a duck. From our perspective it looks very much like Daffy Duck.

Edgware

Hamsterchops wrote: »

RTE made a docu-drama type thingy a few years ago about what might have happened if the Irish army had crossed the border during the Troubles. The gist of the programme was that it was all over in about three days, such was the firepower turned on an army that dared to try and invade part of UK.

Can't remember what it was called.

"If Lynch had invaded"

General idea was that we would have done well to hold Newry for 24 hours.

Truthvader

Edgware wrote: »

"If Lynch had invaded"

General idea was that we would have done well to hold Newry for 24 hours.

Can we just forget this stupidity? The Sinn Fein "history" is (like their economic policy) steeped in unreality. Plus by reading the posts here you can see the festering bitterness and rage that informs their attitudes. Even the ones trained up in GerryAdamsspeak sagely pronouncing such equivocations as "it was all wrong" and "they had no choice" cannot stop the real agenda oozing out every time

Happy birthday to Gerry indeed. My thoughts are with the families of those who can never enjoy their loved ones birthdays again thanks to Gerry Adams

maccored

you seem to love talking about him mind you

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

"If Lynch had invaded"

General idea was that we would have done well to hold Newry for 24 hours.

The programme was made from a partitionist, deferential point of view and never considered the mood in Westminster to be anything other than the bulldog Churchillian one. That's a Tory thing and they wouldn't be opening fire on the streets of Ireland until 1972.

Fianna Fail under Lynch marching the troops up and then back again was stupid because they never had any intention of 'invading' really.
A flagged peacekeeping protection mission into Derry would have sent the correct message and would have filled the vacuum the IRA was always going to fill if Dublin was cowardly.
If DUblin allow another vacuum in the event of Brexit, that one will be filled too and there are those willing to fill it.

Partition folks...it will nver allow this island to exist in peace and stability - 100 years of factual evidence of that if you take the blinkers off.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The programme was made from a partitionist, deferential point of view and never considered the mood in Westminster to be anything other than the bulldog Churchillian one. That's a Tory thing and they wouldn't be opening fire on the streets of Ireland until 1972.

Fianna Fail under Lynch marching the troops up and then back again was stupid because they never had any intention of 'invading' really.
A flagged peacekeeping protection mission into Derry would have sent the correct message and would have filled the vacuum the IRA was always going to fill if Dublin was cowardly.
If DUblin allow another vacuum in the event of Brexit, that one will be filled too and there are those willing to fill it.

Partition folks...it will nver allow this island to exist in peace and stability - 100 years of factual evidence of that if you take the blinkers off.

Mad

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The programme was made from a partitionist, deferential point of view and never considered the mood in Westminster to be anything other than the bulldog Churchillian one. That's a Tory thing and they wouldn't be opening fire on the streets of Ireland until 1972.

Fianna Fail under Lynch marching the troops up and then back again was stupid because they never had any intention of 'invading' really.
A flagged peacekeeping protection mission into Derry would have sent the correct message and would have filled the vacuum the IRA was always going to fill if Dublin was cowardly.
If DUblin allow another vacuum in the event of Brexit, that one will be filled too and there are those willing to fill it.

Partition folks...it will nver allow this island to exist in peace and stability - 100 years of factual evidence of that if you take the blinkers off.

Bizarre post.

It reminds me of a teengager playing FIFA or Football Manager who wonders why Hartlepool can't win the Premier League in real life just by buying Messi and Ronaldo.

It is so far removed from the reality of that time. Two words - Cold War. For the UK, this wouldn't be about the threat from the South, it would be about the message being sent to the Soviets and the possible reaction to any invasion. The Irish Army would have been crushed as a lesson to others. We would have lost territory, seen a proper newly-drawn fortified border put in place.

The sentiments in the post are also redolent of a mindset that sees violence as the answer to problems. That is the mindset that has caused the problems on these islands.

grayzer75

blanch152 wrote: »

Bizarre post.

It reminds me of a teengager playing FIFA or Football Manager who wonders why Hartlepool can't win the Premier League in real life just by buying Messi and Ronaldo.

It is so far removed from the reality of that time. Two words - Cold War. For the UK, this wouldn't be about the threat from the South, it would be about the message being sent to the Soviets and the possible reaction to any invasion. The Irish Army would have been crushed as a lesson to others. We would have lost territory, seen a proper newly-drawn fortified border put in place.

The sentiments in the post are also redolent of a mindset that sees violence as the answer to problems. That is the mindset that has caused the problems on these islands.

LOL

Truthvader

blanch152 wrote: »

Bizarre post.

It reminds me of a teengager playing FIFA or Football Manager who wonders why Hartlepool can't win the Premier League in real life just by buying Messi and Ronaldo.

It is so far removed from the reality of that time. Two words - Cold War. For the UK, this wouldn't be about the threat from the South, it would be about the message being sent to the Soviets and the possible reaction to any invasion. The Irish Army would have been crushed as a lesson to others. We would have lost territory, seen a proper newly-drawn fortified border put in place.

The sentiments in the post are also redolent of a mindset that sees violence as the answer to problems. That is the mindset that has caused the problems on these islands.

Agree, lost complete control. Even includes the threat that they will be back killing if Brexit doesn't go in some unspecified way that suits them. Found out again

maccored

Truthvader wrote: »

Agree, lost complete control. Even includes the threat that they will be back killing if Brexit doesn't go in some unspecified way that suits them. Found out again

what sensationalist rubbish

BTW, if you think introducing the border because of a Brexit failure wont cause trouble then you are deluded

grayzer75

maccored wrote: »

what sensationalist rubbish

BTW, if you think introducing the border because of a Brexit failure wont cause trouble then you are deluded

They haven't gone away ye know

maccored

grayzer75 wrote: »

They haven't gone away ye know

the traditional 'they' have - it'll be a whole new generation of 'they'