Northern Bank Robbery

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Cork

The Sinn Fein leader insisted he did not believe the IRA was involved in criminality, although acknowledging some republicans had ``fallen by the wayside.``

This is typical Adams speak. Drawing lines between crimimality and fallen by the wayside.

Nationalist SDLP Policing Board member Alex Attwood said Mr Adams` comment that some republicans have fallen by the wayside was a piece of damage limitation.

The West Belfast MLA said: ``These comments from the Sinn Fein president are damage limitation, as it is increasingly recognised that the IRA is deeply involved in criminal enterprises, as recently outlined by the severe content of the IMC report.

``The statement also reveals the classic Sinn Fein response when the spotlight is on IRA activities: their people deny they were ever in the IRA, then they deny or diminish their contribution to conflict, which saw more than 2,000 people killed by republican organisations.

``Now, typically, Sinn Fein are trying to remain in denial about the range and depth of IRA criminal activity. The truth will out and Sinn Fein are attempting to get their defence in first.``

Nationalist SDLP Policing Board member Alex Attwood said Mr Adams` comment that some republicans have fallen by the wayside was a piece of damage limitation.

The West Belfast MLA said: ``These comments from the Sinn Fein president are damage limitation, as it is increasingly recognised that the IRA is deeply involved in criminal enterprises, as recently outlined by the severe content of the IMC report.

``The statement also reveals the classic Sinn Fein response when the spotlight is on IRA activities: their people deny they were ever in the IRA, then they deny or diminish their contribution to conflict, which saw more than 2,000 people killed by republican organisations.

``Now, typically, Sinn Fein are trying to remain in denial about the range and depth of IRA criminal activity. The truth will out and Sinn Fein are attempting to get their defence in first.`.

.

Link


The distinction between avoidence and evasion is clear. But crimimality and fallen by the wayside is absurd.

A Dub in Glasgo

smiaras wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Nothing nitty gritty about it. I mean exactly what it says on the tin. Person, irrespective of politics, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, class status or wealth. It appears 'true' would only have it a crime if it was an Irish Nationalist doing it!

FTA69

true wrote:

We know at least three IRA shipments got through. Where are the other two shipments ?

Another Omagh could be comitted by person / people who had / have access to IRA arms dumps.

Some of the IRA guns are very powerful eg capable of taking down helicoptors one mile away. Sometimes the IRA argues it needs to retain some guns for defence of catholic areas ( their words and argument, not mine ) : surely it does not need 1000 AK47's , high powered sniper rifles , semtex etc ?

Again your startling lack of knowledge on the subject shines through, we know that it is alleged that TWO definitive shipments came through in the 1980s, these were the Kula and Villa boats. Both contained semtex but even the brits, media and Ghadaffi state the total amount imported is far less than "20 tons" which is an absolutely ludicrous figure. The "third" shipment which you mention occured in 1973 with the Claudia except that was seized by the Free State authorities so any equipment on board then thus becomes a non issue. The same goes for the Eksund which was seized by the French.

Regards defence, the IRA never stated it needs guns for defence of Nationalists at all so I don't know where you are getting that out of. Besides, my point about the concept of defence still stands, if a brit helicopter is ferrying troops into a Nationalist area then a DSHK .50 can very much be employed for defensive reasons.

true

FTA69 wrote:

Again your startling lack of knowledge on the subject shines through, we know that it is alleged that TWO definitive shipments came through in the 1980s.
Regards defence, the IRA never stated it needs guns for defence of Nationalists at all so I don't know where you are getting that out of. Besides, my point about the concept of defence still stands, if a brit helicopter is ferrying troops into a Nationalist area then a DSHK .50 can very much be employed for defensive reasons.

No, it was widely reported three ship loads got through from Libya that we know of : it was the fouth one that was caught.

I often heard Sinn Fein making the excuse that the reason they need to retain some guns is because they do not want their areas to remain defenceless? I would have thought the PSNI and army is now more than enough to keep the two tribes apart.

So you justify hanging on to machine guns that can shoot down helicopters over a mile away? Why would you want to shoot down a helicopter? Just because it goes in to a Nationalist area? What about the bullets that miss the helicopter : they have to land some place - if they land in a school playground I suppose thats OK ?

FTA69

The total is alledged to have been 150 tons with another 150 tons being seized on the Eksund.

Sinn Féin have never stated that guns will be retained for defence considering the arms issue is not their decision to make, where are you getting this out of? They might have outlined an IRA position on something but I doubt they even did that regarding the arms issue. Have you any links?

You seem to be forgetting that Sinn Féin is not an armed organisation.

Your talk about "tribes" is simply disingenious, this is not a conflict which resulted from "mad paddies" fighting etc, it is as a result of partition and the political scenario that resulted from it. As bad as the UVF and UDA are, they do not have massive military fortifications in South Armagh, Tyrone and West Belfast, they do not conduct blanket raids on the Bogside. The British Army and their cohorts in the police are of more danger to Republicans than the Loyalist death squads. I believe the above answers your question about why one would wish to down a brit helicopter, eg they have no right to be here at all.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

if a brit helicopter is ferrying troops into a Nationalist area then a DSHK .50 can very much be employed for defensive reasons.

FTA69 wrote:

The British Army and their cohorts in the police are of more danger to Republicans than the Loyalist death squads. I believe the above answers your question about why one would wish to down a brit helicopter, eg they have no right to be here at all.

If the army of the United Kingdom don't have a right to be in the United Kingdom, where do they have a right to be? The "Nationalist areas" you talk about are part of the territory of the UK, and as such the army have every right to be there.

true

[B]

FTA69 wrote:

Your talk about "tribes" is simply disingenious, this is not a conflict which resulted from "mad paddies" fighting etc, it is as a result of partition and the political scenario that resulted from it. As bad as the UVF and UDA are, they do not have massive military fortifications in South Armagh, Tyrone and West Belfast, they do not conduct blanket raids on the Bogside. The British Army and their cohorts in the police are of more danger to Republicans than the Loyalist death squads. I believe the above answers your question about why one would wish to down a brit helicopter, eg they have no right to be here at all.

[/B]


Ah, so the truth is coming out, according to FTA69 in "Free Waterford".
Not only "have they not gone away you know" ( the provos ) , but the conflict is not over , no weapons , even very heavy calibre weapons are going to be destroyed or decommissioned as " the British army and their cohorts in the police are of more danger to Republicans than the Loyalist death squads ". The British army helicopters ( and presumably all British Army vehicles and personnell ) have no right to be here at all, says FTA69, even though they are the legitimate army of the government there. Now we know why the IRA will not show proof of any weapons being decommissioned.
They will be needed for a new offensive against the northern security forces.

How reliable is this information you have FTA69?

cdebru

true wrote:

[B][/B]


Ah, so the truth is coming out, according to FTA69 in "Free Waterford".
Not only "have they not gone away you know" ( the provos ) , but the conflict is not over , no weapons , even very heavy calibre weapons are going to be destroyed or decommissioned as " the British army and their cohorts in the police are of more danger to Republicans than the Loyalist death squads ". The British army helicopters ( and presumably all British Army vehicles and personnell ) have no right to be here at all, says FTA69, even though they are the legitimate army of the government there. Now we know why the IRA will not show proof of any weapons being decommissioned.
They will be needed for a new offensive against the northern security forces.

How reliable is this information you have FTA69?

why can you not have a discussion about anything without bringing up the IRA, decomissioning,libyan weapons, Sinn Fein,blah blah blah
It is getting so tedious and boring beyond belief
if you want to discuss those issues start a thread about them why invade every other thread on the politics forum with the same bull**** day after day

no matter what the subject one of these gob****es is bound to post what about the IRA what about the guns
can I just say fcuk off dicuss it in a relevant thread
I was quite enjoying a discussion on the morality or otherwise of bank robbery
any chance of getting back to it

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

I was quite enjoying a discussion on the morality or otherwise of bank robbery
any chance of getting back to it

Yes. Bank robbery is illegal, immoral and wrong. Whether you subscribe to "thou shalt not steal" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "an ye harm none, do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" - all valid codes of morality decry theft and violence.

true

cdebru wrote:

I was quite enjoying a discussion on the morality or otherwise of bank robbery
any chance of getting back to it

The interesting thing to come out of all this is that the people who have the biggest difficulty accepting bank robbery as immoral are also those who have the biggest difficulty accepting the IRA as immoral. The morality or otherwise of bank robbery should be clear to even the stupidest.

FTA69

true wrote:

Ah, so the truth is coming out, according to FTA69 in "Free Waterford".
Not only "have they not gone away you know" ( the provos ) , but the conflict is not over , no weapons , even very heavy calibre weapons are going to be destroyed or decommissioned as " the British army and their cohorts in the police are of more danger to Republicans than the Loyalist death squads ". The British army helicopters ( and presumably all British Army vehicles and personnell ) have no right to be here at all, says FTA69, even though they are the legitimate army of the government there. Now we know why the IRA will not show proof of any weapons being decommissioned.
They will be needed for a new offensive against the northern security forces.

How reliable is this information you have FTA69?

I was in two minds about whether to respond to this post considering it is not my problem if you are unable to make a point without misrepresenting my opinion and skewing logic completely.

I never said that arms were not going to be put beyond use, they ahve three times already (so much for your "no weapons") and would have ALL been put beyond use if other parties had actually wanted to deal with the issue. Because despite your rants true, the IRA are not afraid to face up to the arms issue whatsoever. I simply outlined the reason why someone would take military action against the British Army, and then went on to outline the cause of the conflict. However, this is irrelevant really considering the IRA has been on cessation for the past 7 years.

As for the British Army, they have no right to be here and neither does the rest of the British occupational machine. Ireland was considered a part of the United Kingdom back in the 20s, did the Black and Tans "have a right to be here" as well? Ireland is one and indivisible.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

true

FTA69 wrote:

I never said that arms were not going to be put beyond use, they ahve three times already .

The same arms ? What about these heavy duty machine guns on tripods ?


Quote Would have ALL been put beyond use if other parties had actually wanted to deal with the issue.

All other parties on the island of Ireland, in the UK and US do actually want to deal with the issue. They all want photos of the decommissioning, except for Sinn Fein / IRA.

Quote I simply outlined the reason why someone would take military action against the British Army, and then went on to outline the cause of the ct.

No you did'nt, FTA69, you simply outlined the reason why the heavy machine guns are not being decommissioned. The past cause of the conflict cannot be used to justify renewed attacks on the Northern security forces in the future.


As for the British Army, they have no right to be here and neither does the rest of the British occupational machine.

Someone else has already answered this. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and will remain so until a majority of people there do not want it to be so. The British army , which is answerable to the elected government , has every right to be there.

FTA69

I never once said that weapons were being retained for future use, ever, my comment about machine-guns was to do with your assertion that there was such thing as a "defensive" weapons, my analogy regarding choppers was to demonstrate how that perception was relative. It had absolutely no bearing the issue of putting arms beyond use.

Nobody knows what exactly has been decommisioned but De Chastelin himself said that explosives, and "weapons of a light, medium and heavy ordnance have been put beyond use", so we aren't talking about catapults here. The past three actions simply disprove your point that they aren't prepared to put anything beyond use. The type and quantity becomes irrelevant considering they were prepared to put EVERYTHING beyond use at one stage, and they inevitably will.

This issue of photos was only thrown up as a sticking point by the DUP and unfortunately the brits and Free State fell in behind him. Despite what you assert, the fact does not change that the GFA stated that photos were unnecessary, and that was the document ratified by all. It isn't as if the IRA are being unreasonable, they already had agreed to clergy witnesses when they were well within their rights not to.

The British were not "democratically elected" into Ireland, they invaded this place and then forcibly retained a part of northern Ireland under their jurisdiction. Maybe you should analyse the foundation and progression of the Six County state before labelling it democratic.

monument

true wrote:

Someone else has already answered this. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and will remain so until a majority of people there do not want it to be so. The British army , which is answerable to the elected government , has every right to be there.

Which elected government? The one sitting in London?

So, it's an army controlled by a government sitting in another country… I'm still wondering what their problem is, hmm… what could it be. Oh, they just complain about anything.

true

monument wrote:

Which elected government? The one sitting in London?

The government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is based in London. However, as you know, much of the administration for Northern Ireland is done in Northern Ireland, and N. I. benefits substantially from the UK exchequer. The majority of the people in N. Ireland wish to remain in the UK , and have voted accordingly. These are the facts.

Other jurisdictions sometimes comprise of a few islands : look at Japan, or New Zealand. It would be worse to force 1.1 million people in to a jurisdiction they did not want. Many of us here in the 26 counties do not want the North forced on us either.

billy the squid

monument wrote:

Which elected government? The one sitting in London?

So, it's an army controlled by a government sitting in another country… I'm still wondering what their problem is, hmm… what could it be. Oh, they just complain about anything.

the majority of that area of ireland wish to remain part of the UK so technically it is not "another country" but it is "the same country" that being the United Kingdom of great britain and Northern Ireland"

billy the squid

The British were not "democratically elected" into Ireland, they invaded this place and then forcibly retained a part of northern Ireland under their jurisdiction. Maybe you should analyse the foundation and progression of the Six County state before labelling it democratic.

actually northern Ireland came about through a treaty to end the war of independence. it was put to a dail vote and was ratified.

the majority at the time spoke, tough **** if you dont like it, thats democracy, if you dont like it move to china.

would a united ireland as part of the brittish commonwealth be more to your liking. because that is what would have happened had the treaty been rejected. and collins knew that when he decided to support the treaty. Da Valera knew it too, that is why he didn't go to london himself when the day of reckoning finally came.

monument

true wrote:

The government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is based in London.

However, as you know, much of the administration for Northern Ireland is done in Northern Ireland, …

Yes, but elected representatives at local level have some power in Scotland, and to a lesser extent in Wales.

At the moment NI is more of a bureaucracy, then a democracy. Democracy only from a far. (Central government here in the south likes that line of thinking that’s why they’ve being taking the power away from local elected representatives, and into the hands of bureaucrats – but that another thread)

true wrote:

and N. I. benefits substantially from the UK exchequer.

You wouldn’t by any chance have the figures of what comes in and out, would you?

billy the squid wrote:

actually northern Ireland came about through a treaty to end the war of independence. it was put to a dail vote and was ratified.

the majority at the time spoke, tough **** if you dont like it, thats democracy, if you dont like it move to china.

The old "that’s democracy", crock of ****e. Not that it was hugely democratic to start from; the modern State, under the current government has taken powers away from local government. Not exactly a government of the people for the people, so spear me, please.

billy the squid wrote:

the majority of that area of ireland wish to remain part of the UK so technically it is not "another country" but it is "the same country" that being the United Kingdom of great britain and Northern Ireland"

:rolleyes:

Sorry, but there is more then one meaning to 'country' then 'nation state'. You did know that, right?

[Anyway, apologies for my part in bring this thread way off topic]

true

There are still fair elections in N. Ireland. It wants to remain part of the UK, so it is.
N. Ireland has elected representatives. That is democracy. Unlike many countries around the world, there is freedom of speech, and equal opportunities for everyone , as far as that is possible. Arguing about if N. Ireland is governed from Stormont or London to me, is a thing for politics - it is not a reason for anyone to back the PIRA or any other terrorist group.

monument

true wrote:

There are still fair elections in N. Ireland. It wants to remain part of the UK, so it is.
N. Ireland has elected representatives. That is democracy.

There is no world standard democracy. At the present time bureaucracy controlled by a faraway central government rules Northern Ireland, more then democracy does….

The very reason I questioned this…

true wrote:

The British army , which is answerable to the elected government , has every right to be there.

true wrote:

Unlike many countries around the world, there is freedom of speech, and equal opportunities for everyone , as far as that is possible. Arguing about if N. Ireland is governed from Stormont or London to me, is a thing for politics - it is not a reason for anyone to back the PIRA or any other terrorist group.

While this thread may not be the most suitable place, this is the politics board, and I was only trying to reply to your stance on the British army being "answerable to the elected government”, I didn’t mean for the thread to go so far off topic.

billy the squid

The old "that’s democracy", crock of ****e. Not that it was hugely democratic to start from; the modern State, under the current government has taken powers away from local government. Not exactly a government of the people for the people, so spear me, please.

whats undemocratic about it. there was elections for representatives of the dail, the elected members voted to accept the treaty. and it was.

The anti-treaty started winging and started the civil war because they did not like the democratic vote, and guess what, the anti treaty side lost the civil war as well.

it was only through elections that De Valera managed to win power. and thus starting the process of tinkering with the rules of the brittish commonwealth to suit his aspirations resulting in the Republic of Ireland being formed in 1949.

Those rules created by Ireland during its membership of the brittish commonwealth along with the other commonwealth members still stand. Northern Ireland can cede membership of the commonwealth at any time, so long as a majority of the people in northern ireland decide to withdraw from the commonwealth.

To be quite honest, whether or not Northern Ireland wishes to leave the commonwealth or not is not a decision for the people of the republic to make.

The republic didnt have to get the approval of the northern ireland people to leave the commonwealth.

that brings to two the number of threads about bank robberies being taken off topic by pro-sinn fein supporters.

monument

What crimes are ok, criminality, and fallen by the wayside, who has authority, tax evasion, tax avoidance, arms, armies… mostly the usually suspects, no one side really to blame. The thread just developed into other issues just like most threads (about the north) do.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

As for the British Army, they have no right to be here and neither does the rest of the British occupational machine.

The British Army are in Waterford?

FTA69 wrote:

Ireland was considered a part of the United Kingdom back in the 20s

Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom, just as Northern Ireland is now. There's no "considered" about it.

FTA69 wrote:

Ireland is one and indivisible.

Why?

MrPudding

FTA69 wrote:

Ireland is one and indivisible.

Sorry but it very obviously 1) Is not and 2) Is.

MrP

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

actually northern Ireland came about through a treaty to end the war of independence. it was put to a dail vote and was ratified.

the majority at the time spoke, tough **** if you dont like it, thats democracy, if you dont like it move to china.

.

It seems by call to get back on topic was a waste of time
so here goes

The vote in the second Dail on the treaty was not fair or free
it was against a background of a threat of immediate and terrible war made by llyod george
That is not democracy

spongebob

What was the price of toast in 1919 ?

M

A Dub in Glasgo

billy the squid wrote:

that brings to two the number of threads about bank robberies being taken off topic by pro-sinn fein supporters.

I think you should re-read the threads to see who really brought the threads off-topic

cdebru

Muck wrote:

What was the price of toast in 1919 ?

M

Nobody is talking about 1919

check your history