Are SF trying to shoot themselves in the foot.

cdebru the margin of error goes from 5% to 11% with that poll.
It would seem that SF are down 1% on the last poll which was subject to a similar margin of error.

I've no doubt that the article is slanted against SF coming from the Indo.However they cant slant the figures, just the commentary on them.
That said, it doesnt bode well for a Lab/FG coalition when the gap between their support and that of the current government is widening in the wrong direction for then.

I would agree that the most dangerous aspect of this poll for SF are peoples opinions of their policy with regard to the McCartney Murder.
It's indicative of the damage its doing to SF's credibility amongst the new voters that they would want to be attracting.
I saw the Sisters on the Late Late on Friday night and they said they were convinced that someone was being protected and again mentioned the Taximan over hearing Cora Groogans account of events which when it came to actually giving a later account of what she saw was markedly different.

They're not going away either and to be honest,I say fair play to them, its a pity others werent able to find the courage to do the same in similar cases, right through the troubles, the Sisters are carrying the torch for them though and hopefully it will eventually end up with justice.

Sand

Actually Sand, I was specifically looking for a link to the UK or RoI legislation that shows that SF are not a legal and legitimate political party. Be a good chap and post the link as I can't seem to find it on the internet. I could be mistaken though

You could start with laws like the Offences against the State act. O Snodaighs SF/IRA workers are the latest to fall foul of it. See how that almost seems normal? SF/IRA workers and members found guilty of being members of banned terrorist organisations - its predictable, you wouldnt choke on your cornflakes reading that. Now try it with say, Fine Gael workers and members found guilty of being members of a banned terrorist organisation. That would be shocking.Punishment beatings, murders, bank robberies, money laundering, refusing to co-operate with police investigations With SF/IRA its all expected.

SF/IRA are a crinimal organisation. All your pathetic attempts to divert from that are wasted. Though I will allow that SF/IRA meets the same standards as the BNP under British political law.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

You could start with laws like the Offences against the State act. O Snodaighs SF/IRA workers are the latest to fall foul of it. See how that almost seems normal? SF/IRA workers and members found guilty of being members of banned terrorist organisations - its predictable, you wouldnt choke on your cornflakes reading that. Now try it with say, Fine Gael workers and members found guilty of being members of a banned terrorist organisation. That would be shocking.Punishment beatings, murders, bank robberies, money laundering, refusing to co-operate with police investigations With SF/IRA its all expected.

SF/IRA are a crinimal organisation. All your pathetic attempts to divert from that are wasted. Though I will allow that SF/IRA meets the same standards as the BNP under British political law.

So you cannot find legislation which shows SF are not a legal and legitimate political party either? I must keep looking at those statute books from the UK and RoI as you seem pretty convinced.

Sand

Sand wrote:

SF/IRA are a crinimal organisation. All your pathetic attempts to divert from that are wasted. Though I will allow that SF/IRA meets the same standards as the BNP under British political law.

Sigh...
I've just had a pm to inform me of a report on this post.
Sand I presume thats your opinion, people can draw their own conclusions, but in future, would you ever include a disclaimer along the lines of "imho" or it is obvious to me or something like that as you will offend supporters of SF who will be saying that the IRA and SF are separate.

Sponge Bob

The armed wing of the BNP is Combat 18 Sand,

Your humble opinion could be "SF/IRA meets the same standards as the BNP/Combat 18"

The shinners won a seat today !

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Sand wrote:

He was an elected SF/IRA politician found by the police in a house where a man had been starved and beaten into making a taped confession of being an informant. Morrison was returning with the judgement of the IRA commanders as to what was to be done with the man, on the basis of the forced confession. The man was lucky the RUC arrived to rescue him, because another suspected informant "interrogated" in the same house before him had been murdered and dumped on the street. Like all SF/IRA scum, Morrison is nothing but a thug wrapping himself in a flag.

elected to what in 1990
sandy lynch was an informer he had been threatened with torture and murder according to his testimony not actually tortured
he had agreed to attend a press conference to admit his informing and that he had tried to set up senior sinn fein people for assination morrison as director of publicity was called to the house to arrange the press conference
within seconds of morrison entering the house the RUC raided it morrison never saw sandy lynch and lynch did not mention him in his testimony

Sand wrote:

You mean the Danny Morrison, convicted SF/IRA thug, elected SF/IRA politician, SF/IRA PR director - a man so callous he can participate in the torture of a man on the behalf of an organisation that he can completely divest himself from only a few years later?

You really think Danny Morrison is that devoid of human empathy? Or it it more likely that Morrison was a SF/IRA fanatic, and still is?

see answer above sandy lynch was not tortured and morrison was not present

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?
story=615571&host=5&dir=235


you are obviously convinced he is a member so there is not much point in an o

oh no he isn't
oh yes he is

if you can actually produce any evidence that he is a member of either organisation then we have something to discuss

BuffyBot

The armed wing of the BNP is Combat 18 Sand

Hmm...afaik they're two seperate organisations (however reprehensible).

A Dub in Glasgo

Sponge Bob wrote:

The armed wing of the BNP is Combat 18 Sand,

Your humble opinion could be "SF/IRA meets the same standards as the BNP/Combat 18"

The shinners won a seat today !

Now that you mention Combat 18, weren't they the ones who joined the Loyalist groups in NI where they were apparantly controlled by MI5?

Sponge Bob

heavy on the conspiracy sauce there good buddy !

A Dub in Glasgo

Sponge Bob wrote:

heavy on the conspiracy sauce there good buddy !

No problem buddy

Conspiracy carried here as well then

It is also believed that Combat 18 were used by MI5 to infiltrate Loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. In 1998, the leader of Combat 18, Charlie Sargent, an alleged Special Branch informant, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1997 murder of another member of the group.

During factional in-fighting, members of C18 cooperated with a documentary crew from the BBC Panorama program to prove they had been infiltrated and in some cases, controlled [Sargent] by the security services.

cdebru

you cant believe that provo front wikipedia

rsynnott

On dry, uninteresting topics, WikiPedia is great. Don't even think of trusting it on anything controversial.

rsynnott

Earthman wrote:

Sigh...
I've just had a pm to inform me of a report on this post.
Sand I presume thats your opinion, people can draw their own conclusions, but in future, would you ever include a disclaimer along the lines of "imho" or it is obvious to me or something like that as you will offend supporters of SF who will be saying that the IRA and SF are separate.

Anyone who still insists that IRA and SF are separate DESERVES to be offended.

And there's no such thing as a humble opinion

A Dub in Glasgo

rsynnott wrote:

On dry, uninteresting topics, WikiPedia is great. Don't even think of trusting it on anything controversial.

The same could be said for boards.ie

cdebru

rsynnott wrote:

Anyone who still insists that IRA and SF are separate DESERVES to be offended.

And there's no such thing as a humble opinion

so if you believe they are the same do you believe that every member of SF is also a member of the IRA and every member of the IRA is also a member of SF

Sand

So you cannot find legislation which shows SF are not a legal and legitimate political party either? I must keep looking at those statute books from the UK and RoI as you seem pretty convinced.

As Ive said, theyre as legitimate as the BNP under British standards for parties eligiable to register candidates in British elections- 150 sterling, a copy of the parties constitution and the names and contact details for two party officers.....

Im curious how you feel this proves SF/IRA arent a crinimal organisation?

Sigh...
I've just had a pm to inform me of a report on this post.
Sand I presume thats your opinion, people can draw their own conclusions, but in future, would you ever include a disclaimer along the lines of "imho" or it is obvious to me or something like that as you will offend supporters of SF who will be saying that the IRA and SF are separate.

With the greatest of respect I think it is assumed by most people - including yourself as noted above - that a good rule of thumb is that you tend to post your opinion, its hardly in anyone elses. If this has to be stated explicitly for the benefit of people who think the report bad post button is there to report posts they dont agree with - shades of the reputation system there - then its a slippery slope to a ridiculous position. Posters tend to disagree, even passionately, about topics. If posters take offence from opinions different to their own then thats really not my problem.

Either way, Ive repeatedly backed up my belief that SF/IRA are a seamless organisation for the benefit of Irish1 which he has never been able to counter. I wont post it again unless absolutely required, but I will note that O Snodaighs party workers were convicted of IRA membership, that Adams and the IRA *both* announced they expelled members over the McCartney killing, that convicted IRA bomber described Adams as her Commanding Officer in the IRA, that practically everyone in SF/IRAs northern leadership - the real heart of the party - are either convicted IRA men, identified by police intelligence as IRA men, or at the very least from families with a strong IRA tradition. Danny Morrison was an elected SF/IRA candidate *and* convicted of IRA membership.

It isnt a one off - a single incident of a FF TD drink driving doesnt mean all FF TDs are drink drivers. But when its a prevalent, continuing and predictable pattern over decades demonstrating that SF/IRA are indistinguishable then you have to call a spade a spade. Im not trying to offend anyone but if Irish1 and co are upset by my arguing and supporting my views then Im sorry, but I dont see having a different, supported opinion to them as being offensive under the boards rules.

Abuse of the report bad post button on the other hand...

sandy lynch was an informer he had been threatened with torture and murder according to his testimony not actually tortured
he had agreed to attend a press conference to admit his informing and that he had tried to set up senior sinn fein people for assination morrison as director of publicity was called to the house to arrange the press conference
within seconds of morrison entering the house the RUC raided it morrison never saw sandy lynch and lynch did not mention him in his testimony

Let me get this straight - Morrison is convicted of being an IRA man and serves 8 years for his role in the local IRA anti-informer unit, a unit which had killed at least 3 people not long before Lynch was rescued. And your defence is the above?

Your defence is:
A) That SF/IRA holds a man against his will, and at the very least threaten him with torture and murder unless he confessess to supposedly setting up SF people.
That SF/IRA decide to hold a ****ing press conference to announce this, where they would announce how they held Lynch against his will and forced a confession out of him?
C) And that Danny Morrison *knowing* all of the above visited to arrange the fricking press conference?

Hence Danny Morrison is innocent and there are no connections between SF and the IRA? This is the SF/IRA defence? No wonder the thug got convicted. :eek:

Yeah, I think Ill add Cdebrus version of events to my list of reasons why SF/IRA are the one and the same organisation. Cheers for that man.

you are obviously convinced he is a member so there is not much point in an o

Hes a plausibly deniable tool to vent SF/IRA attacks and fly kites that cant be directly linked to SF/IRA. Thats what he does.

Why would he announce his membership in the group? It would completely negate the advantage he offers the army council.

Sand

Sand wrote:

With the greatest of respect I think it is assumed by most people - including yourself as noted above - that a good rule of thumb is that you tend to post your opinion, its hardly in anyone elses. If this has to be stated explicitly for the benefit of people who think the report bad post button is there to report posts they dont agree with - shades of the reputation system there - then its a slippery slope to a ridiculous position. Posters tend to disagree, even passionately, about topics. If posters take offence from opinions different to their own then thats really not my problem.

Fine thats plenty confirmation for me.
The poster that complained will be reading this and should know by now that this is your opinion.
If any poster is not satisfied with the support that you give for your opinion they should state it on the thread and of course express their opposing view.
I'm not entertaining any further discussion on that score here by the way,anyone that feels stongly about it can go to feedback.
I'm also not entertaining post reporting that I see as simply a case of "I dont agree with that,I have a different opinion-Mod sort it out"
None of the mods are here for that purpose, either you have a strong argument and put your case, or you don't, the readers will be able to tell and the other contributers.

Now back on topic Thanks.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Im curious how you feel this proves SF/IRA arent a crinimal organisation?

I do not have to prove that SF are not a criminal organisation. The absence of legislation in either the UK or RoI stating they are a criminal organisation proves that for me. You, on the other hand, have stated they are a criminal organisation and you have yet to prove that they are a criminal organisation.

rsynnott

cdebru wrote:

so if you believe they are the same do you believe that every member of SF is also a member of the IRA and every member of the IRA is also a member of SF

No, no, not being separate <> same. Not being separate means joined. And no, I don't think their memberships are the same; wouldn't be surprised if there's a high crossover tho

cdebru

Sand wrote:

?




Either way, Ive repeatedly backed up my belief that SF/IRA are a seamless organisation for the benefit of Irish1 which he has never been able to counter. I wont post it again unless absolutely required, but I will note that O Snodaighs party workers were convicted of IRA membership, that Adams and the IRA *both* announced they expelled members over the McCartney killing, that convicted IRA bomber described Adams as her Commanding Officer in the IRA, that practically everyone in SF/IRAs northern leadership - the real heart of the party - are either convicted IRA men, identified by police intelligence as IRA men, or at the very least from families with a strong IRA tradition. Danny Morrison was an elected SF/IRA candidate *and* convicted of IRA membership.

It isnt a one off - a single incident of a FF TD drink driving doesnt mean all FF TDs are drink drivers. But when its a prevalent, continuing and predictable pattern over decades demonstrating that SF/IRA are indistinguishable then you have to call a spade a spade. Im not trying to offend anyone but if Irish1 and co are upset by my arguing and supporting my views then Im sorry, but I dont see having a different, supported opinion to them as being offensive under the boards rules.

Abuse of the report bad post button on the other hand....

of course one drink driving conviction does not mean all FFers are drink drivers nor does a corruption conviction mean they are all corrupt

IRA convictions of SF members or the fact that SF members may have been convicted of IRA membership in the past does not make all SF members IRA members or the two organisations one and the same.

of course the logical question is what party aN IRA member would join after release from prison hardly the DUP or the PDs the fact that a republican would join a republican political party is hardly shocking nor is it proof as you allege that they are the same organisation

the problem is that you dont have a supported opinion you have people are members of a and b so a and b must be the same thing

btw i did not report the post

Sand wrote:

?

Let me get this straight - Morrison is convicted of being an IRA man and serves 8 years for his role in the local IRA anti-informer unit, a unit which had killed at least 3 people not long before Lynch was rescued. And your defence is the above?

Your defence is:
A) That SF/IRA holds a man against his will, and at the very least threaten him with torture and murder unless he confessess to supposedly setting up SF people.
That SF/IRA decide to hold a ****ing press conference to announce this, where they would announce how they held Lynch against his will and forced a confession out of him?
C) And that Danny Morrison *knowing* all of the above visited to arrange the fricking press conference?

Hence Danny Morrison is innocent and there are no connections between SF and the IRA? This is the SF/IRA defence? No wonder the thug got convicted. :eek:
.

your continued use of the SF?IRA thing makes it hard to answer your post on top of that you could be accused of deliberately misquoting me

I dont have a defence i have not been accused of anything I am merely trying to set the record straight you alleged that morrison participated in the torture of paid informer sandy lynch there is no evidence to support that


no the IRA held him and he alleges that they threatened to kill him he confessed to being an informer
something he later admitted to in court
the IRA contacted SF to organise a press conference were lynch would admit to being an informer and reveal details about his handlers and that they had been using him to set up SF people for assasination
morrison claims he was told that an informer had come forward and wanted to come clean at a press conference and he being the director of publicity it was his job to organise a press conference

the fact is what ever morrison was doing there he had just walked into the house he did not see lynch and lynch gave no evidence against him at his trial

i have never claimed there is no connection between the IRA and sinn fein that does not mean they are one and the same organisation

a member of sinn fein does not have to be a member of the IRA and vice versa
that does not mean that some mebers of the IRA are also in SF and vice versa
morrison himself admits to be a member of both

Sand wrote:

?
Yeah, I think Ill add Cdebrus version of events to my list of reasons why SF/IRA are the one and the same organisation. Cheers for that man..

how you work that out is beyond me but you have a logic all of your own

Sand wrote:

?
Hes a plausibly deniable tool to vent SF/IRA attacks and fly kites that cant be directly linked to SF/IRA. Thats what he does.

Why would he announce his membership in the group? It would completely negate the advantage he offers the army council.

have a read of this article it relates to danny morrison and his non membership of the republican movement

http://lark.phoblacht.net/morequestions.html

The latter's career on his release from jail remains one of the untold mysteries of the last thirty years. For Morrison never returned on release to the upper reaches of the RM that he previously inhabited. Indeed some senior republicans seem to have lost all confidence in him; the reasons for this have never been fully explained. The public version being that on his release from prison he wished to concentrate on his writing career and although there is nothing to doubt this, this explanation does not sit too well with some. Although their hostility could be explained by these people feeling that Morrison wrongly placed his private life before that of the RM.

Sand

I do not have to prove that SF are not a criminal organisation. The absence of legislation in either the UK or RoI stating they are a criminal organisation proves that for me. You, on the other hand, have stated they are a criminal organisation and you have yet to prove that they are a criminal organisation.

You'd cross the road if you saw their party leadership walking down the road towards you, given their crinimal records and favourable attitude to violence to resolve their differences. Their party membership is of a similar character, given theyre routinely convicted for offences against the state. They refuse to co-operate with police investigations, they refuse to recognise their actions as crimes. Their election workers are extremely dangerous given their tendency to lead IRA gangs and murdering people. Their party candidates have been caught out lying in statements regarding murders carried out by SF members.

Any one of these taken on their own, you might say - well **** happens. But taken altogether the only conclusion you can draw is that theyre a crinimal organisation.

And just because they paid up 150 sterling doesnt change that.

btw i did not report the post

Oh I've a pretty good idea who it was. Most of what you noted I dealt with above. The second half Ill deal with later.

i have never claimed there is no connection between the IRA and sinn fein that does not mean they are one and the same organisation

Okay, but lets run through that sequence of events again - and for the purposes well allow that SF and the IRA are seperate organisations, and that SF is a lawful party.

Lynch is annoying SF by making accusations against *their* members.

The IRA ( not SF) decide to act by kidnapping him and forcing a confession out of him. Why? What the hell do they care about SF? Theyre seperate organisations and theyve got their own worries afterall.

The IRA decide to hold a press conference - which is ludicrous but anyway - they contact SF to arrange it?!?! Why? Theyre seperate organisations afterall - dont they have their own media contacts, if only to mail P O Neill statements and issue bomb claims?

Morrison, the PR director of a seperate and wholly lawful political party with a mandate, hears that the IRA, a seperate organisation are holding a man against his will and forcing a confession out of him. Instead of contacting the police, or at the very least demanding the mans immediate release he doesnt bat an eyelid and agrees to run a press conference for a wholly seperate group where they will announce how they forced a confession out of a man? Morrison will thus be incriminating himself as aidding and abbetting a *serious* crime.

Please, stand back. Drop the SF/IRA indoctrination. Replace SF with DUP and IRA with LVF if it helps you. Now read through that again.

Are you telling me that seems in anyway credible? The least credible part is Morrison volunteering, as a senior member of a lawful party, to incriminate himself willingly - hell, to announce it in front of the worlds media! That series of events only seems logical when you view SF/IRA as a seamless organisation and Morrison as having a close, to say the least, relationship with the local SF/IRA thugs - I certainly don't buy that he was in the house to arrange a fricking press conference given that hed be convicting himself of a serious crime, as he found out at his trial in any event. How close, how convenient does the relationship have to be before you think "You know, for all intents and purposes SF/IRA are one and the same"?

have a read of this article it relates to danny morrison and his non membership of the republican movement

He needs to be plausibly deniable. Hence you require a plausible reason to deny him speaking for SF/IRA. Some rumoured undetailed unexplained personal bust up would seem quite suitable.

Rock Climber

Sand you're a legend Well said

Villain

Sand you have never proven that SF and the IRA are the one organisation, how can I disprove something that doesn't excist, it would be like trying to prove that heaven doesn't excist, I can't disprove it because there is no evidence that it does excist.

In your opinion the IRA and Sinn Fein are the one organisation, I respect that opinion but I don't share it and there is no factual evidence to support it.

Sorry I haven't posted in this thread over the last few days being busy in work, just in case you thought I was ignoring the discussion.

BTW I was the one that reported the post, you said

SF/IRA are a crinimal organisation

I will not accept that Sinn Fein are a criminal organisation, I will accept there are most likely members of the party who are criminals, but that could probably be said to be true for most parties. IMO your statement above was presented to readers of this forum as fact.

rsynnott

irish1 wrote:

Sand you have never proven that SF and the IRA are the one organisation, how can I disprove something that doesn't excist, it would be like trying to prove that heaven doesn't excist, I can't disprove it because there is no evidence that it does excist.

When making extraordinary claims, the onus is on the claimant to give evidence supporting their claims. Does the idea of SF as a nice, friendly happy party, who never have anything to do with those naughty IRA people, strike the majority as realistic?

Not a sensible comparison at all. There's no evidence that heaven exists, or that it doesn't exist; that's for the individual to make up their mind on. There's LOTS of evidence that SF and IRA are in bed with each other.
Rob.

Villain

rsynnott wrote:

When making extraordinary claims, the onus is on the claimant to give evidence supporting their claims. Does the idea of SF as a nice, friendly happy party, who never have anything to do with those naughty IRA people, strike the majority as realistic?

Not a sensible comparison at all. There's no evidence that heaven exists, or that it doesn't exist; that's for the individual to make up their mind on. There's LOTS of evidence that SF and IRA are in bed with each other.
Rob.

Post it up then??

Sand

BTW I was the one that reported the post, you said

Jeez, really?!?!? I'd N-E-V-E-R have guessed.

In your opinion the IRA and Sinn Fein are the one organisation, I respect that opinion but I don't share it and there is no factual evidence to support it.

Again theres plenty - you simply choose to ignore it whenever I post it for your benefit. You never challenge it or counter it, you simply pretend you didnt see it.

I will not accept that Sinn Fein are a criminal organisation, I will accept there are most likely members of the party who are criminals, but that could probably be said to be true for most parties. IMO your statement above was presented to readers of this forum as fact.

Well, Id imagine if you share SF/IRAs views that their actions are not crimes and that their members can never be crinimals then youd have a hard time recognising them as a crinimal organisation.

That debate is more an issue of your points of reference rather than the nature of SF/IRA however, as it generally accepted that murder is a crime, crinimal conspiracy is a crime, aidding and abbetting crinimals is a crime, perverting the course of justice is a crime, assault is a crime, intimidation is a crime, maintaining an illegal terrorist force is a crime, membership of an illegal terrorist force is a crime.

All of the above is pervasive within SF/IRA along with a philosophy that justifies crimes and crinimals. If you dont like them being called a crinimal organisation, then maybe the next time the SF councillor calls round to clean your bathtub you should demand that he ends the rampant criminality in SF/IRA?

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Okay, but lets run through that sequence of events again - and for the purposes well allow that SF and the IRA are seperate organisations, and that SF is a lawful party.

Lynch is annoying SF by making accusations against *their* members. .

No wrong
Lynch was a member of the IRA
the IRA discovered he was an informer

Sand wrote:

The IRA ( not SF) decide to act by kidnapping him and forcing a confession out of him. Why? What the hell do they care about SF? Theyre seperate organisations and theyve got their own worries afterall..

the IRA abduct/arrest Lynch he admits to being an informer and that he has passed on information on SF members with a view to having them assasinated

Sand wrote:

The IRA decide to hold a press conference - which is ludicrous but anyway - they contact SF to arrange it?!?! Why? Theyre seperate organisations afterall - dont they have their own media contacts, if only to mail P O Neill statements and issue bomb claims?.

Lynch agrees to out himself as an informer and to passing on information on reppublicans to the British with a view to them being assasinated at a press conference
it would not be unusual and had been done plenty of times especially when the IRA offered an amnesty to informers at one stage

the IRA obviously can not hold a press conference there is a difference between a press release and a press conference

the press conference also had the effect of putting it in the public domain which meant
the threat from security services was removed
every knew the person was an informer

Sand wrote:

Morrison, the PR director of a seperate and wholly lawful political party with a mandate, hears that the IRA, a seperate organisation are holding a man against his will and forcing a confession out of him. Instead of contacting the police, or at the very least demanding the mans immediate release he doesnt bat an eyelid and agrees to run a press conference for a wholly seperate group where they will announce how they forced a confession out of a man? Morrison will thus be incriminating himself as aidding and abbetting a *serious* crime. .

Morrison claims that he was informed that an informer wanted to come clean and that he was to arrange a press conference
that the person was at a given address
morrison claims he did not know the circumstances for all he knew the person had come forward of his own free will ( it happened)

Sand wrote:

Please, stand back. Drop the SF/IRA indoctrination. Replace SF with DUP and IRA with LVF if it helps you. Now read through that again.

Are you telling me that seems in anyway credible? The least credible part is Morrison volunteering, as a senior member of a lawful party, to incriminate himself willingly - hell, to announce it in front of the worlds media! That series of events only seems logical when you view SF/IRA as a seamless organisation and Morrison as having a close, to say the least, relationship with the local SF/IRA thugs - I certainly don't buy that he was in the house to arrange a fricking press conference given that hed be convicting himself of a serious crime, as he found out at his trial in any event. How close, how convenient does the relationship have to be before you think "You know, for all intents and purposes SF/IRA are one and the same"?.

in your opinion

the facts are that you claimed morrison had been involved in the torture and beating of lynch
that is not true

as to wether morrison was going to the house on behalf of the IRA of which he was a member or on behalf of SF we dont know
you obviously dont believe morrisons account of why he was going that is your right but the fact is you were wrong in the original accusations against morrison

as i have said before some IRA members are also in SF some SF members are also in the IRA

the two organisations have a commom objective ( a united Ireland )

none of that means the two are the same even if some of the leadership of the IRA is also some of the leadership of SF

Sand wrote:

He needs to be plausibly deniable. Hence you require a plausible reason to deny him speaking for SF/IRA. Some rumoured undetailed unexplained personal bust up would seem quite suitable.

as i have said you obviously dont believe morrison that is your choice but there is absolutely nothing to suppport your belief in fact evidence as it exists points to the contrary

cdebru

Sand wrote:

That debate is more an issue of your points of reference rather than the nature of SF/IRA however, as it generally accepted that murder is a crime, crinimal conspiracy is a crime, aidding and abbetting crinimals is a crime, perverting the course of justice is a crime, assault is a crime, intimidation is a crime, maintaining an illegal terrorist force is a crime, membership of an illegal terrorist force is a crime.

All of the above is pervasive within SF/IRA along with a philosophy that justifies crimes and crinimals. If you dont like them being called a crinimal organisation, then maybe the next time the SF councillor calls round to clean your bathtub you should demand that he ends the rampant criminality in SF/IRA?

the debate is about perspective
all the things you list are illegal and crimes under british and irish law


if you are a republican then you see the illegal occupation of your country as a crime and to resist that occupation is not a crime

it was not a crime in 1798 it was not a crime in 1916 it was not a crime in 1919 it was not a crime in 1969

however some people like yourself have always viewed Irish republicans as criminals wether it was 200 years ago or 20



that is your perspective I have a different one

rsynnott

cdebru wrote:

the debate is about perspective
all the things you list are illegal and crimes under british and irish law


if you are a republican then you see the illegal occupation of your country as a crime and to resist that occupation is not a crime

it was not a crime in 1798 it was not a crime in 1916 it was not a crime in 1919 it was not a crime in 1969

however some people like yourself have always viewed Irish republicans as criminals wether it was 200 years ago or 20



that is your perspective I have a different one

They're really more of an organised crime thing nowadays, surely? If they'd just leave well enough alone, they'd get what they allegedly want eventually, more or less. And I'm not sure what purpose blowing up civilians, murder or robbing banks serves in their masterplan...

cdebru

rsynnott wrote:

They're really more of an organised crime thing nowadays, surely? If they'd just leave well enough alone, they'd get what they allegedly want eventually, more or less. And I'm not sure what purpose blowing up civilians, murder or robbing banks serves in their masterplan...

i never suggested that blowing up civilians was ok

murder and robbing banks depends on what you are talking about


but IMO the IRA should disband there is no need for them to exist at this time and if they continue to exist in the absense of armed struggle then there is every likely hood they will descend into a criminal gang