Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stakeknife Arrested.

Options
2456789

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm a hard man for asking you to at least try and put some substance behind your one liners now is that it?

    Posting one liners with absolutely no substance or rationale to bolster them is one step away from posting something such as 'I know you are but what am I' and 'my daddy is stronger than your daddy' imo.

    No one (certainly not me) was attempting to excuse or disregard anything SK is alleged to have done btw.

    I stated that it's my belief nothing more will come of it (and stated why I believed it)

    You however posted one liners.

    As I said - all arse no trousers.

    here

    you

    go

    Three lines.

    As I said, the shinners are just using the old deflection tactics. it's what they do. The PIRA were perfect, Sinn Fein are perfect.

    everyone knows there were multiple players, everyone except the shinners that is, because they are of the firm opinion the PIRA were a bunch of angels and did nothing wrong.

    oh, that's nine


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,835 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    here

    you

    go

    Three lines.

    As I said, the shinners are just using the old deflection tactics. it's what they do. The PIRA were perfect, Sinn Fein are perfect.

    everyone knows there were multiple players, everyone except the shinners that is, because they are of the firm opinion the PIRA were a bunch of angels and did nothing wrong.

    oh, that's nine

    Oh dear, someone is getting a bit desperate.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Oh dear, someone is getting a bit desperate.

    Bravo sir.

    I wonder will you be accused of being all arse no trousers :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Aegir wrote: »
    here

    you

    go

    Three lines.

    As I said, the shinners are just using the old deflection tactics. it's what they do. The PIRA were perfect, Sinn Fein are perfect.

    everyone knows there were multiple players, everyone except the shinners that is, because they are of the firm opinion the PIRA were a bunch of angels and did nothing wrong.

    oh, that's nine

    Oh dear. I never claimed any one were angels, or did nothing wrong.
    No one is denying horrible unforgivable murders took place - it's just some of us have the wit to realise their was more than one side involved in them.

    I stated why I thought no more would come of this.

    You seem to be reading only what you want to read.

    This auld debating/comprehensive reading doesn't seem to be a very strong attribute of yours.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,835 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    Bravo sir.

    I wonder will you be accused of being all arse no trousers :rolleyes:


    I already made a point. Maybe you would have seen that had you not gotten out of the bed the wrong way.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Oh dear. I never claimed any one were angels, or did nothing wrong.

    oh you wait, someone will.

    Francie will be defending the indefensible sooner or later, just wait and see.

    I stated why I thought no more would come of this.

    You seem to be reading only what you want to read.

    This auld debating/comprehensive reading doesn't seem to be a very strong attribute of yours.

    no, I am responded to a poster (that isn't you) and you, for some reason, chose to intervene.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,835 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    oh you wait, someone will.

    Francie will be defending the indefensible sooner or later, just wait and see.

    Come on Mr Scurrilous, show me where I called anyone an angel in relation to the conflict/war?
    Or 'defended the indefensible'.

    Are you capable of a discussion with context or not?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭BillyBobBS


    I personally don't give a s h I t about the situation in the North. Can't they just leave the past in the past and move on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,835 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    BillyBobBS wrote: »
    I personally don't give a s h I t about the situation in the North. Can't they just leave the past in the past and move on.

    :D they can certainly leave bits of it out and look the other way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    :D they can certainly leave bits of it out and look the other way.

    but only the bits that suit the Shinners:D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,835 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    baylah17 wrote: »
    but only the bits that suit the Shinners:D

    What bits do they leave out?

    What bits have they left out of this story for instance?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Aegir wrote: »
    oh you wait, someone will.

    Francie will be defending the indefensible sooner or later, just wait and see.




    no, I am responded to a poster (that isn't you) and you, for some reason, chose to intervene.

    I didn't intervene, I pointed out that you'd misread the sentiments expressed in a post you quoted - your opening post in the thread (and went down hill from there).

    The subject is about an alleged double agent. It's not deflection or showing support for either side to state why you believe nothing more will come of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭dd972


    BillyBobBS wrote: »
    I personally don't give a s h I t about the situation in the North. Can't they just leave the past in the past and move on.

    With respect that's partitionist wishful thinking, these things happened in our country and people on all sides of the situation have to deal with the residue, whether it's murdered family or friends or mental scars. Reunification on a peaceful and agreed basis is a moral imperative.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,547 ✭✭✭Foxhound38


    dd972 wrote: »
    Reunification on a peaceful and agreed basis is a moral imperative.

    I don't feel any moral imperative to take on the seemingly intractable problems up there, nor do I think unification (I don't say reunification because Ireland has never been a unified entity except under British rule - we were made up of independent, mostly warring microentities based around clans who occasionally cooperated with each other prior to this) would necessarily solve any problems for them or us (although it would add a few new ones such as "total economic collapse" and "civil war with the loyalists" to the list).

    We have a porous border and despite SF/DUP posturing and the odd limited flashpoint things are fairly settled down up there. The "800 years" romantic nationalism argument isn't a good enough reason to fire the apple cart into the sun.

    If the shinnerbots could just go ahead and call me a Shauneen West-Brit now, they may get it over with - it's how they usually respond to facts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,835 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Foxhound38 wrote: »
    I don't feel any moral imperative to take on the seemingly intractable problems up there, nor do I think unification (I don't say reunification because Ireland has never been a unified entity except under British rule - we were made up of independent, mostly warring microentities based around clans who occasionally cooperated with each other prior to this) would necessarily solve any problems for them or us (although it would add a few new ones such as "total economic collapse" and "civil war with the loyalists" to the list).

    We have a porous border and despite SF/DUP posturing and the odd limited flashpoint things are fairly settled down up there. The "800 years" romantic nationalism argument isn't a good enough reason to fire the apple cart into the sun.

    If the shinnerbots could just go ahead and call me a Shauneen West-Brit now, they may get it over with - it's how they usually respond to facts.


    I love the attempt to hide an 'I'm alright Jack' mentality.

    Basically any one of us could do the same to 'look the other way' when problems arise in our country. There is little or no homelessness where I live, 'sure why would I be concerned or feel any 'moral imperative' to try or help try and solve it'?

    Take any other social issue and do the same, and rather than find a 'Shauneen West-Brit' I think you will find a socially selfish and irresponsible, fairly usless in a community sense' person.
    We have plenty of those, you will fit right in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,744 ✭✭✭diomed


    The other thread was running out of steam.
    Here we go again. :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,103 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Aegir wrote: »
    here

    you

    go

    Three lines.

    As I said, the shinners are just using the old deflection tactics. it's what they do. The PIRA were perfect, Sinn Fein are perfect.

    everyone knows there were multiple players, everyone except the shinners that is, because they are of the firm opinion the PIRA were a bunch of angels and did nothing wrong.

    oh, that's nine

    Are you posting this from some collection of random anti-sf statements?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,103 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Foxhound38 wrote: »
    I don't feel any moral imperative to take on the seemingly intractable problems up there, nor do I think unification (I don't say reunification because Ireland has never been a unified entity except under British rule - we were made up of independent, mostly warring microentities based around clans who occasionally cooperated with each other prior to this) would necessarily solve any problems for them or us (although it would add a few new ones such as "total economic collapse" and "civil war with the loyalists" to the list)..

    Like the Greeks then. Or most of Africa. And the middle east. And a whack of Asia. Jaysus, we're a unique bunch.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Aegir wrote: »
    aah, the old "we built the bombs, planted them and set them off, but it's the fault of the Brits for letting us get away with it" excuse.

    What are you on about? If you're going to quote me actually respond to what was written in the post rather than waffling on about something else.


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭brainfreeze


    piplip87 wrote: »
    The Supergrass was lifted today. A lot of skeletons in his closest. He could possibly have information on senior SF members, Senior British Army/RUC members, if he is charged and goes to court his testimony could be great craic

    Not in a UK court. In the world of inteligence and spies the details will be sealed due to "not being in the public interest", like they do with anything scandalous relating to the troubles.

    For example, stormontgate. As soon as it went to court the judge ruled "the prosecution for the offences in relation to the accused are no longer in the public interest". This was so they didn't have to admit in court that Denis Donaldson was a spy.

    Didn't matter how much evidence the police had about politicians being engaged in a spy ring in the event power sharing failed - the UK Gov ordered the Judge to stop because it wasn't in the "public interest". All that evidence? Throw it in the bin, our secrets our more important etc.

    Like this, doesn't matter what the Bedfordshire Police think they have uncovered. If it ever makes it to court the Judge will get a phone call from the state, and nothing will be made public.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    piplip87 wrote: »
    The Supergrass was lifted today. A lot of skeletons in his closest. He could possibly have information on senior SF members, Senior British Army/RUC members, if he is charged and goes to court his testimony could be great craic

    Not in a UK court. In the world of inteligence and spies the details will be sealed due to "not being in the public interest", like they do with anything scandalous relating to the troubles.

    For example, stormontgate. As soon as it went to court the judge ruled "the prosecution for the offences in relation to the accused are no longer in the public interest". This was so they didn't have to admit in court that Denis Donaldson was a spy.

    Didn't matter how much evidence the police had about politicians being engaged in a spy ring in the event power sharing failed - the UK Gov ordered the Judge to stop because it wasn't in the "public interest". All that evidence? Throw it in the bin, our secrets our more important etc.

    Like this, doesn't matter what the Bedfordshire Police think they have uncovered. If it ever makes it to court the Judge will get a phone call from the state, and nothing will be made public.
    What's the legal basis for determining if something is not in the public interest? Seems like it could be easily abused.


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭brainfreeze


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    What's the legal basis for determining if something is not in the public interest? Seems like it could be easily abused.

    I've no idea to be honest. We wouldn't even know why the Denis Donaldson case was dropped if he didn't out himself a year later. The problem with things like that is by design the general public is not in the know of the details.

    I've no idea who handles the oversight. I assume the Judge is given all the details, but I don't really know.

    edit: With a quick Google I found that in 2011 someone made a freedom of information request asking for this information, the reasons. They said they were exempt from listing the specific cases but could give him statistics. This was what was returned to him.

    zJw6jic.png

    P19 - Informer or other public interest immunity issues. The second half of that sentence is vague.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,281 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    John Joe *and* Scap - you couldn't make it up...

    Not your ornery onager



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    Aegir wrote: »
    aah, the old "we built the bombs, planted them and set them off, but it's the fault of the Brits for letting us get away with it" excuse.

    Too true. One thing for sure though, it was great the security services were able to penetrate both sides in N.I. with informers: many terrorists ended up in jail as a result and lives saved. It helped end the troubles. " One in four in IRA members were informers Smithwick Tribunal told"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Foxhound38 wrote: »
    I don't feel any moral imperative to take on the seemingly intractable problems up there, nor do I think unification (I don't say reunification because Ireland has never been a unified entity except under British rule - we were made up of independent, mostly warring microentities based around clans who occasionally cooperated with each other prior to this) would necessarily solve any problems for them or us (although it would add a few new ones such as "total economic collapse" and "civil war with the loyalists" to the list).

    We have a porous border and despite SF/DUP posturing and the odd limited flashpoint things are fairly settled down up there. The "800 years" romantic nationalism argument isn't a good enough reason to fire the apple cart into the sun.

    If the shinnerbots could just go ahead and call me a Shauneen West-Brit now, they may get it over with - it's how they usually respond to facts.

    Germany wasn’t united for most of history (arguably it still isn’t fully) but the German people existed. Until the plantations there was one people on the island. Unfortunately there isn’t now.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,762 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    cycle4fun wrote: »
    Too true. One thing for sure though, it was great the security services were able to penetrate both sides in N.I. with informers: many terrorists ended up in jail as a result and lives saved. It helped end the troubles. " One in four in IRA members were informers Smithwick Tribunal told"

    Except when they had innocent people killed to protect their informers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    So that ten times the amount of innocent people could be saved in the future. Peace was worth fighting for.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    Until the plantations there was one people on the island. Unfortunately there isn’t now.
    Until the plantations of America there was just one people there. Unfortunately there isn't now.:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭cbreeze


    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,762 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    cycle4fun wrote: »
    So that ten times the amount of innocent people could be saved in the future. Peace was worth fighting for.

    That's not how the law works


Advertisement