Does anyone actually believe that Gerry Adams wasn't in the IRA?

tipptom

markodaly wrote: »

This is nonesense. Gerry would never have been sent to prison for admitting his membership. If in doubt he could have announced it in the Dail. It is a smokescrean

He lies, because if he admitted it, the next question would be about his orders to execute women and the bombs he ordered planted that killed innocent kids.

Instead, he just denies all reality of what he was actually up to.

I know our resident Republican apologists are saying, "what's the big deal?", but I guess they will change their tune when soldier F is sitting in the dock.

Only a few months ago, we had a judicial inquest give the verdict of unlawful killings of 21 innocent civilians in Birmingham, which recommended that the perpetrators of the atrocity be brought to justice.

No one from the IRA has been charged let alone convicted of that little number. Gerry certainly knows information about this and should share it with the relevant authorities, but will he? Will he ****!

That is the type of psychopath we are dealing with. Protecting is own kind is more important than the families seeking justice.

On what planet are you on where anyone would suggest outside of a YFG meeting that GAs would go to terrorist crown forces and grass up people in the organisation and share information with them.

You'd have to wonder do people in the south have any idea how much savagery the British administrations/loyalist brought to the Irish people of NI to make them eventfully respond in kind.

Thankfully it has become more apparent in recent time to young Irish people why the likes of Adams and the like fought back against the real terrorists and the bigoted scorched earth Unionist/Loyalists.

History will prove that, while the FG/FF cowards will eventually be expunged and their college friends in the Irish media will pay a huge price for trying to subvert democracy especially around election times.

SafeSurfer

tipptom wrote: »

markodaly wrote: »

This is nonesense. Gerry would never have been sent to prison for admitting his membership. If in doubt he could have announced it in the Dail. It is a smokescrean

He lies, because if he admitted it, the next question would be about his orders to execute women and the bombs he ordered planted that killed innocent kids.

Instead, he just denies all reality of what he was actually up to.

I know our resident Republican apologists are saying, "what's the big deal?", but I guess they will change their tune when soldier F is sitting in the dock.

Only a few months ago, we had a judicial inquest give the verdict of unlawful killings of 21 innocent civilians in Birmingham, which recommended that the perpetrators of the atrocity be brought to justice.

No one from the IRA has been charged let alone convicted of that little number. Gerry certainly knows information about this and should share it with the relevant authorities, but will he? Will he ****!

That is the type of psychopath we are dealing with. Protecting is own kind is more important than the families seeking justice.

On what planet are you on where anyone would suggest outside of a YFG meeting that GAs would go to terrorist crown forces and grass up people in the organisation and share information with them.

You'd have to wonder do people in the south have any idea how much savagery the British administrations/loyalist brought to the Irish people of NI to make them eventfully respond in kind.

Thankfully it has become more apparent in recent time to young Irish people why the likes of Adams and the like fought back against the real terrorists and the bigoted scorched earth Unionist/Loyalists.

History will prove that, while the FG/FF cowards will eventually be expunged and their college friends in the Irish media will pay a huge price for trying to subvert democracy especially around election times.

Who was subverting democracy? Who elected the IRA army council?

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Dail privilege. It's a total smokescreen for him to excuse his pathological lies.

ah get away with that.

According to that paper many in here worship (the indo):

We have been hearing a lot about Dail privilege this week but what is it all about?

TDs and Senators may not be sued for defamation because of any speech the may make in the House.

It extends to both the Dail chamber and committee meetings.

markodaly

tipptom wrote: »

On what planet are you on where anyone would suggest outside of a YFG meeting that GAs would go to terrorist crown forces and grass up people in the organisation and share information with them.

Em, he could just have a chat to An Garda Aiochana or are they too West Brit for you?

You'd have to wonder do people in the south have any idea how much savagery the British administrations/loyalist brought to the Irish people of NI to make them eventfully respond in kind.

Because killing 21 innocent people is justified. I guess Omagh was also justified.

No one can ever explain to me how killing and blowing up innocent children and women was a necessary precursor to signing the Good Friday Agreement. But I guess that are the lies they tell themselves and the myths they espouse.

maccored

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Who was subverting democracy? Who elected the IRA army council?

where did anyone mention subverting democracy or the army council? Do you just make things up on the spot?

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Em, he could just have a chat to An Garda Aiochana or are they too West Brit for you?



Because killing 21 innocent people is justified. I guess Omagh was also justified.

No one can ever explain to me how killing and blowing up innocent children and women was a necessary precursor to signing the Good Friday Agreement. But I guess that are the lies they tell themselves and the myths they espouse.

whats omagh got to do the the PIRA and adams? i ask that as someone from Omagh

SafeSurfer

markodaly wrote: »

tipptom wrote: »

On what planet are you on where anyone would suggest outside of a YFG meeting that GAs would go to terrorist crown forces and grass up people in the organisation and share information with them.

Em, he could just have a chat to An Garda Aiochana or are they too West Brit for you?

You'd have to wonder do people in the south have any idea how much savagery the British administrations/loyalist brought to the Irish people of NI to make them eventfully respond in kind.

Because killing 21 innocent people is justified. I guess Omagh was also justified.

No one can ever explain to me how killing and blowing up innocent children and women was a necessary precursor to signing the Good Friday Agreement. But I guess that are the lies they tell themselves and the myths they espouse.

No no. They believe Birmingham was justified but Omagh wasn’t.

maccored

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No no. They believe Birmingham was justified but Omagh wasn’t.

ah right - making it up as you go along I see. At least thats answered

SafeSurfer

maccored wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No no. They believe Birmingham was justified but Omagh wasn’t.

ah right - making it up as you go along I see. At least thats answered

Is that not a fact?

maccored

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Is that not a fact?

what are you talking about? Are you saying people applaud the Birmingham bomb and give out about the omagh bomb? Is that really what you are saying and now are trying to claim its a fact?

Bombs arent good anywhere.

SafeSurfer

maccored wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Is that not a fact?

what are you talking about? Are you saying people applaud the Birmingham bomb and give out about the omagh bomb? Is that really what you are saying and now are trying to claim its a fact?

Bombs arent good anywhere.

You know that’s what I am saying. I am saying SinnFein see the Birmingham bomb as legitimate and the Omagh bomb as illegitimate. I didn’t claim either were seen as good.

maccored

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You know that’s what I am saying. I am saying SinnFein see the Birmingham bomb as legitimate and the Omagh bomb as illegitimate. I didn’t claim either were seen as good.

where to start?

A) NO-ONE in the north likes what happened during the conflict
The Birmingham bomb was at the very very early stages of an embryonic republican reaction and as part of the conflict, happened as a consequence of many actions from all sides of the conflict itself
C) The Omagh bomb came when peace was being discussed - completely the opposite of the era of the Birmingham bomb

I dont know if you are purposely taking the p1ss here, but if you aren't you really need to get an understanding of what went on up the road

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

whats omagh got to do the the PIRA and adams? i ask that as someone from Omagh

If someone can try justify the actions of the PIRA in killing 21 innocent people with bombs (The birts made us murder civilians!), then what's really the difference in killing 29 people with a car bomb in Omagh?

It was all done at the behest of violent Republicanism and their aim for a United Ireland, an aim that is still not realised today, 21 years after Omagh and 45 years after the Birmingham pub bombings.

In other words, it was all a useless exercise driven by psychopaths too in love with their own megalomania than the suffering of those around them.

From Seán Mac Stíofáin to Gerry Adams, all a bunch of narcissistic psychopaths.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

If someone can try justify the actions of the PIRA in killing 21 innocent people with bombs (The birts made us murder civilians!), then what's really the difference in killing 29 people with a car bomb in Omagh?

It was all done at the behest of violent Republicanism and their aim for a United Ireland, an aim that is still not realised today, 21 years after Omagh and 45 years after the Birmingham pub bombings.

In other words, it was all a useless exercise driven by psychopaths too in love with their own megalomania than the suffering of those around them.

From Seán Mac Stíofáin to Gerry Adams, all a bunch of narcissistic psychopaths.

Right - so its got absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread about Adams and the PIRA then.

All those words when all you had to admit to was that

What about your Dail privilege argument? Where did that go to?

markodaly

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No no. They believe Birmingham was justified but Omagh wasn’t.

If they tried to argue that Omagh was justified, they would get a boot up the hole from 99.9% of Irish people.

Yet, they argue, with a straight face that Birmingham was justified, along with others like La Mons, Guildford, Warrington.

Killing a 3-year-old toddler is legitimate apparently.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

It was all done at the behest of violent Republicanism and their aim for a United Ireland, an aim that is still not realised today

theres your problem I think. To assume something as complex as the conflict in the north was because some people wanted a UI is really not getting it at all at all.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

If they tried to argue that Omagh was justified, they would get a boot up the hole from 99.9% of Irish people.

Yet, they argue, with a straight face that Birmingham was justified, along with others like La Mons, Guildford, Warrington.

Killing a 3-year-old toddler is legitimate apparently.

who's 'they'?

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

Right - so its got absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread about Adams and the PIRA then.

Omagh had nothing to do with the Provos, even though the men that carried it out were ex-Provos, trained as Provos and one of them was an ex Senior Commander.

Nothing at all to do with the PIRA.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Omagh had nothing to do with the Provos, even though the men that carried it out were ex-Provos, trained as Provos and one of them was an ex Senior Commander.

Nothing at all to do with the PIRA.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

eh? By that argument they are men so therefore all men are guilty. Jaysus ... do you get your debates in lucky bags? they all used to be teenagers so all teenagers are bad. what if a few of them worked in the same place - that make everyone they work with guilty? they were ex provos because they werent provos at the time

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

theres your problem I think. To assume something as complex as the conflict in the north was because some people wanted a UI is really not getting it at all at all.

This is not my contention, that was the PIRA strategy from day one. They wanted a UI by means of force and violence and waged a war to try and achieve it.

It took them 25 years to realise they were barking up the wrong tree and stole the clothes from the SDLP and settled for a negotiated peace. Now we have the revisionism that the war was about equality and fairness and not a UI.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

This is not my contention, that was the PIRA strategy from day one. They wanted a UI by means of force and violence and waged a war to try and achieve it.

It took them 25 years to realise they were barking up the wrong tree and stole the clothes from the SDLP and settled for a negotiated peace. Now we have the revisionism that the war was about equality and fairness and not a UI.

markodaly - im afraid you havent a notion. plus its an oxymoron to say its not your contention then admit it is what you are saying

SafeSurfer

maccored wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You know that’s what I am saying. I am saying SinnFein see the Birmingham bomb as legitimate and the Omagh bomb as illegitimate. I didn’t claim either were seen as good.

where to start?

A) NO-ONE in the north likes what happened during the conflict
The Birmingham bomb was at the very very early stages of an embryonic republican reaction and as part of the conflict, happened as a consequence of many actions from all sides of the conflict itself
C) The Omagh bomb came when peace was being discussed - completely the opposite of the era of the Birmingham bomb

I dont know if you are purposely taking the p1ss here, but if you aren't you really need to get an understanding of what went on up the road

You know that old saying when you are explaining you are losing?

It’s the same with the violence of the old IRA. Up to a certain date they were freedom fighters then they were terrorists. Exactly the same with the provisionals and their condemnation of people doing the exact same as they did after a certain date.

And probably the same with the current dissidents and whatever motley group decide to continue the war in the future.

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

eh? By that argument they are men so therefore all men are guilty.

Not at all. The PIRA are culpable in Omagh. Not 100% to blame, but definitely share some responsibility.

If you set about and train a group to be terrorists, then you are responsible for their actions, be they when they carry out orders from HQ or when they go rogue. The PIRA provided them with the means, know-how and arms capable of such an atrocity. If you are saying the PIRA are 100% blameless, go ahead.

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

markodaly - im afraid you havent a notion. plus its an oxymoron to say its not your contention then admit it is what you are saying

Exhibit A

James Brown

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You know that old saying when you are explaining you are losing?

It’s the same with the violence of the old IRA. Up to a certain date they were freedom fighters then they were terrorists. Exactly the same with the provisionals and their condemnation of people doing the exact same as they did after a certain date.

And probably the same with the current dissidents and whatever motley group decide to continue the war in the future.

So Gerry was in the IRA?

SafeSurfer

Matt Barrett wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You know that old saying when you are explaining you are losing?

It’s the same with the violence of the old IRA. Up to a certain date they were freedom fighters then they were terrorists. Exactly the same with the provisionals and their condemnation of people doing the exact same as they did after a certain date.

And probably the same with the current dissidents and whatever motley group decide to continue the war in the future.

So Gerry was in the IRA?

You know I’m convinced now that he never was.

maccored

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You know that old saying when you are explaining you are losing?

It’s the same with the violence of the old IRA. Up to a certain date they were freedom fighters then they were terrorists. Exactly the same with the provisionals and their condemnation of people doing the exact same as they did after a certain date.

And probably the same with the current dissidents and whatever motley group decide to continue the war in the future.

is this yet another post where you arent actually saying anything at all? Because i just read it and ive no idea where you're going with it.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Exhibit A

of what exactly? A video from 1972 - a mere 3 years after it kicked off and 20 years before it started to wind down? how is that relevant?

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Not at all. The PIRA are culpable in Omagh. Not 100% to blame, but definitely share some responsibility.

If you set about and train a group to be terrorists, then you are responsible for their actions, be they when they carry out orders from HQ or when they go rogue. The PIRA provided them with the means, know-how and arms capable of such an atrocity. If you are saying the PIRA are 100% blameless, go ahead.

I think its best to blame the people who actually planted the bomb. not the people who didnt. I know - ruins your point, but on the other hand, it's called telling the truth. Cant educate bacon i suppose

SafeSurfer

maccored wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You know that old saying when you are explaining you are losing?

It’s the same with the violence of the old IRA. Up to a certain date they were freedom fighters then they were terrorists. Exactly the same with the provisionals and their condemnation of people doing the exact same as they did after a certain date.

And probably the same with the current dissidents and whatever motley group decide to continue the war in the future.

is this yet another post where you arent actually saying anything at all? Because i just read it and ive no idea where you're going with it.

If you don’t understand or can’t explain that’s fine.