[Article]Dublin pub murder suspect linked to O’Snodaigh and Sinn Féin

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Theres a thread open for that Rock Climber feel free to post there, I'd be interested to see what lie of Martin McGuinness's your referring to.

All I was saying is that I haven't seen any other reports to support the thread title.

Are you going to follow me around boards all day and bash SF anytime I post?

Steady on there Irish1,I've only seen 2 posts to the most current threads from that poster so far, hardly stalking.

Also it is a valid point ie consistency between threads.I'd like to see it with all posters.
If you take just one item as your "proof" of what you believe in one thread and then go into another and discount some other poster for doing the same, you are being inconsistent and frankly harming your own stance.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Steady on there Irish1,I've only seen 2 posts to the most current threads from that poster so far, hardly stalking.

Also it is a valid point ie consistency between threads.I'd like to see it with all posters.
If you take just one item as your "proof" of what you believe in one thread and then go into another and discount some other poster for doing the same, you are being inconsistent and frankly harming your own stance.

FFS Earthman all I said was that I hadn't seen anything other than an article in the Anti-SF Indo to support this claim, I never said the IRA wasn't involved just seekng more information to use to form an opinion, now if you want to compare that to someone accusing men of lying and not providing evidence to back up claim, good for you. But trying to draw comparisions is just plain silly.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

just seekng more information to use to form an opinion,

Well you'll have to agree that looking for that here to form an opinion and not looking for it in your own"poll" thread when you form a belief just on the word of those you are believing without any further evidence is indicative of a large measure of inconsistency.
Bonkey took you up on that in the other thread and you resorted to stating your belief again,based on one thing only, what Adams and McGuinnes said.
Don't get me wrong,I've every respect for your belief, but when you state that your formation of it is based on just one thing, it would be consistent not to discount others who do the same.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Well you'll have to agree that looking for that here to form an opinion and not looking for it in your own"poll" thread when you form a belief just on the word of those you are believing without any further evidence is indicative of a large measure of inconsistency.
Bonkey took you up on that in the other thread and you resorted to stating your belief again,based on one thing only, what Adams and McGuinnes said.
Don't get me wrong,I've every respect for your belief, but when you state that your formation of it is based on just one thing, it would be consistent not to discount others who do the same.

Yes but earthman the people being accused in that situation have denied the claims, all we have here is story in the indo, no other claims of IRA involvement and I believe Mr McDowell dismissed the claim, (didn't realise that until I read this thread so not sure how true that is)

I really don't see how you can compare one story in the indo to a rebuff by two SF leaders, also in this case I haven't even given my opinion, my only comment has been to say the only info I haven seen was in the INDO, hardly a opinion saying the IRA was or wasn't involved.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I really don't see how you can compare one story in the indo to a rebuff by two SF leaders, also in this case I haven't even given my opinion, my only comment has been to say the only info I haven seen was in the INDO, hardly a opinion saying the IRA was or wasn't involved.

Come on now,Irish1 what did you mean by the post?
You seem to have clarified what you meant by the post in the bit below and shown exactly what I'm saying here-ie you display a lack of consistency in the proof you are willing to go on for one opinion you have on one thing vis a vis what you require for another-heres where you confirm this:

Yes but earthman the people being accused in that situation have denied the claims, all we have here is story in the indo, no other claims of IRA involvement and I believe Mr McDowell dismissed the claim, (didn't realise that until I read this thread so not sure how true that is)

You've clarified there that you are not satisfied with the articles in this thread, yet in the other thread you are satisfied with one piece of information to form your belief.
I'm not happy with these articles as proof of whatever either. But from your stand point, you are saying they're not enough, yet elsewhere, something somebody says without any tangible proof is good enough for your opinion on a different matter.
It's inconsistency, plain and simple and it's something from a debate point of view thats best avoided.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Come on now,Irish1 what did you mean by the post?
You seem to have clarified what you meant by the post in the bit below and shown exactly what I'm saying here-ie you display a lack of consistency in the proof you are willing to go on for one opinion you have on one thing vis a vis what you require for another-heres where you confirm this:


You've clarified there that you are not satisfied with the articles in this thread, yet in the other thread you are satisfied with one piece of information to form your belief.
I'm not happy with these articles as proof of whatever either. But from your stand point, you are saying they're not enough, yet elsewhere, something somebody says without any tangible proof is good enough for your opinion on a different matter.
It's inconsistency, plain and simple and it's something from a debate point of view thats best avoided.

I don't believe it is inconsistency because I haven't stated that my opinion here, this murder could well have been carried out by the IRA or least a member of that organisation, I don't know because I don't enough information to form an opinion.

However in relation to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness being members of the IRA Army Council, these men deny those claims and have stated that on many occasions, I support SF so I believe them when they say that and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to prove otherwise and considering they haven't been arrested for membership and the Leader of this state says he doesn't know I believe thats a reasonable belief to hold. That is my opinion based on the information at hand.

IMO you are going on the belief that I believe the IRA weren't involved in this murder, which isn't true I know what the IRA is capable and they are certianly capable of killing a man in a Dublin pub, I just don't know whether or not in this case it was the IRA, I am no supporter of the IRA so why would I defend them here

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

However in relation to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness being members of the IRA Army Council, these men deny those claims and have stated that on many occasions, I support SF so I believe them when they say that and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to prove otherwise and considering they haven't been arrested for membership and the Leader of this state says he doesn't know I believe thats a reasonable belief to hold. That is my opinion based on the information at hand.

nifty so if I state "I support Tony O'Reilly" I can have this neat logic loophole to use in defense of the Indo?

monument

Cork wrote:

The Shinners will look for evidence and blame the Indo.

That's not really fair, is it? The article is from the Sindo, apparently the Indo isn’t still quite as bad.

Cork wrote:

SF reponses are akin to auto replies?

Where can one find the 'auto replies' settings on boards? It will make replying to your auto replies easer.