12 years for ex-shinner

LordSutch wrote: »

I do understand that there are several of you PIRA types on here, and as such the Provos are your brave bomb planting heroes . . . . but if you view your heroes from the perspective of the victims for just one moment, then your brave IRA bombers become nothing more than Irish Republican versions of Salmon Abedi, or the Paris bombers . . . . The victims are always blown to pieces due to a struggle which the perpetrators​ can't or won't convey by normal means, hence they resort to planting bombs and shooting people in order to attain their aims.

Thankfully in recent years the IRAs political wing (Sinn Fein) now condemn such bombings. Better late than never I guess, unless of course you sit beside an empty space at the table where your loved one (murdered by brave Republican heroes) used to sit

The British Army murdered unarmed demonstrators and the police killed children in their beds.

From the point of the victims therefore there is no difference between the British Army and the RUC and ISIS and the Paris bombers.

(See how utterly f*cking stupid such reductionism is?)

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And people wonder why I have never and will never vote for Sinn Feinn.

Criminals and sympathisers, the lot of them as far as I'm concerned.

As one of those 'people' I can assure you I have never 'wondered' about why you vote the way you do, because I know why you do.
I do wonder how so many are hypocrites in Ireland and merrily vote for parties born out of the same calibre of men and women and who are probably blood related to men and women who did the exact same things in the past.

'The lot of them...'

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't think Wolfe Tone, the Fenians, the men and women who gave their lives in 1916 or the War of Independence were involved in protection and racketeering or ran around holding kangaroo courts to punish those who raped kids but whose surname wasn't "Adams"...but always eager to learn.

You don't think they had internal discipline back then? Think you might wanna read a bit of history.
You got shot by firing squad for spying, informing, desertion etc.
The rape of kids was ignored more or less back them, sadly.

Another deluded poster who has managed to sanitise the past and be hypocritical.

Deleted User wrote: »

What Republican leaders of the past knew of incidents of child rape and turned a blind eye, praising the rapist, telling the victim not to publicise it?

I wouldn't know would I?
But I can assure you children were raped and abused and people knew, leaders knew. etc

Now if you want to discuss politics through the prism of an isolated event and a family tragedy, fire away.

You will be doing it without my contribution.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think any leader of any other political party knew of a child being raped, asked her to stay silent and praised the rapist.

The accusations of other victims of child rape suggests it was not isolated at all.

The victim of the family tragedy, Gerry Adams niece, has decided it is appropriate to discuss it. Why are you running away from the implications? Granted, they are awkward for the SF leader and those like Mary Lou MacDonald who defended him during it all...

If the rape was a political act, maybe you would have a point.

What I see is a horrible family tragedy that wasn't handled properly, but eventually was. Adams admitted he did the wrong thing and explained why he did the wrong thing for a while. The man is in jail where he should be.

The 'implications' are that he is a leader who can admit when he was wrong. Would we had more of them.

An organisation had free rein in this country to abuse children for decades, and nobody in leadership cared to look too closely.

Regarding the other accusations from Cahill and McGahan etc, they are trenchantly denied and there is evidence in the form of witness statements and letters that SF tried to advise Cahill on the right course of action to get justice and to get her attacker off the street.
He is still a free man by the way.

For me the jury is out on those cases.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have already established that all political parties have members who subsequently commit crime. Did you miss that?

And do all parties actively cover it up like SF did with Mairia Cahill and others?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And do all parties actively cover it up like SF did with Mairia Cahill and others?

Did they 'actively' cover it up though?
Cahill and SF did not recognise the now disgraced RUC for reasons we very clearly know.

Far as I can see (Cahills attacker still free to abuse) all the major parties used this woman for political capital and then walked away.
They claimed there were 'multiple' cases of abuse being covered up etc. Yet not one of these has materialised into an actual case. That I am aware of anyhow. Strange eh?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So basically Cahill made the whole thing up?

No. Who said that?

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

FF FG and sin féin are as bad as each other
... I like Mary lou and yer man in Donegan.

Yep, they are all political parties and all have members and ex members who have done things they shouldn't have done.

To claim that the actions of one or two are indicative of the party as a whole is just ridiculous.

jh79 wrote: »

But what about the reason why the house was raided , how much of his relationship with the Hutch drug gang did they know about?

The gardai clearly knew enough to raid.

jh79 wrote: »

And the Sunday World too yet Sinn Fein didn't, some might think that the Hutch gang paid their "taxes".

When you have the relevant evidence that a political party knew of this guys associations then to the barracks you go.

I presume, if he was involved in criminality then he wouldn't have been broadcasting it. I know loads and loads of workmen and contractors in the city but I wouldn't know who they were associating with.
Easy accusation to make though I suppose.

jh79 wrote: »

It is an easy accusation to make granted but the IRA obviously could not raise funds in a traditional sense so you have to it admit it is a resonable assumption to make. Whether it is true or not we'll never know.

Well there are no grants available for rebellion or insurrection.

And no, it isn't a reasonable assumption to make. If a number of councillors are taking bribes (and we have seen that they were) is it 'reasonable' to assume that taking bribes is party policy or sanctioned by the leadership? Would you need a smidgeon more evidence to make that stick?

jh79 wrote: »

So how sid the IRA raise funds ? And to be fair it was hardly transperant , your assumptions hold no more weight than mine.

You don't know how they raised funds?

They robbed banks, raised funds aboard etc. Pretty much what any revolutionary/rebellious/freedom group have ever done.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yep, they are all political parties and all have members and ex members who have done things they shouldn't have done.

To claim that the actions of one or two are indicative of the party as a whole is just ridiculous.

Support for the IRA terrorist campaign was a SF policy position, so that rather sets them apart.