Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Bonniedog wrote: »

I don't feel aggrieved, nor did they. It's history. No point in dwelling unhealthily on the past.

Of course anyone who joins any military organisation that uses violence is responsible for its actions even if not personally involved in them.

Same applies to those on British military, intelligence and political side with regards to supervising the loyalist campaign I referred to above. And indeed at the very least allowing the likes of Scap to torture and murder people.

No clean hands on either side.

Agreed though british military intelligence are not asking for my vote.

Mortelaro

DINNY DINNY DINNY

*oops wrong thread

I don't feel aggrieved, nor did they. It's history. No point in dwelling unhealthily on the past.

Of course anyone who joins any military organisation that uses violence is responsible for its actions even if not personally involved in them.

Same applies to those on British military, intelligence and political side with regards to supervising the loyalist campaign I referred to above. And indeed at the very least allowing the likes of Scap to torture and murder people.

No clean hands on either side.

Truthvader wrote: »

Money is part of the answer. Fear part, plus many did flee the six counties. Doesnt explain it all though and one can but wonder how people can support or vote for such a low low calibre of person. Only you know Francie. You are a full time promoter apologist and supporter

Thousands and thousands are voting freely for these people because of money?

Do elaborate.

Bonniedog wrote: »

You didn't have to anything to end up in Ballykinlar or the Curragh. Clue is in the word "internment camp."

Portlaoise one was for membership of Provies.

OK if your family were imprisoned for no reason that is wrong and you are rightly aggrieved.

The person who was a member of "the Provies" who were dedicated to murder, stealing and assault clearly got what he deserved And no doubt is now reaping the benefits of the "peace process" - which he does not deserve

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In the free world JH I can think of very very few, if any 'depraved men' who are routinely elected again and again when other choices are available. Can you?

Are you suggesting Kingsmill for example becomes less depraved as time goes by and SF's popularity increases?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I do often wonder, in an age when people can move freely how it is that people don't flee these 'tribal areas controlled by depraved men'.

I do often wonder some more how do these 'depraved men' get so many to elect and re-elect them as their leaders. Or to turn out in their thousands to pay their respects when one of these 'depraved men' die in these 'tribal areas'.

The rational explanation of the above to me would be that the idea that these 'tribal areas are controlled by depraved men' is a load of stereotypical nonsense and that there has to be a more reasonable and credible explanation.

Money is part of the answer. Fear part, plus many did flee the six counties. Doesnt explain it all though and one can but wonder how people can support or vote for such a low low calibre of person. Only you know Francie. You are a full time promoter apologist and supporter

jh79 wrote: »

To be fair Francie , depravity is judged on acts not popularity. Plenty of examples throughout history of depraved men being popular.

In the free world JH I can think of very very few, if any 'depraved men' who are routinely elected again and again when other choices are available. Can you?

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I do often wonder, in an age when people can move freely how it is that people don't flee these 'tribal areas controlled by depraved men'.

I do often wonder some more how do these 'depraved men' get so many to elect and re-elect them as their leaders. Or to turn out in their thousands to pay their respects when one of these 'depraved men' die in these 'tribal areas'.

The rational explanation of the above to me would be that the idea that these 'tribal areas are controlled by depraved men' is a load of stereotypical nonsense and that there has to be a more reasonable and credible explanation.

To be fair Francie , depravity is judged on acts not popularity. Plenty of examples throughout history of depraved men being popular.

Truthvader wrote: »

Drivel. It took fudementally depraved men to see an opportunity in a failed state to orchestrate a cruel campaign of savagery mainly inflicted on their own people to maitain control in the pursuit of power, to persuade 13 of their own young men to starve themselves to death get publicity for themselves and to keep at it until they took control of their tribal areas and extorted a flow of money from the British.

I do often wonder, in an age when people can move freely how it is that people don't flee these 'tribal areas controlled by depraved men'.

I do often wonder some more how do these 'depraved men' get so many to elect and re-elect them as their leaders. Or to turn out in their thousands to pay their respects when one of these 'depraved men' die in these 'tribal areas'.

The rational explanation of the above to me would be that the idea that these 'tribal areas are controlled by depraved men' is a load of stereotypical nonsense and that there has to be a more reasonable and credible explanation.

Truthvader wrote: »

Again what did they actually do? Perhaps they tried to defend Catholic areas from Loyalist ethnic cleansing in 1969 which would be a brave and necessary thing to do or perhaps they murdered unarmed fathers in front of their children, planted bombs in pubs and discos filled with young people etc etc which would be a depraved pointless and cowardly thing to do

So again what did these people actually do?

You didn't have to anything to end up in Ballykinlar or the Curragh. Clue is in the word "internment camp."

Portlaoise one was for membership of Provies.

Edgware wrote: »

And neither has slaughtering young people on a night out in Birmingham families remembering their war dead at Enniskillen

Or running the UVF and supplying them with intelligence and weapons to murder hundreds of Fenians and bomb the capital city of another state.

(That was the Brits by the way ..)

Yeah_Right

RandomViewer wrote: »

One little flaw in your thinking, the title is The United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland] ,so she's not British, maybe you should ask her to do one of those DNA ancestry tests just to prove that the former Ms Kelly is not British

Please, not this rubbish again.

Edgware

Bonniedog wrote: »

Power sharing in running part of the UK has nothing to do with republicanism.

And neither has slaughtering young people on a night out in Birmingham families remembering their war dead at Enniskillen

padd b1975

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Manna from heaven for the Unionists, they'll try and keep this going until the 12th, ably assisted by our outraged partitionists in the south no doubt.

She'll be wanting O'Neill to disown Storey altogether next.

A Shinner distancing themselves from terrorist scum.. Not in this lifetime.

RandomViewer

blanch152 wrote: »

Arlene isn't Irish, that is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. She is British, and is entitled to be British. By surrendering and accepting the GFA, the IRA accepted that that is her right.

The linkage of race and nationality to territory is the cause of so many wars in this world of ours. Yes, we should respect distinction, yes if people want to come together as one race or one nation, let them, but it is not based on territory, it is based on shared experiences. We don't need a united Ireland to have a united Irish people - that is the essence of the reformed Article 2, and that is the message we have to embrace.

Those who cling to the old tenets of nationalism are the dinosaurs of our time.

One little flaw in your thinking, the title is The United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland] ,so she's not British, maybe you should ask her to do one of those DNA ancestry tests just to prove that the former Ms Kelly is not British

Bonniedog wrote: »

I was being facetious, as this is what the new Shinners would have people believe was the objective.

They were IRA Volunteers.

Again what did they actually do? Perhaps they tried to defend Catholic areas from Loyalist ethnic cleansing in 1969 which would be a brave and necessary thing to do or perhaps they murdered unarmed fathers in front of their children, planted bombs in pubs and discos filled with young people etc etc which would be a depraved pointless and cowardly thing to do

So again what did these people actually do?

Finty Lemon

Bit cynical wrote: »

Some Unionists regard themselves as both Irish and British in the same way that you can be both Scottish and British.

Of course some Unionists regard themselves as Irish.
The United Kingdom is between GB and Northern Ireland after all. We all agreed on that years ago, including Bobby Storey

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fair enough. I could not take a dissident position to an agreement that legitimised getting rid of partition and delivered so much for Irish people.

I think it took fundamentally brave men and women to accept that armed conflict had reached stalemate and nobody was going to win.
I think Adams and McGuinness's achievement in holding the peace was incredible. Took me a long time to believe their bona fides. A peaceful transition to a UI will be a testament to both.

Drivel. It took fudementally depraved men to see an opportunity in a failed state to orchestrate a cruel campaign of savagery mainly inflicted on their own people to maitain control in the pursuit of power, to persuade 13 of their own young men to starve themselves to death get publicity for themselves and to keep at it until they took control of their tribal areas and extorted a flow of money from the British.

Truthvader wrote: »

That is not an answer. What did they actually do? "fighting for a catholic et etc" is not something that you go to prison for. Again what did yhey actually do?

I was being facetious, as this is what the new Shinners would have people believe was the objective.

They were IRA Volunteers.

Bonniedog wrote: »

They were fighting for a Catholic Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland :-)

That is not an answer. What did they actually do? "fighting for a catholic et etc" is not something that you go to prison for. Again what did yhey actually do?

Finty Lemon

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not your brand anyhow.
What's the next move? More dissident activity?

It worked in the past, by your logic. No stomach for it anymore??

Bishop of hope

The assistant PSNI chief constable calling Marylou a liar now.

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/psni-deny-mary-lou-mcdonald-claim-that-force-involved-in-planning-of-bobby-storey-funeral-39337494.html

Bit cynical

blanch152 wrote: »

Arlene isn't Irish, that is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. She is British, and is entitled to be British. By surrendering and accepting the GFA, the IRA accepted that that is her right.

Some Unionists regard themselves as both Irish and British in the same way that you can be both Scottish and British.

dundalkfc10

blanch152 wrote: »

Arlene isn't Irish, that is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. She is British, and is entitled to be British. By surrendering and accepting the GFA, the IRA accepted that that is her right.

The linkage of race and nationality to territory is the cause of so many wars in this world of ours. Yes, we should respect distinction, yes if people want to come together as one race or one nation, let them, but it is not based on territory, it is based on shared experiences. We don't need a united Ireland to have a united Irish people - that is the essence of the reformed Article 2, and that is the message we have to embrace.

Those who cling to the old tenets of nationalism are the dinosaurs of our time.

Any of that smoke left?

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Some of us would never leave our fellow countrymen and women in the lurch. Sad that a sensational news story would have some turn their back.
Irish people like Arlene will always have my welcome despite her confused outlook

Arlene isn't Irish, that is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. She is British, and is entitled to be British. By surrendering and accepting the GFA, the IRA accepted that that is her right.

The linkage of race and nationality to territory is the cause of so many wars in this world of ours. Yes, we should respect distinction, yes if people want to come together as one race or one nation, let them, but it is not based on territory, it is based on shared experiences. We don't need a united Ireland to have a united Irish people - that is the essence of the reformed Article 2, and that is the message we have to embrace.

Those who cling to the old tenets of nationalism are the dinosaurs of our time.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

The people felt their was a need for the IRA. To suggest they were created in a vacuum by some self interested parties with no public support just isn't the case. You can disagree with their methods, but people wanted them and felt they needed them.

The bit in bold is the biggest lie put forward by the SF/IRA apologists.

The people never wanted the IRA. They only voted for Sinn Fein once the IRA stopped killing people for no reason. Yes, the nationalist people, they wanted a united Ireland, but they never wanted idiotic kids and criminal sociopaths to go around killing and bombing to get one. However, they are still a minority in the North.

What the people want, and the election results show this time and again, is peace and to remain part of the UK. It is delusional to imagine anything else.

RandomViewer

Whatever your view you've got think this has been a bad week for new leader Micheal Martin ,first you had the West coast ignored, then the junior minister refusals, SF taking the headlines with Storry's funeral ( it's publicity, good or bad, doesn't matter, ask Terri) , then you have the Green minister being friends with someone who wants to shag 14 year olds, No honeymoon period.

christy c

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Talk about a brass neck. :pac::pac:
Shes shocking.

Much as I despise SF, you'd have to pity them dealing with people like that