Is it just me or have SF vanished?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They were already negotiating with the IRA while still fully armed. Your assertion that the IRA bombing campaign in England, somehow forced the British to the negotiating table is demonstrably untrue.

Ignoring what it meant for the British to negotiate with an armed group? Are you being serious. Even in the context of this island. Do you think the provisional IRA were the first armed group the British have negotiated with? Facts are facts but you appear to have a very selective grasp of them.

You clearly dont know the facts. SF were not going to be allowed to the table until the IRA disarmed.

What hapoened? Do your research. Dont read the version put out by those with a vested interest in pretending they won.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You clearly dont know the facts. SF were not going to be allowed to the table until the IRA disarmed.

What hapoened? Do your research. Dont read the version put out by those with a vested interest in pretending they won.

Why don’t you take your own advice Francie.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why don’t you take your own advice Francie.

You are the poster who gave their ignorance away. The British were not 'negotiating' they were trying to get the IRA to disarm...you are either wilfully ignoring this or you didn't know.

You bought a version of the story and it is wrong, wholly wrong.

The British who said they never would, did negotiate with a fully armed group after they flexed their muscle and bombed the heart lands of Britain.

Fact.

If it happened any other way you need to demonstrate that. Don't be making a fool of yourself make trite remarks for like...those liking your posts are equally ignorant of the facts.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are the poster who gave their ignorance away. The British were not 'negotiating' they were trying to get the IRA to disarm...you are either wilfully ignoring this or you didn't know.

You bought a version of the story and it is wrong, wholly wrong.

The British who said they never would, did negotiate with a fully armed group after they flexed their muscle and bombed the heart lands of Britain.

Fact.

If it happened any other way you need to demonstrate that. Don't be making a fool of yourself make trite remarks for like...those liking your posts are equally ignorant of the facts.

Well it looks like the British got what they wanted then Francie.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Well it looks like the British got what they wanted then Francie.

More triteness because you cannot debate the facts.

What did the British want SS when they gunned down innocent people all over this island?

The British 'wanted' expediency...they didn't care about the Union Jack toting Sandy Rower or the Tricolour toting Falls Roader. They got the political expediency they wanted and they capitulated to do it. Then they sold a story of victory over a spy ridden IRA (good old James Bond gung ho stuff) that you bought because you are too lazy to look at the facts.
The British saw a deal they wanted slipping away because of the demands they were making and they folded. Simple as.

Thankfully they did and thankfully the IRA went with it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More triteness because you cannot debate the facts.

What did the British want SS when they gunned down innocent people all over this island?

The British 'wanted' expediency...they didn't care about the Union Jack toting Sandy Rower or the Tricolour toting Falls Roader. They got the political expediency they wanted and they capitulated to do it. Then they sold a story of victory over a spy ridden IRA (good old James Bond gung ho stuff) that you bought because you are too lazy to look at the facts.
The British saw a deal they wanted slipping away because of the demands they were making and they folded. Simple as.

Thankfully they did and thankfully the IRA went with it.

They say a fanatic is one who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

You have to face facts Francie. You have lost all faculties of subjective analysis. Only someone who is, at heart, riven by doubt can be as irrationally dogmatic in following the republican narrative of the last 50 years.

You have made statements in the last number of posts that are simply untrue.
The British negotiated many times with armed groups.

The IRA were heavily infiltrated with those working for British intelligence. Even their head of counter intelligence was a British agent.

Do you think the IRA would have survived post 2001, after 9/11 and the war on terror, when the political atmosphere in Washington was not so welcoming of former or would be former terrorists?

You said yourself the British wanted the IRA to disarm. That is the reality we are living with now.
Fact. (The ending of any statement with the word fact is pathetic, in my opinion).

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They say a fanatic is one who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

You have to face facts Francie. You have lost all faculties of subjective analysis. Only someone who is, at heart, riven by doubt can be as irrationally dogmatic in following the republican narrative of the last 50 years.

You have made statements in the last number of posts that are simply untrue.
The British negotiated many times with armed groups.

The IRA were heavily infiltrated with those working for British intelligence. Even their head of counter intelligence was a British agent.

Do you think the IRA would have survived post 2001, after 9/11 and the war on terror, when the political atmosphere in Washington was not so welcoming of former or would be former terrorists?

You said yourself the British wanted the IRA to disarm. That is the reality we are living with now.
Fact. (The ending of any statement with the word fact is pathetic, in my opinion).

Wow.

The British wanted the IRA to disarm before SF were allowed to the table. They did much high moral grounding about this stance as did Unionists. Bombs went off in the heartland of their economic and business communities...John Major quietly dropped the demand and the talks moved on resulting in an agreement that brought power sharing and parity of esteem for nationalists.

To avoid that reality of FACT you now want to discuss navel gazing stuff about the aftermath of 9-11???

I am, as I said, no supporter of the IRA or anyone who used violence, but you SS are as brainwashed as anyone on here.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wow.

The British wanted the IRA to disarm before SF were allowed to the table. They did much high moral grounding about this stance as did Unionists. Bombs went off in the heartland of their economic and business communities...John Major quietly dropped the demand and the talks moved on resulting in an agreement that brought power sharing and parity of esteem for nationalists.

To avoid that reality of FACT you now want to discuss navel gazing stuff about the aftermath of 9-11???

I am, as I said, no supporter of the IRA or anyone who used violence, but you SS are as brainwashed as anyone on here.

Perhaps you could remind us who John Major was due to meet in Downing Street on the day the Docklands bomb, in which 2 people were killed and over 100 injured, was detonated?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't defend anything...you asked a question. I answered it.

In this case, the answer you provided is defending the murder of children.

Did the bombing campaign bring results...nobody denies that...the timeline underlines the fact the British attitude changed and the GFA got signed. Is the GFA a help to nationalists...most certainly.

Plenty of people deny it. John Hume for one!

The Provo's wanted a UI by the bomb and gun, they failed... so again how exactly did the murder of a 3-year-old boy help the average nationalist in the North?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you think the IRA would have survived post 2001, after 9/11 and the war on terror, when the political atmosphere in Washington was not so welcoming of former or would be former terrorists?

This.

The provos knew they were done.
Omagh did them and their cause incredible damage.
9/11 was the final nail in the coffin, due to their reliance on arms and money from nostalgic Irish Americans.

Add to that, the leadership of SF and the Provo's were riddled with informers.
Loyalists too seemed to have their number and were killing more and more Republicans.

In essence, by anyone recognising, the Provo campaign was a failure, if one was to look at the demands they had set out in the late 60's/early 70's. They kept these demands up for decades until they stole the clothes from the SDLP and told us all that killing kids and women was really about equality after all. Only the brainwashed really believe that.

Today, the North is still British and armed crown forces still dominate the streets.
What they got in return is a glorified talking shop in Stormont where they can make no decisions of substance.

Were SF allowwd to the negotiatong table SS?
I never said anything about 'meetings'.

costacorta

maccored wrote: »

the only facts are the 50 grand found in the ruc leisure centre.

feel free to show me the court rulings where anyone in SF or in the IRA was convicted of anything to do with the robbery.

until you have that then Im afraid you cant pin the blame on anyone - certainly not until the almost 20 year old investigation is finished.

Then again, sure if enough people say it then it must be true - thats the kind of logic you two geniuses seem to be following

You forgot to mention the thousands that were found in wheelie bins in Farran Co Cork in a house of a known sympathiser . I suppose the RUC planted it there as well lol ...

mattser

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Perhaps you could remind us who John Major was due to meet in Downing Street on the day the Docklands bomb, in which 2 people were killed and over 100 injured, was detonated?

You know they're struggling when they have a pop at the thankers

[Deleted User]

markodaly wrote: »

so again how exactly did the murder of a 3-year-old boy help the average nationalist in the North?

If you are to believe the ira was riddled with informers and provided info surronding location of bomb......surely you must admit then, this is the fault of the british??

How did this killing help.the british security effort?

BloodyBill

maccored wrote: »

This id the second time to repeat and third time over all to explain to you, so focus really hard or do whatever you need to do to get that little brain thing of yours to start working.

50 thousand euro has been found in an RUC leisure centre

theres no-one in sf or the ira who are being held under investigation of or indeed accused or convicted of anything to do with the fobbery (bar the ira guy who was accused of the robbery and when they couldnt pin that on him, they jailed him for being in the IRA instead)

Both of those are facts - therefore the evidence to date points to the RUC. There has never been anything pointing to the IRA.

You can misrepresent that in any fashion you like in order to avoid admitting those two facts are correct - but it’d be very obvious thats what you're hoping to do.

You keep blaming the ira, you get asked if you can back that up and in reply you say the security forces say so. If that were true then either the investigation is a pretty **** one considering theres no movement in 16 years, or else its just crap.

In society, we say innocent til proven guilty. Its the founding stone of the justice system. You obviously arent a fan of that idea

The IRA robbed the bank. They planted 50,000 grand bizarrely to see if they could muddy the waters. They couldn't. That you could imagine the police robbing the bank is hilarious.

BloodyBill wrote: »

The IRA robbed the bank. They planted 50,000 grand bizarrely to see if they could muddy the waters. They couldn't. That you could imagine the police robbing the bank is hilarious.

The reality was the 'police' was so mired in very much non hilarious collusion and partisan policing their name had to be wiped and they were restructured.
There have been persistent allegations that there are elements of the old guard politically policing still.
Again, who does it help for you to believe without proof that a certain side did this?

In the context of NI 'I don't know' is a safer point of view until you have proof.

maccored

costacorta wrote: »

You forgot to mention the thousands that were found in wheelie bins in Farran Co Cork in a house of a known sympathiser . I suppose the RUC planted it there as well lol ...

'known sympathiser' ... so neither in the IRA or SF. Thats cleared that up. I did say no hearsay btw, only actual facts linking to SF or the IRA.

maccored

BloodyBill wrote: »

The IRA robbed the bank. They planted 50,000 grand bizarrely to see if they could muddy the waters. They couldn't. That you could imagine the police robbing the bank is hilarious.

the ira planted 50 grand in a high security, camera'd up to the eyeball RUC leisure centre where RUC officers wouldnt have immediate access to their arms, and therefore would be secure as **** - yeah right. where'd you read that, The Dandy?

surely they should never have had to mortor ruc stations then since they could have just walked in and planted bombs rather than 50 grand packages. Thats hilarious thinking.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are to believe the ira was riddled with informers and provided info surronding location of bomb......surely you must admit then, this is the fault of the british??

How did this killing help.the british security effort?

PIRA plants a bomb in the middle of an English market town on a Saturday afternoon which kills a 3 year old toddler and 12 year old boy.... who to blame?
The British.

Weren't you blaming the PSNI for the death of Lyra McKee earlier?

I don't think anyone should take your views on the matter seriously.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In the context of NI 'I don't know' is a safer point of view until you have proof.

Like when Gerry Adams was never in the IRA?

Adams is like Donald Trump with his bare-faced lies. He lies so much he doesn't even know it. And we have our MAGA hat-wearing cheerleaders here to match those across the pond with zealot brainwashing.

Truthvader

Still out there pushing "the RUC robbed the bank" Sinn Fein doublethink fantasy - and Francie saying he is not an IRA supporter. Its all too much.

Plus the usual mad sad Sinn Fein focus on imaginary British Government conspiracies. All the Brits ever wanted was for Gerry and the heroes to stop killing and maiming innocent people and to get out. They would have and did talk to anyone. The reality is that the Sinn Fein IRA just wanted power and binned the stupid "United Ireland" program as soon as Gerry got what he wanted. Even poor Mary Lou's "United Ireland" bleating has more or less stopped now in favour of more populist fodder such as anti water charges/ free housing for all/ moron vote catching sound bites. Power is all they wanted - and they murdered there way to it in Northern Ireland. Result; a non functioning government of a sad useless statelet overseen by bigots and thugs incapable of speaking to each other, propped up by endless cash from the British Government

markodaly wrote: »

Like when Gerry Adams was never in the IRA?

Go on Mark...look up my opinion on that...again and again I have said, 'I simply don't know if he was or not'.

Adams is like Donald Trump with his bare-faced lies. He lies so much he doesn't even know it. And we have our MAGA hat-wearing cheerleaders here to match those across the pond with zealot brainwashing.

What 'lies' can you prove he has told Mark?

You not believing something is NOT evidence of a lie.

And people who believe that a fully armed group (negotiating a deal which favoured nationalism to their satisfaction) was 'defeated/or surrendered' are the one's suffering from zealous self delusion tbh.

My view on that is also on record: both sides reached a stalemate and negotiated a settlement that they both wanted. The British side tried to get the other to surrender, but that failed if you look at the fact that Major capitulated on his disarming demand.

maccored

Truthvader wrote: »

Still out there pushing "the RUC robbed the bank" Sinn Fein doublethink fantasy - and Francie saying he is not an IRA supporter. Its all too much.

Plus the usual mad sad Sinn Fein focus on imaginary British Government conspiracies. All the Brits ever wanted was for Gerry and the heroes to stop killing and maiming innocent people and to get out. They would have and did talk to anyone. The reality is that the Sinn Fein IRA just wanted power and binned the stupid "United Ireland" program as soon as Gerry got what he wanted. Even poor Mary Lou's "United Ireland" bleating has more or less stopped now in favour of more populist fodder such as anti water charges/ free housing for all/ moron vote catching sound bites. Power is all they wanted - and they murdered there way to it in Northern Ireland. Result; a non functioning government of a sad useless statelet overseen by bigots and thugs incapable of speaking to each other, propped up by endless cash from the British Government

again you seem to have a bit of difficulty in the reading department.

whats being put forward is that you can - going by what has been found so far in the investigation - blame the RUC as much as anyone. You still havent shown any reason to blame the IRA outside of other people saying it. You ignore facts and promote hearsay.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Were SF allowwd to the negotiatong table SS?
I never said anything about 'meetings'.

Sinn Fein were allowed to the negotiating table after Sinn Fein leaked the FACT that the British had already been negotiating with an armed IRA for the past 3 years. A FACT that you have spent the last number of pages denying.

Instead you are wedded to the idea that “it was the bombs what done it”. Swallowing hook, line and sinker the republican myth that the armed campaign was worthwhile and effective and that the IRA were an undefeated army. You not only seek to vindicate the bombing campaign you positively revel in it, writing how it struck at the British heartland, like something straight out of a Boys Own comic.

You will note the IRA contact with the British following the Warrington bomb which stated
“the war is over but we need your help to end it”.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Sinn Fein were allowed to the negotiating table after Sinn Fein leaked the FACT that the British had already been negotiating with an armed IRA for the past 3 years. A FACT that you have spent the last number of pages denying.

Instead you are wedded to the idea that “it was the bombs what done it”. Swallowing hook, line and sinker the republican myth that the armed campaign was worthwhile and effective and that the IRA were an undefeated army. You not only seek to vindicate the bombing campaign you positively revel in it, writing how it struck at the British heartland, like something straight out of a Boys Own comic.

You will note the IRA contact with the British following the Warrington bomb which stated
“the war is over but we need your help to end it”.

US Congressman Bruce Morrison or Kings College London are hardly hotbeds of 'republican mythmaking' and both of them accaept that Canary Wharf and other bombings led to the British accepting SF at the table.

The facts SS, you cannot just throw them out because it might lead to somebody claiming you are glorifying the act.

I am not glorifying or gloating, merely stating what actually happened.

You need to face up to those facts, unpalatable as they are, if you are going to discuss seriously.

[Deleted User]

markodaly wrote: »

PIRA plants a bomb in the middle of an English market town on a Saturday afternoon which kills a 3 year old toddler and 12 year old boy.... who to blame?
The British.

Weren't you blaming the PSNI for the death of Lyra McKee earlier?

I don't think anyone should take your views on the matter seriously.

Mate....your claiming they run by the british....surely its a fairly obvious extraction then,the brits are to blame for the bombing??

Your happy enough to badger a poster for how x incident helped nationlists......how did it help british security,letting it go ahead (since yous believe ira riddled with informers,surely the brits are to blame,for not stopping it??)?

[Deleted User]

markodaly wrote: »

And we have our MAGA hat-wearing cheerleaders here to match those across the pond with zealot brainwashing.

Mate....you literally spend all day and night,posting comspiracy theories,which contradicte each other......

and then demand anyone who points this contradiction out,opioion be not be taken seriously

FrancieBrady wrote: »

US Congressman Bruce Morrison or Kings College London are hardly hotbeds of 'republican mythmaking' and both of them accaept that Canary Wharf and other bombings led to the British accepting SF at the table.

The facts SS, you cannot just throw them out because it might lead to somebody claiming you are glorifying the act.

I am not glorifying or gloating, merely stating what actually happened.

You need to face up to those facts, unpalatable as they are, if you are going to discuss seriously.

Discuss it seriously? You scramble to Wikipedia to try to shore up your argument, after already changing the goalposts. Then offer the opinion of a US congressman as “proof” while your response to the opinion of hundreds of experts on the Troubles to Gerry Adams IRA membership and the Northern Bank Robbery is “I don’t know”.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Discuss it seriously? You scramble to Wikipedia to try to shore up your argument, after already changing the goalposts. Then offer the opinion of a US congressman as “proof” while your response to the opinion of hundreds of experts on the Troubles to Gerry Adams IRA membership and the Northern Bank Robbery is “I don’t know”.

'Wikipedia'? WTF?

:D You really do depend on your biased perceptions don't you?

You are so biased that you cannot let yourself think that actions by the IRA or indeed any side had consequences and outcomes. It would somehow be a defeat for you.

I can accept that the republican side took many wrong turns, and did stuff that was wrong and counter productive and counter to any moral code. I can also see without defending it, that things they did had an effect that worked out well for the republican side.

But you cannot look at the whole picture...very strange but very indicative of a certain mindset.