Is it just me or have SF vanished?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The posters here who, in my opinion deny reality, constantly suggest posters with a different opinion educate themselves about the Troubles in order to have a serious discussion. The reality is that every serious, journalist, commentator and historian of the period accepts what you deny, to be the reality.

The same set of journo's/ commentators who were in denial about British collusion as well. Funny that.

I don't deny the IRA did the Northern Bank...I just don't know.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Is there any serious journalist, commentator or historian that accepts the points above?

In all seriousness, what historians would you recommend reading to get an objective overview of the conflict in the north?

What serious historian has given anything other than an opinion on the Northern Bank?

Serious historians present facts, evidence and data and then extroplate from them. So link us to one who presents facts evidence and data on the Northern Bank robbery.
Not interested in opinions btw, they are two a penny on NI.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What serious historian has given anything other than an opinion on the Northern Bank?

Serious historians present facts, evidence and data and then extroplate from them. So link us to one who presents facts evidence and data on the Northern Bank robbery.
Not interested in opinions btw, they are two a penny on NI.

From what I know about the northern bank robbery is that it wasn’t directly organised or carried out by any one organisation. How could it be seeing as most organisations implicated are cellular in nature with non linear power structures. This is one of the reasons that so difficult to infiltrate or prosecute anything. Also, while there has been evidence that it was carried out by a large group of republicans it doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone can categorically say that it was carried out by the IRA as some non IRA members were probably involved. But equally it is not correct to state that IRA members were not involved. Would that be a fair assessment?

Edgware wrote: »

There's a lot you dont know

Go easy on him he is a zealot on the easy questions and agnostic on the hard ones.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I lived through the conflict...I don't think I have read a single history of it tbh.

It's a live subject by the way as we still don't know what all the British were involved in.
The story you choose to believe is one that emanates mostly from those who see the Irish as worse than the British. Not trustworthy IMO.
Did you know that rather than reveal what they were involved in around the Dublin Monaghan bombings, they locked those files away for another few decades.

How can any 'historiian' write a true record therefore.

So your perspective is gained entirely from. Well your own perspective. Yet you criticise other posters for not seeing the big picture and relying on one sided sources.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The posters here who, in my opinion deny reality, constantly suggest posters with a different opinion educate themselves about the Troubles in order to have a serious discussion. The reality is that every serious, journalist, commentator and historian of the period accepts what you deny, to be the reality.

if we lived in a world where governments didnts corrupt and get up to all kinds of sneaky ****e to mould whatever particular fight, war, conflict or civil unrest - then I would probably agree with you.

If that were the case though, then they could use the evidence they have to bag their claims and lots of IRA people would be in jail.

we dont though. We live in a world where governments do bad things. Thats why after 16 years the investigation hasnt got anywhere. it'll be the same in a further 16 years.

The very simple point that you are missing - regardless of who has told you anything - is that the PSNI have never had a sniff of anything tracking back to the IRA. 26 million quid? Are you seriously saying that can leave no trace?

If you took off the blinkers and started using your brain - and also took a good look and get a feel for the political ongoings at the time - you might realise that the whole thing has really gone right over your head.

In order to blame then IRA, gossip is no good. It doesnt matter who suspects what. Proving it is the issue. To be able to blame one side, you really need to be able to back it up with more than a hunch. If you ever watched Starskey & Hutch, you'd know that.

To do otherwise goes against the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

joeguevara wrote: »

From what I know about the northern bank robbery is that it wasn’t directly organised or carried out by any one organisation. How could it be seeing as most organisations implicated are cellular in nature with non linear power structures. This is one of the reasons that so difficult to infiltrate or prosecute anything. Also, while there has been evidence that it was carried out by a large group of republicans it doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone can categorically say that it was carried out by the IRA as some non IRA members were probably involved. But equally it is not correct to state that IRA members were not involved. Would that be a fair assessment?

why not the uda or the uvf? or the real ira? or someone. Puzzles me why all fingers point to the ira. it suited a lot of people should SF lose political support around that time

joeguevara wrote: »

From my extensive reading on the subject and from speaking to people, it appears that it isn’t one organisation that carried it out, or at least none where there is credible demonstrable evidence of an order. I never pointed the finger at anyone and was clear that it looks like a group of people rather than one org. What appears to be lost on a lot of people who are unaware of paramilitary organisations is that due to their cellular non linear structure, it is difficult for one person to know if a person in the next town over is a member or not.

I agree that people jump to conclusions without knowledge and one thing i have learned is never to presume to know what it was like to grow up in the troubles and experience the disgusting things that were inflicted.

I am fairly sure that the northern bank robbery was not carried out by a loyalist paramilitary organisation. But I agree that no one can categorically state it was the IRA.

i have no idea who did it - I'll admit that ... but there was a lot going on politically in 2004. Theres many sides who could profit - not only from the actual money, but politically. I just find it a bit strange how its apparently so obvious the IRA done it - yet theres not a thing linking the IRA to it. Does not compute.

joeguevara wrote: »

arguments are based on posters stating conjecture as fact.

exactly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What serious historian has given anything other than an opinion on the Northern Bank?

Serious historians present facts, evidence and data and then extroplate from them. So link us to one who presents facts evidence and data on the Northern Bank robbery.
Not interested in opinions btw, they are two a penny on NI.

Are you arguing that historians don’t offer opinions now? Most of the history we “know” is based on a consensus of the opinion of historians.

Also, authors and historians have sources that must be protected. Sometimes from the state, as seen in recent cases and sometimes from armed groups with a propensity for violence.

I trust the “opinion” of historians such as Tim Pat Coogan, Ed Maloney and David Mc Kittrick. Respect for their opinion is based on their reputation and the respect of other professional historians.

You set a courtroom evidence type bar on every opinion you disagree with but happily trot out statements like northern nationalists benefiting from 30 years of conflict in the north without backing anything up with links as you claim.

You say you are not interested in opinions but in reality the only opinion you are interested in is your own.

Edgware wrote: »

Legion of Mary, Knights of St. Columbanus? There was a lot of shadowy outfits operating there

precisely my point - thanks for eventually getting it

Yeah_Right wrote: »

The thing about having lived through it is that it narrows your perspective. You can't look at the various incidents or issues objectively because your opinion is most likely skewed through your experiences of living through the Troubles. And by "you" I mean people on all sides of it. I'm not meaning this as a criticism by the way but its something that I think certain posters on here don't understand and won't accept about themselves.

As a neutral who studied it for a semester I have a view that would be more "big picture". An overview. I don't have the real world experience, so to speak. The deaths, maiming, bombings etc are numbers, words and pictures. They are stories not experiences. I never lived through the terror, pain or intimidation that people on all sides experienced. I just read about it.

This means that I don't have a dog in the fight and therefore (I think) I look at it all more dispassionately than others here. Yet some people, like Francie, tell me I should get my money back from the course I studied because I have a different opinion to him. With that attitude, how will there ever be progress?

You are purporting to be a dispassionate New Zealander and yet you arrive on here with the zeal of the best of our belligerent Unionists to like and thank any post that demeans and derides republicans.

I can spot the self appointed 'impartialists' who studied 'overviews' and independently a mile off tbh, you are not fooling me anyhow with the 'no dog in the fight' stuff.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are purporting to be a dispassionate New Zealander and yet you arrive on here with the zeal of the best of our belligerent Unionists to like and thank any post that demeans and derides republicans.

I can spot the self appointed 'impartialists' who studied 'overviews' and independently a mile off tbh, you are not fooling me anyhow with the 'no dog in the fight' stuff.

You disagree with the opinion of those you label ““Self appointed impartialists” and also with non self appointed impartialists such as the International Monitoring Commission whose report on the Northern Bank Robbery states

"We believe that the Northern Bank robbery and abductions - and the other robberies and abductions - were carried out with the prior knowledge and authorisation of the leadership of PIRA," the report states.

"In our view Sinn Féin must bear its share of responsibility for all of the incidents,"

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IMC said that the IRA were not involved in the Paul Quinn murder...yet we have the 'impartiialists' here landing the Shinners with the responsibility for that one too.

Whataboutery again.

So you accept the veracity of the IMC when it suits your narrative and rely on it in debate, but dismiss it when it undermines your argument.

You can’t have it both ways Francie.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IMC said that the IRA were not involved in the Paul Quinn murder...yet we have the 'impartiialists' here landing the Shinners with the responsibility for that one too.

Not true. See link.

They merely discovered that it wasn't authorised by the leadership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Monitoring_Commission