nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sinn Fein Omerta

Pintman Paddy Losty

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sinn-f%C3%A9in-witness-consulted-party-over-aaron-brady-case-before-speaking-to-garda%C3%AD-1.4332502

Very strange case here. A witness in a murder trial of a member of AGS refused to speak to police without first checking with the powers that be in Sinn Fein.

That's not normal behaviour for a political party. That's how criminal organisations like the Mafia operate.

Anyone else think this is disgraceful carry on?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Edgware

Apart from the sectarian murder campaign which their military wing carried out the magic beans economics policies would hammer decent working people and benefit the welfare spongers

Truthvader

blanch152 wrote: »

Fess up would be a start, then when the whole bloody thing is laid out in full when they admit it, they could be properly judged.

None of this truth and reconciliation stuff from them, this is needed for the electorate down South to see the truth and judge. No hiding, no equivocation, after all what have they to hide?

£26,000,000

joseywhales

I could never vote for them, not just because of the civilian deaths. To me their history is too connected with the provisional ira. They came down here to the republic of ireland pointed guns in my parents faces and demanded money at banks in order to fund their "war" which was not sanctioned by us or anyone I know. My mom's friend was killed in the dublin bombing, men in balaclavas appeared at the funeral to "pay their respects" uninvited, parents were devastated. Using an innocent Irish girl's death as a recruitment opportunity for their agenda. Those people are not patriots. They have no honor. Sinn fein are a political party with new faces but I do not believe that they would work against the interests of former ira leadership if it was in the interest of the Irish state, therefore they have a conflict of interest which means I would never vote for them.

I would also be concerned about any intervention in the administration of the gardai when it comes to policing republican paramilitaries. They would be more palatable if they condemned convicted men like slab murphy instead of trying to undermine his conviction by calling for a trial by jury or referring to him as a "good republican". I think them taking an active role in turning on their own and helping the state to convict a republican criminal would go some way to creating trust.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Fess up would be a start, then when the whole bloody thing is laid out in full when they admit it, they could be properly judged.

None of this truth and reconciliation stuff from them, this is needed for the electorate down South to see the truth and judge. No hiding, no equivocation, after all what have they to hide?

They don't have a problem with a truth recovery process if all sides take part.

The British and Loyalists won't take part.

blanch152

batman75 wrote: »

In terms of dealing with the past what would SF need to do to be more palatable to the majority of the Irish people?

Fess up would be a start, then when the whole bloody thing is laid out in full when they admit it, they could be properly judged.

None of this truth and reconciliation stuff from them, this is needed for the electorate down South to see the truth and judge. No hiding, no equivocation, after all what have they to hide?

blanch152

end of the road wrote: »

not what i said at all and it's not something i would say.
i have been clear, plenty of times across multiple threads on the subject and i will be clear again, i never have and do not condone civilian killings regardless of who they were or are carried out by.
what i stated was that from anything i have read on the subject, it doesn't look to have been IRA policy to target civilians, all be it elements of it did so, yet it was not sanctioned by the organisation.
it was wrong for them to carry out those acts.

If you plant a bomb in a place where there are civilians, you target civilians.

You may only be targeting them to terrorise them rather than kill them, but it is a bare face brazen lie to say that the IRA did not target civilians. No amount of rightthink or doublethink will change that.

James Brown

batman75 wrote: »

In terms of dealing with the past what would SF need to do to be more palatable to the majority of the Irish people?

I think they do alright as regards the majority of the electorate.
I'd lose respect for any party tries re-write it's history to cadge a few votes.

batman75

In terms of dealing with the past what would SF need to do to be more palatable to the majority of the Irish people?

IAMAMORON

onh81 wrote: »

Edgware, we get it, you hate republicanism but don’t let your hatred cloud your ability to think rationally.

The IRA didn’t always target military targets. Even someone with the most remedial knowledge of the troubles appreciates they also targeted economic, political and infrastructural targets.

No one disputes the IRA killed civilians. No one is condoning it. No one is excusing it. In all cases you mention the IRA had fücked up their warnings. In all cases innocent civilians sadly lost their lives. To suggest the IRA deliberately targeted and killed them as part of a wider policy aimed at innocent civilians however is well wide of the mark and is the kind of hysterical revisionism that would make most loyalists blush. A brief look at those killed by the IRA will show the vast majority were security forces.

Mmmmmmm. Say that to the people of Enniskillen or Omagh.

Or Warrington.

Or Guildford

Or Birmingham

Or the 508 " civilians " murdered during the troubles. That's right 508 times people were murdered by apparent "missed targets" as your explanation so poorly explains. That is a lot of phuck ups pal, a lot.

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/

In fairness you will get more respect if you admit to the atrocities that went on and blamed them on the war itself. You don't get away with trying to massage over the truth, not in my book anyway.

onh81

Edgware wrote: »

So what were the military targets in the Le Mon hotel and the Birmingham pubs, Bloody Friday in Belfast? Were they all unauthorised actions?
You are posting absolute rubbish

Edgware, we get it, you hate republicanism but don’t let your hatred cloud your ability to think rationally.

The IRA didn’t always target military targets. Even someone with the most remedial knowledge of the troubles appreciates they also targeted economic, political and infrastructural targets.

No one disputes the IRA killed civilians. No one is condoning it. No one is excusing it. In all cases you mention the IRA had fücked up their warnings. In all cases innocent civilians sadly lost their lives. To suggest the IRA deliberately targeted and killed them as part of a wider policy aimed at innocent civilians however is well wide of the mark and is the kind of hysterical revisionism that would make most loyalists blush. A brief look at those killed by the IRA will show the vast majority were security forces.

Truthvader

end of the road wrote: »

not what i said at all and it's not something i would say.
i have been clear, plenty of times across multiple threads on the subject and i will be clear again, i never have and do not condone civilian killings regardless of who they were or are carried out by.
what i stated was that from anything i have read on the subject, it doesn't look to have been IRA policy to target civilians, all be it elements of it did so, yet it was not sanctioned by the organisation.
it was wrong for them to carry out those acts.

Just who is this drivel directed at?

Edgware

end of the road wrote: »

not what i said at all and it's not something i would say.
i have been clear, plenty of times across multiple threads on the subject and i will be clear again, i never have and do not condone civilian killings regardless of who they were or are carried out by.
what i stated was that from anything i have read on the subject, it doesn't look to have been IRA policy to target civilians, all be it elements of it did so, yet it was not sanctioned by the organisation.
it was wrong for them to carry out those acts.

So what were the military targets in the Le Mon hotel and the Birmingham pubs, Bloody Friday in Belfast? Were they all unauthorised actions?
You are posting absolute rubbish

end of the road

markodaly wrote: »

Like it was not IRA policy to blow up toddlers and kill women, but **** happens... right?

not what i said at all and it's not something i would say.
i have been clear, plenty of times across multiple threads on the subject and i will be clear again, i never have and do not condone civilian killings regardless of who they were or are carried out by.
what i stated was that from anything i have read on the subject, it doesn't look to have been IRA policy to target civilians, all be it elements of it did so, yet it was not sanctioned by the organisation.
it was wrong for them to carry out those acts.

mynamejeff

end of the road wrote: »

you are of course incorrect.

.

afraid not ,I am of course correct

look it up if you like

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

And most normal parties punish those responsible - whilst the party/cult that this thread is about will nominate the perpetrators for high office.

In the example you’ve posted - Walsh was booted from his role on the party exec.

Whilst in SF we’ve examples where they nominate Holohan for mayor of SDCC and Andrews first as a councillor, and then as a TD.

The different reactions tell a lot about the culture within the different parties.

I think those who nominated Holohan were sanctioned.

Andrews engaged in inter party political sniping from what I can see. Crime of the century...not sure...would need more detail.

There are more than one example of other parties ignoring bullying and sexism. It is an issue for ALL parties to get right.

I agree that none of them have.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I've said all parties have issues with this stuff...you were posting as if SF were the only ones.

glad you've seen the light and agree with me.

And most normal parties punish those responsible - whilst the party/cult that this thread is about will nominate the perpetrators for high office.

In the example you’ve posted - Walsh was booted from his role on the party exec.

Whilst in SF we’ve examples where they nominate Holohan for mayor of SDCC and Andrews first as a councillor, and then as a TD.

The different reactions tell a lot about the culture within the different parties.

Tokyo

Mod: markodaly, blanch152, mynamejeff, Bowie - whatever personal gripes you have with each other, they end here - it's fouling up every thread. Either learn to actually debate with each other, put each other on ignore, or end up threadbanned - your call from here on in. This goes for the forum as a whole, and there will be no other warnings on this.

markodaly

end of the road wrote: »

he is not stalking you, simply posting on the same threads you happen to be posting on in relation to sf.
from everything i have read on the subject, it was not IRA policy to commit sectarian acts, some members certainly did so but they were not sanctioned by the IRA.

Like it was not IRA policy to blow up toddlers and kill women, but **** happens... right?

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Of course you did - it definitely wasn't a case of reading the headline and posting away because you thought it was something else

Anyone who engages in that stuff should be booted from their party - not pushed for higher position. From what I can see, there's been no trace of Walsh since FG internally caught him in the act.

Sounds comparable to SF pushing Holohan for Mayor of SDCC alright - or welcoming in Chris Andrews to stand first for DCC, and then for a TD seat.

I've said all parties have issues with this stuff...you were posting as if SF were the only ones.

glad you've seen the light and agree with me.

end of the road

markodaly wrote: »

Just because its an open forum, doesn't mean one gets to stalk other posters.

Again, my question was to EOTR, not you.

he is not stalking you, simply posting on the same threads you happen to be posting on in relation to sf.
from everything i have read on the subject, it was not IRA policy to commit sectarian acts, some members certainly did so but they were not sanctioned by the IRA.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Apologies, in my haste I posted the wrong link. This guys suspension was later revoked by the party.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-says-tweets-by-barry-walsh-are-unacceptable-1.3294277

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fg-man-wins-appeal-on-suspension-over-tweets-about-women-37794913.html

Of course you did - it definitely wasn't a case of reading the headline and posting away because you thought it was something else

Anyone who engages in that stuff should be booted from their party - not pushed for higher position. From what I can see, there's been no trace of Walsh since FG internally caught him in the act.

Sounds comparable to SF pushing Holohan for Mayor of SDCC alright - or welcoming in Chris Andrews to stand first for DCC, and then for a TD seat.

end of the road

mynamejeff wrote: »

yes it was debunked and yes it is a lie

I restate , same lie different threads

you are of course incorrect.

Bowie wrote: »

We know Vardkar had a spin unit. We know he suggested setting up anonymous social media accounts. We know FG spent more than any other party on Social Media in the election but people criticising the zombie gombeen FF/FG government must be shinners and must be bots....

that's it basically, they know they have been got by the balls so are deflecting by dragging up any old thing in relation to sf to try and have a go at them when really there is nothing to have a go at in relation to sf, but plenty to have a go at in relation to ff and fg.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Was Jude Perry sending abuse online via anonymous accounts? That's quite the accusation to be implying

Apologies, in my haste I posted the wrong link. This guys suspension was later revoked by the party.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-says-tweets-by-barry-walsh-are-unacceptable-1.3294277

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fg-man-wins-appeal-on-suspension-over-tweets-about-women-37794913.html

James Brown

mynamejeff wrote: »

I suppose they could be being "well informed ".

Why are you labelling me a blueshirt . I ve never voted FG or FF ?

although if FG are blueshirts then are shinners black shirts ? or white shirts and black berets ?
Also Im not a traveller , I only have one profile and don't feel the need ot change my name

again your dragging away from the thread why ?

Same reason you are labeling me a shinnerbot?
I have voted SF and intend to do so again, that said I've voted FG too.

You equated changing name or account with Leo Varadkar/FG style use of anonymity for posting spin. My history stands as do my views. Unlike some I won't Godge dodge direct questions.

James Brown

Truthvader wrote: »

Don't need to vote for glove puppets

Bit harsh on Coveney. I'm sure both himself and the FG membership thought it was a legitimate vote for party leader.

James Brown

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I think it has zero to do with associates of Sinn Féin members being involved with a gang of murdering chunts if that is what you are asking?

I can guarantee you the Oireachtas Golf society has nothing to do with the RA either.

I was specifically asking who I quoted. They will not be drawn on it in any thread, even though they'll raise the Storey funeral, (not the Horkan) in non SF threads.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said plenty of examples of rogue members redeeming themselves and continuing their careers after this kind of behaviour. Here is one from FG.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/0127/1111318-expelled-member-reinstated/

I would say they have to be treated on a scale and seriousness of the offense basis, just like the Covid breaches of guidelines and breaking of rules debate. Political rivalry and infighting would be less serious than abuse of women for instance.

But that does not for a second condone any of it...it is wrong.

Was Jude Perry sending abuse online via anonymous accounts? That's quite the accusation to be implying

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Like Chris Andrews?

Get booted out of a party for abuse from anonymous online accounts - gets recruited into SF and pushed for public office.

As I said plenty of examples of rogue members redeeming themselves and continuing their careers after this kind of behaviour. Here is one from FG.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/0127/1111318-expelled-member-reinstated/

I would say they have to be treated on a scale and seriousness of the offense basis, just like the Covid breaches of guidelines and breaking of rules debate. Political rivalry and infighting would be less serious than abuse of women for instance.

But that does not for a second condone any of it...it is wrong.

mynamejeff

Bowie wrote: »

Same as you talking about me.

So they stay true to their opinions and don't have different personas to try pretend? Good lads.
Again, I know you blueshirts don't do reality and facts but as I said my post history is there. You might be thinking of your fellow travelers

I suppose they could be being "well informed ".

Why are you labelling me a blueshirt . I ve never voted FG or FF ?

although if FG are blueshirts then are shinners black shirts ? or white shirts and black berets ?
Also Im not a traveller , I only have one profile and don't feel the need ot change my name

again your dragging away from the thread why ?

James Brown

mynamejeff wrote: »

What does phil Hogan have to do with a thread about SF intimidation and corruption ?

im sure there are a few threads about that already ,

also don't worry its easy enough to spot re reg profiles and lads with new names they all have the same agenda and posting style , strange that :pac::pac::pac:

Same as you talking about me.

So they stay true to their opinions and don't have different personas to try pretend? Good lads.
Again, I know you blueshirts don't do reality and facts but as I said my post history is there. You might be thinking of your fellow travelers