markodaly wrote: » All I did was ask for someone to prove their allegation. Simple really. They did not. You have not. No one has.... Therefore, its a false allegation designed to muddy the waters. If you don't like lies being called, then perhaps stop backing lies and making up $hite.
markodaly wrote: » Again, show me the proof of your claim. If it's in the report, quite the paragraph, please. Otherwise, stop lying and promoting Republican conspiracy theories.
downcow wrote: » Running informants is a little more complex than you suggest. I think your informants would have fairly quickly be found with a plastic bag over their heads in south Armagh.
BonnieSituation wrote: » "All I did..." Yes Mark. Please tell us what sort of evidence would be acceptable to you? It'll save everyone the time and energy required to sate your needs.
jm08 wrote: » Just read it yourself, rather than just scanning it and come back to me then with why you think the Police did all they could to prevent the Omagh bombing or that in the Bermingham bomb, the police were competent in how they dealt with the information they had and the procedures as to how to deal with them.
markodaly wrote: » What sort of evidence? Well, any actual independently verifiable evidence really. Not some, 'Some man told me in the pub' antidote.
markodaly wrote: » Again, point me to the correct paragraph or quote or page number that will even remotely prove what you alleged. If you cannot, or will not, then it's likely the reason is, there is no proof in that document. Therefore, stop telling bare face lies.
BonnieSituation wrote: » I don't think there is an antidote for what you're spewing. So something from CAIN perhaps? Do you know what CAIN is?
The persons responsible for the Omagh bombing are the terrorists who planned and executed the atrocity. Nothing contained in this report should detract from that clear and unequivocal fact
markodaly wrote: » They have this report on their website.https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/police/ombudsman/po121201omagh1.pdf From the very first page. Now, if you have something else to offer?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » You are missing the point completely McGowan overcompensates for being English and tries to be more Irish and Republican. A classic case of a 2nd Generation 'Irish' self hating English person - who tries to be more Irish than the Irish = over compensation. In fact he said he would have joined the IRA only for music. For the record. In all honesty I don't view any of those lads you mentioned as really Irish. Yeah they maybe second generation Irish, but are/were plastic paddies when all is said and done. It comes back to my point of Irish people having way more in common with Britain than they like to admit. Yet people claim 'Brits out' to show how Irish they are. In other words being Irish = Brits out - to them.
jm08 wrote: » According to you, the IRA was riddled with informers. How come they all didn't end up with plastic bags over their heads? They had good intelligence for the Omagh bombing and they just didn't pass it on.
jm08 wrote: » I don't where you got that idea that the police should not have operated informants. Since they had informants they should have listened to them and acted on the information they were given. This didn't happen in either Bermingham or Omagh.
downcow wrote: » This thread was peppered with republicans claiming sf and O’Neill done nothing wrong at the storey funeral. Seems that O’Neill has finally done a u turn and accepted she and they were wrong, reckless and now ‘regret’ their behaviour. It’s the nearest you will ever get to an apology from the arrogant shinners (similar type of words to how they regret murdering people). A disgrace that it has take months to arrive I wonder will the posters on here, who were claiming shinner innocence on this, will join with her u turn? I think I know the answer to my own question.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Care to point out anyone saying SF and O'Neill did nothing wrong, Downcow? You really do have an odd relationship with the truth. The vast majority of posters all stated that SF were wrong. The closest to your suggestion was a few people saying it was no different to other politicians attending another funeral. Why do you always have to go with blatant misrepresentation and exaggeration instead of having reasonable conversation?
NIMAN wrote: » Any links to her apology, trying to find it.
downcow wrote: » I can’t search very well while on the phone but I will certainly get you plenty of posts repeating and supporting O’Neills former position. You might then even apologise to me for your claim Do you think she , even at this late date, should have had the courage to offer a full apology? Do you believe she initially misrepresented her responsibility for what went on at the funeral? Do you believe the behaviour of the sf leadership at the funeral of a murderer was simply disgraceful? Fairly simple yes/no questions
downcow wrote: » I wouldn’t call it an apology. It is a slippery admission of wrongdoing and regret. I think she made it to RTÉ. Edit - just found it https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1164300/
Fionn1952 wrote: » Stop trying to shift the goalposts, Downcow. I'm asking you for proof that the thread was full of, "Republicans claiming sf and O’Neill done (sic) nothing wrong at the storey funeral", which wasn't even Michelle O'Neill's position, let alone the position of the vast majority of Republicans on here. .
Fionn1952 wrote: » Stop trying to shift the goalposts, Downcow. I'm asking you for proof that the thread was full of, "Republicans claiming sf and O’Neill done (sic) nothing wrong at the storey funeral", which wasn't even Michelle O'Neill's position, let alone the position of the vast majority of Republicans on here. To your questions 1) Not really. I think it has mostly blown over, and I'm not appeased much by political apologies in general. The PR-type half-apology is better than I expected
BonnieSituation wrote: » He obviously got no traction with his Irish language nonsense so now we're onto something minor from the past that's long blown over. Maddening. Can you imagine what the St Andrew's negotiations were like?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Can't back up his claim that the thread was 'peppered with republicans saying SF had done nothing wrong' either.
dd973 wrote: » Why would there be an IRA of any form post reunification? We all know that elements involved in physical force Republicanism overlap with organised crime however I think this is an overlooked aspect when the issue is examined.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Sadly I suspect yes there would be, so as to make sure that any and all Unionist links with Britain were closed down permanently. The whole reason for the IRA in all its guises is to stamp out Britishness and all links with our neighbouring island, (specifically London & Westminster). The IRA would be happy with Unionists in a 32 county Republic, but only if they've severerd their ties with Britain permanently, otherwise the IRA (in some form) will go on for ever . . . . . That's my reading of it anyway.
