The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

blanch152 wrote: »

Any day now the truth will out and it will become clear that it was all a set-up, that Bobby Storey and Gerry Adams were angels, that the British set Liam Adams up by ensuring he would have a daughter, that they bought provocative clothing for Mairia Cahill to make it all her fault, that they deliberately booked a hotel in Brighton that would be easy to bomb, that the whole Canary Wharf development was built solely with a view to attracting bombers who couldn't help themselves, yes, we know Francie, it was all the fault of the Brits.

In the face of your escalating lying and misrepresenting of my position and beliefs I will calmly set them out again.

It is my belief that all the players have fault including SF and the IRA. I could not and did not vote for SF until I was satisfied the IRA was gone.
It is my belief that if the player that was engaged in collusion and deliberate attempts to inflame and deepen the conflict/war was the same as the state that was responsible for all the people, that the greater 'fault' for what happened lies with them.
I would go so far as to say it was a criminal undermining of one of the most fundamental tenets of democracy.

piplip87

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So basically you hold the state to the same standards as subversives?

That 'state' is still influencing the stability of this island BTW. It may not be front and centre wherever you are but their actions have a great deal of effect where I am. So get lost with the trite, 'nothing to do with me' partitionist logic that only one side is answerable because they are 'looking to run the country down here'.
It is inanely stupid and a cop out.

Yes I hold the British State and the IRA to the same standards. They both deliberately slaughtered innocent, men, women and Children and then tried to justify it.

Again I say the Provos seen themselves as the only legitimate army in this state so yes they seen themselves as legitimate as they seen the British.

I am not taking away from the horrors the British in conjunction with the UVF brought to this country just pointing out that you and others on here are using these deaths to try and legitimize what the IRA did.

In fairness whats the difference between the Hill Crest Bombing and Kingsmill ?

Victims in each attack where slaughtered because of their identity and you cannot condone one and condemn the other.... which your lot seem to do..... Absolute scumbags

Triangle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So it's 'round up the usual suspects' now, is it?

And you claim to be the democrat here?

You're a gas man Jeff.

Not the only one here francie, you seem to spend a massive amount of time defending SF, seems you're well entrenched in the rabbit hole.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He's not the only one who 'thinks' they have proof tbh.

'False flag' operations, quite a well known tactic of certain states. 40 years they covered their tracks by blaming those killed for getting killed in Derry. The entire police force and judiciary were in on it.

Don't talk to me about 'likely' please. We'll see if the next 40 years brings anything to light.

Any day now the truth will out and it will become clear that it was all a set-up, that Bobby Storey and Gerry Adams were angels, that the British set Liam Adams up by ensuring he would have a daughter, that they bought provocative clothing for Mairia Cahill to make it all her fault, that they deliberately booked a hotel in Brighton that would be easy to bomb, that the whole Canary Wharf development was built solely with a view to attracting bombers who couldn't help themselves, yes, we know Francie, it was all the fault of the Brits.

mynamejeff wrote: »

lol . so no one has proof then

but one suspect has a long history of using bank robberies as a political fund raising tactic even using murder of police armed and unarmed

So it's 'round up the usual suspects' now, is it?

And you claim to be the democrat here?

You're a gas man Jeff.

mynamejeff wrote: »

ask the other lad , he thinks he has proof enough to state it

most likely

it was the IRA
a retirement fund for terrorists
capital to start up various other criminal enterprises
funds for sf
arms purchase just in case

etc etc etc

So when SF engage in politics and open dialogue they are consistently undermined by slurs with no evidence. Constant and relentless they are deligitmised in all efforts by the establishment in the south. They even had to send a legal letter to rte to be allowed have Mary Lou be able to speak in the election leaders debate. Yet when there's an actual evidential fact based documentary about murderous gangs, state collusion and the highest of positions in the Gardai seems to be preventing relatives from receiving Justice no one in FG/FF mentions it. Where is Neale Richmond or Leo Varadkar talking about it?
The truth is they don't give a ****e about the safety/Justice or rights of citizens. That in my eye makes them complicit. And it is this deafening silence that pushes frightened community into the hands of gangs and terrorists like the IRA and UVF.

mynamejeff

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He's not the only one who 'thinks' they have proof tbh.

'False flag' operations, quite a well known tactic of certain states. 40 years they covered their tracks by blaming those killed for getting killed in Derry. The entire police force and judiciary were in on it.

Don't talk to me about 'likely' please. We'll see if the next 40 years brings anything to light.

lol . so no one has proof then

but one suspect has a long history of using bank robberies as a political fund raising tactic even using murder of police armed and unarmed

mynamejeff wrote: »

ask the other lad , he thinks he has proof enough to state it

most likely

it was the IRA
a retirement fund for terrorists
capital to start up various other criminal enterprises
funds for sf
arms purchase just in case

etc etc etc

He's not the only one who 'thinks' they have proof tbh.

'False flag' operations, quite a well known tactic of certain states. 40 years they covered their tracks by blaming those killed for getting killed in Derry. The entire police force and judiciary were in on it.

Don't talk to me about 'likely' please. We'll see if the next 40 years brings anything to light.

mynamejeff

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know who did it.

Is it possible the IRA did it - yes, given what we know they were doing.
Is it possible elements of the British state did it - yes, given what we know about what they were doing.

ask the other lad , he thinks he has proof enough to state it

most likely

it was the IRA
a retirement fund for terrorists
capital to start up various other criminal enterprises
funds for sf
arms purchase just in case

etc etc etc

mynamejeff wrote: »

do you thin the "brits "did it too then ?

I don't know who did it.

Is it possible the IRA did it - yes, given what we know they were doing.
Is it possible elements of the British state did it - yes, given what we know about what they were doing.

mynamejeff

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So where is the finding of a 'civil court' in relation to the Northern Bank robbery? Or is this just another absurd justification of your kangaroo court antics on 'certain' allegations?

You really take the biscuit on the high moral ground stuff.

do you thin the "brits "did it too then ?

blanch152 wrote: »

Make it about the poster criticising Sinn Fein, rather than defending the exploits of Sinn Fein. Helps deflect the attention.

You completely misrepresent things. Not guilty in Irish criminal law does not equate to innocent. It equates to either innocent or not proven beyond a reasonable doubt or both.

A great example of this is the Omagh bombing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37504674

"In regard to Campbell and McKevitt's claim that the judge should have applied a criminal standard of proof, the court found that this was not necessary because the proceedings had been for a civil claim for damages.

The court found that the Northern Ireland court's findings were not arbitrary or unreasonable and that applicants had not demonstrated that their trial was unfair."

Campbell and McKevitt were responsible for bombing Omagh. That they weren't convicted in a criminal court does not mean they were innocent.

So where is the finding of a 'civil court' in relation to the Northern Bank robbery? Or is this just another absurd justification of your kangaroo court antics on 'certain' allegations?

You really take the biscuit on the high moral ground stuff.

maccored wrote: »

i think blanch just likes to wind people up. if s/he thinks someone is guilty when a court cant convict them s/he still thinks they are guilty even with the scarcest of case info

Make it about the poster criticising Sinn Fein, rather than defending the exploits of Sinn Fein. Helps deflect the attention.

You completely misrepresent things. Not guilty in Irish criminal law does not equate to innocent. It equates to either innocent or not proven beyond a reasonable doubt or both.

A great example of this is the Omagh bombing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37504674

"In regard to Campbell and McKevitt's claim that the judge should have applied a criminal standard of proof, the court found that this was not necessary because the proceedings had been for a civil claim for damages.

The court found that the Northern Ireland court's findings were not arbitrary or unreasonable and that applicants had not demonstrated that their trial was unfair."

Campbell and McKevitt were responsible for bombing Omagh. That they weren't convicted in a criminal court does not mean they were innocent.

smurgen wrote: »

How often do you spend on boards posting about loyalist terrorists? Or are there good terrorists and bad terrorists?

As I have previously pointed out, there aren't any sick twisted people on boards glorifying the acts of loyalist terrorists. If there were, I would give them the same short shrift that I give to the IRA and SF apologists.

Yeah_Right

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course I completely forgot. There is a doctrinal difference between good republicans terrorising innocent people and bad republicans doing the same.

Remember Blanch, the IRA is completely different from the IRA and also shouldn't be confused with IRA. This has been explained to us multiple times :rolleyes:

Truthvader

smurgen wrote: »

How often do you spend on boards posting about loyalist terrorists? Or are there good terrorists and bad terrorists?

All criminal scum but as pointed out only one gang of criminal scum is repeatedly and relentlessly justified and defended here. That is why they are called out on the lies, equivocations and justifications. Seems that no-one is on here justifying Bloody Sunday or the Shankill Butchers but there is a hard core of Sinn Fein IRA sowing disinformation and snide comments about other political parties (particularly centre parties) while endlessly justifying and glorifying a 30 year campaign by criminals to sieze power via murder and mutilation of other people.

No Northern Catholic derived any advantage from a single murder or cripples teenager. The only winners were the Sinn Fein IRA leadership and their DUP counterparts who carved up the six counties between them and now mismanage their separate little empires behind peace walls while sucking money from the UK in exchange for not killing. Its not OK to kill and hurt other people to get what you want - even if you have suffered injury yourself

piplip87 wrote: »

The IRA seen themselves as the official army of the first Dail. I am not taking away from the suffering and the downright murder carried out by the British State alongside the Loyalist paramilitaries. I am pointing to the fact that some on here seem to think these murders justifies the IRA campaign. It would however justify the armed campaign on British Security Forces and loyalist paramilitaries and I would support that kind of campaign. However the IRA didn't just stick to killing soldiers and Loyalist Paramilitaries. The killed innocent civilians and it wasn't collateral damage either they actually targeted civilians

So that doesn't justify the IRA campaign it makes them no better than the British. There is no moral high ground to be gained from this. Yet SF supporters once again seem to think it gives then justification while in reality it shows them up for what they are. Supporters of a Terroeist organisation. The exact same can be said of Loyalists too. The difference is Loayalists don't be knocking on doors looking to run the country down here.

So basically you hold the state to the same standards as subversives?

That 'state' is still influencing the stability of this island BTW. It may not be front and centre wherever you are but their actions have a great deal of effect where I am. So get lost with the trite, 'nothing to do with me' partitionist logic that only one side is answerable because they are 'looking to run the country down here'.
It is inanely stupid and a cop out.

Hamsterchops

So the title of this thread is "The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)" and here we are discussing who killed who in which bomb, who made the biggest bombs, which bomb killed the most people, where they were planted, and who planted them!

It could only be a Sinn Fein/IRA thread

piplip87

smurgen wrote: »

But the difference is one side was collaborated with the official state army.

The IRA seen themselves as the official army of the first Dail. I am not taking away from the suffering and the downright murder carried out by the British State alongside the Loyalist paramilitaries. I am pointing to the fact that some on here seem to think these murders justifies the IRA campaign. It would however justify the armed campaign on British Security Forces and loyalist paramilitaries and I would support that kind of campaign. However the IRA didn't just stick to killing soldiers and Loyalist Paramilitaries. The killed innocent civilians and it wasn't collateral damage either they actually targeted civilians

So that doesn't justify the IRA campaign it makes them no better than the British. There is no moral high ground to be gained from this. Yet SF supporters once again seem to think it gives then justification while in reality it shows them up for what they are. Supporters of a Terroeist organisation. The exact same can be said of Loyalists too. The difference is Loayalists don't be knocking on doors looking to run the country down here.

maccored

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The IRA killed far more catholics than the BA did.

how do we know, considering they killed a lot and pretended it was the IRA ...

maccored

smurgen wrote: »

How often do you spend on boards posting about loyalist terrorists? Or are there good terrorists and bad terrorists?

i think blanch just likes to wind people up. if s/he thinks someone is guilty when a court cant convict them s/he still thinks they are guilty even with the scarcest of case info

blanch152 wrote: »

Another delusion on your part. The British were not hellbent on starting a bloody all out civil war.

You really have no perspective.

How many convictions do you think Drew Harris and co secured on these 120 murders? Have a guess?

https://twitter.com/RonanMcL93/status/1306249997462241280?s=19

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The IRA killed far more catholics than the BA did.

The BA killed catholics by proxy using loyalist paramilitary terrorists.FG poster boy Drew Harris is covering up for those responsible. Where are the articles of the shadowy links between him and the loyalist gangs?

https://twitter.com/gildernewm/status/1306374605146333186?s=19

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course I completely forgot. There is a doctrinal difference between good republicans terrorising innocent people and bad republicans doing the same.

How often do you spend on boards posting about loyalist terrorists? Or are there good terrorists and bad terrorists?

blanch152 wrote: »

Another lie.

The Omagh bombing killed more.

Sorry the Dublin and Monaghan bombings on the same day were the deadliest attacks of the troubles.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course I completely forgot. There is a doctrinal difference between good republicans terrorising innocent people and bad republicans doing the same.

Or, this a distinct difference from being a nasty dissident republican, and a nasty dissident republican being made a senator by Enda and Joan.

Of course, going by your definition time spent being one can excuse you regardless.

Al Qaeda suicide bombers can probably be forgiven in your eyes too, especially if they were only a suicide bomber for a short while before making the transformation into flying mince meat.

McMurphy wrote: »

The Omagh bomb was carried out by those opposed to the peace process and viewed those who wanted to see it implemented as "traitors" they were dissident republicans, Maira Cahill ascribed to their way of thinking (though you excused her, as "she was just a member for a wee while) lest you forgot.

We have been over this already, and although I accept it's uncomfortable for you to accept, it is none the less a fact.

Of course I completely forgot. There is a doctrinal difference between good republicans terrorising innocent people and bad republicans doing the same.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Another lie.

The Omagh bombing killed more.

The Omagh bomb was carried out by those opposed to the peace process and viewed those who wanted to see it implemented as "traitors" they were dissident republicans, Maira Cahill ascribed to their way of thinking (though you excused her, as "she was just a member for a wee while) lest you forgot.

We have been over this already, and although I accept it's uncomfortable for you to accept, it is none the less a fact.

smurgen wrote: »

The Dublin bombings was the deadliest attack in the troubles. The governments apathy created the IRA.

https://twitter.com/PadraigMacL/status/1306486483059122177?s=19

Another lie.

The Omagh bombing killed more.