FrancieBrady wrote: » Why would you want anyone to apologise for attending a funeral? Bizarre.
Truthvader wrote: » Actually turns out it wasn't a funeral at all. Kind of yellow pack Nuremburg rallyi
jh79 wrote: » Defunct term ever since the IRA's surrender and SF's acceptance of British sovereignty in NI.
blanch152 wrote: » The bit in bold is the problem. Like Michelle, like other short-sighted nationalists, like the sectarian party of Sinn Fein, you only see events through the lens of a united Ireland. Everything should be on an all-island approach. If Trump was President in the South and deciding Covid policy, that would be ok, so long as Northern Ireland was following in his footsteps. Ditto Arlene with her slavish adherence to the London line. As a result of the two squabbling childish sectarian parties, we get numbers like today. Hopefully, the Northern Ireland electorate will wake up and realise that both Dublin and London are performing better when it comes to managing Covid-19 and ask the very straightforward question as to why their two sectarian parties can't agree on what is best for Northern Ireland, instead of just wanting what Dublin have or what London have. A plague on both their houses (SF and DUP, that is). I don't lay the blame for the current mess in Northern Ireland at any one party's door, the two sectarian parties are to blame. Is it any wonder that most of us down here don't want any truck with either of them.
blanch152 wrote: » You label to dehumanise as usual, we could all sink to that level. You support a sectarian party in the North = you are bigoted. But hey, we won't go there. We all know why and how it is that way, the child-like politicians can't do it themselves. But you know what I mean, the sooner the Northern Ireland electorate wake up and vote out the two sectarian parties, the better. It is tragic that it is Covid-19 that may bring that day closer, it should happen regardless.
Truthvader wrote: » OK understood. And you are correct I do favour the continuation of partition. This is a legitimate position and not the insult you seem to think it is. I am aware that under the GFA that it may end and I will have to accept the end of partition if and when it happens. Given the primitive tribal and triumphalist be behaviour of the Sinn Fein mob when they managed a mere 25% of the vote in the South I expect the end of partition will be accompanied by a much worse display of atavistic nationalism and street thuggery in the North which will provoke a new campaign of murder and savagery on the part of the same criminal thug element on the Loyalist side who have "no choice" Why dont you print out this post and file it away for a few years and if and when partition ends we can see did I call it right. If you wanted to end partition in a functional way perhaps not murdering the community you expect to join a United Ireland might have been a more intelligent start. So yeah I do favour partition
end of the road wrote: » there was no IRA surrender. agreeing to an agreement which had reasonable terms and met 99% of the goals that were wanted anyway cannot be surrender, in fact if there was any surrender it was on behalf of the british government, surrendering to the fact that the sectarian state had to go and that it had to be the people of northern ireland who decided their future and not the british government. a slight majority of the people voted for sf in the last election, because the big scarey bogy man nonsense being thrown around them has been saw through. sf aren't going to be voted out, because people know that they can deliver if they were allowed to actually govern, rather then having to share with a party who stifles the community they are supposed to be representing and who subscribe to second century beliefs and an ideal of unionism from 800 years ago. i will save him the bother, i will call it that your post will be wrong. there will be no murder campaign against the loyalist community, nobody wants that. the IRA had to protect their community from violence, hence them carrying out attacks against the terrorist element of unionism, it was nothing to do with individuals being unionist, but to do with a threat to life and safety.
Edgware wrote: » Tell all that ****e to the Kingsmill relatives.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Of course it rings false...you are opposed to them funeral or no funeral. They didn't break any rules or directives by attending, therefore asking for them to apologise for that is wrong. Jesus, have you lost all sense of proportion here?
Truthvader wrote: » Would you read my post again. You cant call it now when you clearly have completely misunderstood my original post Good job by the way protecting their community from unionist terrorism. Sure showed those kids shopping in Warrington or the old ladies at Enniskillen etc etc forever. Cowardly scum who protected no-one. When loyalist gangs attacked in the late 60's IRA???? I Ran Away. Cowards and criminals
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not this cringe again. It was a funeral and oration at the graveside, the way former members of the IRA have been buried for decades. It so happened Storey wanted to be cremated. FFS :rolleyes:
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not a peep out of you when Charlie shoots the messenger about serious allegations on the deaths of 33 Irish people in Dublin and Monaghan. Spare us the fake outrage and concern Edge.
blanch152 wrote: » He wasn’t buried. It was a fake funeral, planned to give cover for a political rally.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nonsense. Read his funeral notice in the papers. Multiple people are cremated after their 'funeral' mass including members of my family. A graveside oration at a former IRA members grave has been happening for decades. Not a single person at that funeral has said they were conned. Don't be so desperate.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The people of Derry under siege taunting the IRA because they were desperate for somebody to help them is the most savage indictment of the Irish government I have ever heard. That is the origin of 'I Ran Away'. The Irish government allowed the vacuum into which the IRA stepped by not acting forcefully enough. Harold Wilson knew it would happen too and was powerless to stop it. Know your history.
end of the road wrote: » don't worry i have read it and understand it perfectly. the IRA absolutely did protect their communities, if it wasn't for them catholics and nationalists would have been ethnically cleansed from northern ireland. no it was a funeral.
Truthvader wrote: » Good man Francie. Consistant if nothing else. Should the Irish army have invaded the North. No choice I suppose. Turns out there was a choice. Thank God.
blanch152 wrote: » There was no burial at the cemetery, people were there under false pretences. Where was that allowed in the regulations?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Read his funeral notice. Their is no mention of a burial. Nobody was conned. You are faking being conned.
blanch152 wrote: » Yeah, I got that. There was no burial, everybody knew that, yes, it was in the funeral notice. That still doesn’t answer the question as to what part of the regulations allowed a gathering in a cemetery for an event other than a burial.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No need for invasion. Peacekeeping would have filled the vacuum. Please don't tell me they would have been wiped out, anihilated etc etc. What if old Churchy had have thought that way. We'd all be speaking German etc etc. People were under siege, in fear of their lives. People constitutionally we had a duty to and we abandoned them to their fate.
Truthvader wrote: » So we were to invade but call ourselves "peacekeepers". Super. Kind of analysis and intelligence I expect from Sinn Fein. Maybe thats the plan if they get in. Mary Lou and Angus OSnodaigh on the Shankill with the army behind them "we come in peace" Can hardly wait
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why have an army and a constitution if you abandon your people. The IRA ran away for a while but the Irish state ran away completely. If you read the actual history I think Harold Wilson wanted the Irish army to go into Derry. If the British had stepped back the Unionists would have too, Remember, there was a vacumn there too. A peacekeeping act may have worked. We decided not to intervene and created a vacuum into which somebody was always going to step, lives were at atake. John Hume would have welcomed Irish troops with open arms. We 'sat idly by' to our everlasting shame.
Edgware wrote: » If only you were there things would have been so different.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That was the mistake I criticised them for. The same as the dinner after the round of golf. They made a mistake...many have since the pandemic started.
blanch152 wrote: » Yes, and some resigned for their mistakes, and some brazened it out. We now know that the attendees at Golfgate broke no law, we also know that the regulations in the North did not permit gatherings at a cemetery other than for a burial. So explain to me again why Michelle and Mary-Lou should not have to resign.
