The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd want more information on the level of association jh79.

A FG xmas party? That's were the Murphy took his associates.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Read my posts...if I reference Dublin-Monaghan bombings, I will always be careful to say that it was possibly carried out with the 'alleged collusion by British forces'

So for this example, you wouldn't have an issue with MLA's associating with those alleged to be involved until a conviction was obtained?

jh79 wrote: »

So for this example, you wouldn't have an issue with MLA's associating with those alleged to be involved until a conviction was obtained?

MLA's do associate with those alleged to be involved in collusion...have you ever seen a post of mine calling for them to be chucked out of their parties?

No, you haven't. (To save you searching)

markodaly

Hqrry113 wrote: »

It's clear the IRA weren't involved in the killing of Paul Quinn, what is not clear is that some of the tens of thousands of people who have been through the IRAs ranks over the years were not involved.

The whole talk about the IRA not being involved is semantics.

Sure the IRA was not involved in the Kingsmill massacre either according to some as it was not ordered by HQ, yet we all know the PIRA carried it out.....

We all know that the local PIRA crew and their murderous thugs killed Paul Quinlan. It may not have been sanctioned by HQ, yet these men walk about freely while those in SF and the IRA know and have evidence that could secure a conviction, yet they choose not to do so, because you know 'Good' republicans.....

FrancieBrady wrote: »

MLA's do associate with those alleged to be involved in collusion...have you ever seen a post of mine calling for them to be chucked out of their parties?

No, you haven't. (To save you searching)

Fair enough. What about in the Republic? Is it ok for TD's to socalize with suspected criminals?

Nobotty

jh79 wrote: »

Fair enough. What about in the Republic? Is it ok for TD's to socalize with suspected criminals?

Its not illegal
But its also not a good look

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd want more information on the level of association jh79.

I don't convict on the basis of allegations, like some do.

Read my posts...if I reference Dublin-Monaghan bombings, I will always be careful to say that it was possibly carried out with the 'alleged collusion by British forces' for example.

I seem to remember you calling for Drew Harris to be removed based on the allegation that he would be compromised by what he knows in relation to the Dublin-Monaghan bombings.

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, its PIRA bingo again is it?

I can smell it in the water that the term 'West Brit' will be along shortly.

You partitionist, you.

blanch152

Hqrry113 wrote: »

It's clear the IRA weren't involved in the killing of Paul Quinn, what is not clear is that some of the tens of thousands of people who have been through the IRAs ranks over the years were not involved.

Off-duty IRA men?

Were they involved?

jh79 wrote: »

Fair enough. What about in the Republic? Is it ok for TD's to socalize with suspected criminals?

WTF.

I have just made it clear that I do not make judgements just because an allegation has been made.
I am not a judge.

I abhorred and condemned kangaroo courts and shoot to kill and internment policies.

I don't want a society based on that.

markodaly wrote: »

The whole talk about the IRA not being involved is semantics.

Sure the IRA was not involved in the Kingsmill massacre either according to some as it was not ordered by HQ, yet we all know the PIRA carried it out.....

We all know that the local PIRA crew and their murderous thugs killed Paul Quinlan. It may not have been sanctioned by HQ, yet these men walk about freely while those in SF and the IRA know and have evidence that could secure a conviction, yet they choose not to do so, because you know 'Good' republicans.....

Alan Black a protestant, the only survivor of Kingsmill, believes that IRA members involved in the massacre were double agents working for the British state.

He believes there was a "cover up" and that British security forces knew the massacre was going to happen but allowed it to. Karen Armstrong, sister of victim John McConville, said: "A lot of people were being protected back then and they still are". It has been suggested that the gunman with the English accent could have been British Intelligence officer Robert Nairac.

John Weir, a former RUC officer and member of the "Glenanne gang", claims he discovered that British Intelligence, through Nairac, was "playing republican and loyalist paramilitaries off against each other".

blanch152 wrote: »

Off-duty IRA men?

Were they involved?

More along the lines of retired since the IRA had already disbanded two years earlier.

blanch152 wrote: »

I seem to remember you calling for Drew Harris to be removed based on the allegation that he would be compromised by what he knows in relation to the Dublin-Monaghan bombings.

Not an allegation sadly.

He is compromised because he is sworn to secrecy by another outside government. That should have precluded him from interview IMO.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

WTF.

I have just made it clear that I do not make judgements just because an allegation has been made.
I am not a judge.

I abhorred and condemned kangaroo courts and shoot to kill and internment policies.

I don't want a society based on that.

We are not talking sending people to prison or knee capping .

Should politicians associate with suspected criminals? Yes or no?

Kinahans at a FF/FG xmas party wouldn't concern you?

grayzer75

markodaly wrote: »

The whole talk about the IRA not being involved is semantics.

Sure the IRA was not involved in the Kingsmill massacre either according to some as it was not ordered by HQ, yet we all know the PIRA carried it out.....

We all know that the local PIRA crew and their murderous thugs killed Paul Quinlan. It may not have been sanctioned by HQ, yet these men walk about freely while those in SF and the IRA know and have evidence that could secure a conviction, yet they choose not to do so, because you know 'Good' republicans.....

How exactly do you know?
How do you know who has evidence and what that evidence is?

As said many times before the horrific Paul Quinn incident wasn't just about a punch up, it was about the loss of laundered fuel, trucks, money, etc. They were all involved in it together and I'm sure a lot of them still are.

The cops both sides of the border know who was involved but don't have any evidence to back it up so nothing will happen unless somebody who was at the scene testifies.

jh79 wrote: »

We are not talking sending people to prison or knee capping .

Should politicians associate with suspected criminals? Yes or no?

Kinahans at a FF/FG xmas party wouldn't concern you?

Ideally of course they shouldn't.

But you started this by demanding that action should be taken by SF.

My argument is you can't take action on foot of allegations.

grayzer75 wrote: »

How exactly do you know?
How do you know who has evidence and what that evidence is?

As said many times before the horrific Paul Quinn incident wasn't just about a punch up, it was about the loss of laundered fuel, trucks, money, etc. They were all involved in it together and I'm sure a lot of them still are.

The cops both sides of the border know who was involved but don't have any evidence to back it up so nothing will happen unless somebody who was at the scene testifies.

It's standard when someone who was once in the IRA commits or is suspected of any crime at all it gets blamed on the IRA/SF

jh79 wrote: »

Fair enough. What about in the Republic? Is it ok for TD's to socalize with suspected criminals?

What do you mean by suspected criminals

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What about the IMC and the PSNI? They know too. Is there any onus on them to act?

The IRA were not involved in any organisational way, making this an ordinary criminal act.

Because of course if the IRA were involved in an "organisational way" (whatever that means - though I expect it relates to their usual capacity to lie their way out if it suits) it wouldn't be a criminal act but a noble and necessary part of the "conflict/war" that is a free pass for whatever you like

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I will accept that when it is proved in a court of law.

I have no idea, as I have always said, who robbed the Northern Bank, just as I have no idea who killed Paul Quinn.

And here is Francie earlier on today

"The locals all know and so do I."

If you are going to lie try to at least apply some minimum intelligence and don't brazenly lie in the same thread on the same day

Truthvader wrote: »

Because of course if the IRA were involved in an "organisational way" (whatever that means - though I expect it relates to their usual capacity to lie their way out if it suits) it wouldn't be a criminal act but a noble and necessary part of the "conflict/war" that is a free pass for whatever you like

No, had the IRA been involved as an organisation it would have been a serious breach of the GFA.

Not that hard a concept to grasp Truth.

Truthvader wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I will accept that when it is proved in a court of law.

I have no idea, as I have always said, who robbed the Northern Bank, just as I have no idea who killed Paul Quinn.

And here is Francie earlier on today

"The locals all know and so do I."

If you are going to lie try to at least apply some minimum intelligence and don't brazenly lie in the same thread on the same day

I know the 'name' been bandied about Truth. Pay attention.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, had the IRA been involved as an organisation it would have been a serious breach of the GFA.

Not that hard a concept to grasp Truth.

Which explains why they lied their way out of it

Truthvader wrote: »

Which explains why they lied their way out of it

What?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Truthvader wrote: »

I know the 'name' been bandied about Truth. Pay attention.

Read your own post

Truthvader wrote: »

Read your own post

I wrote it.

I am not a court of law. I know the name being bandied about as do the locals.

p.s. please learn to use the quote function properly.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, had the IRA been involved as an organisation it would have been a serious breach of the GFA.

Not that hard a concept to grasp Truth.

It was clearly a local issue, whether some of the people involved in the killing used to be in the IRA or not does it really matter?

walshb

I see SF supporting gym owners and their defying lockdown..

They really are mischievous.. been talking out of both sides their mouths since day 1..

Their greatest contribution during the pandemic: more money for people.

walshb wrote: »

I see SF supporting gym owners and their defying lockdown..

They really are mischievous.. been talking out of both sides their mouths since day 1..

Their greatest contribution during the pandemic: more money for people.

I see we have another crazed covid maniac, probably sleeps with his face mask on and walks around wearing leather gloves.