Sinn Féin,s "Republic Day".

jugger0 · 25-02-2013 06:56PM

awec wrote: »

Yes, there are quite a few who play for them. :eek: Next.

You should keep asking questions, you might learn a thing or two.

Is there though? didnt that McClean lad leave because he felt intimidated?

Chips Lovell · 25-02-2013 06:56PM

It's been well established that the IRA financed itself through crime. This including armed robbery, racketeering, kidnapping, fuel laundering etc. With regard to drug dealing, the evidence seems to be that while it didn't involve itself directly in the trade, it did have some involvement through taxing drug dealers. As this piece in the Sunday Times from 1998 said:

There is evidence that DAAD is being used not to eliminate the sale of drugs, but to enable the IRA to control the lucrative trade. Police and dealers say the IRA controls the distribution of drugs to criminals on both sides of the border. Narcotics are smuggled into Ireland through Dublin and Cork and distributed after prices and quantities are agreed at meetings in hotels in Dundalk and Drogheda.

The IRA does not handle the drugs, but oversees the operation and takes a percentage from each deal. In return, it sanctions the dealers' activities and moves against their opponents.

I've always been a bit bewildered though about why IRA supporters get so upset about allegations of involvement in the drugs trade, while they have little problem with any other criminal activity, such as killing a Garda while robbing a post office.

jugger0 · 25-02-2013 07:08PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I've always been a bit bewildered though about why IRA supporters get so upset about allegations of involvement in the drugs trade, while they have little problem with any other criminal activity, such as killing a Garda while robbing a post office.

I always get bewildered when Irish people bend over backwards to defend the British actions in the north, and condemn their countrymen for fighting for equal rights.

Obviously terrible things were done and i dont condone the killing of gardai or civilians but on this site the British can do no wrong, yet the IRA are pure evil.

Fratton Fred · 25-02-2013 07:13PM

jugger0 wrote: »

I always get bewildered when Irish people bend over backwards to defend the British actions in the north, and condemn their countrymen for fighting for equal rights.

Obviously terrible things were done and i dont condone the killing of gardai or civilians but on this site the British can do no wrong, yet the IRA are pure evil.

The only people talking about the British are the republicans.

The thread isn't about the British, it's about Sinn Fein wanting a day to commemorate, amongst others, members of the PIRA.

Happyman42 · 25-02-2013 07:17PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's been well established that the IRA financed itself through crime.

Yes, unfortunately they didn't qualify for the EU Fund For Freedom Fighters. :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2013 07:20PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, unfortunately they didn't qualify for the EU Fund For Freedom Fighters. :rolleyes:

Freedom fighters? Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

Nodin · 25-02-2013 07:56PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have and yes in the Irish case violence wasn't even needed. We had home rule coming to us after the war.

..........

Evasion again. Terrible habit of yours, but I suppose its nessecary, given the application of two standards.

Nodin · 25-02-2013 07:57PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's been well established (.........)as killing a Garda while robbing a post office.

"Well established" my arse. No evidence, no convictions, nothing. In nearly 30 years. Yet its still trotted out on a regular basis.

Chips Lovell · 25-02-2013 08:02PM

There have been numerous convictions for IRA involvement in criminal activity, so I'm not sure what you're on about there.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2013 08:08PM

Nodin wrote: »

Evasion again. Terrible habit of yours, but I suppose its nessecary, given the application of two standards.

I don't see any double standard. I condemn violence on both sides. One flag waving terrorist is just as bad as the other flag waving terrorist. Their affiliation certainly means little to those they blow up.

Dyr · 25-02-2013 08:09PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have and yes in the Irish case violence wasn't even needed. We had home rule coming to us after the war.

We'd had home rule "coming" for the previous 70 years, it never came.

Nodin · 25-02-2013 08:10PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

There have been numerous convictions for IRA involvement in criminal activity, so I'm not sure what you're on about there.

...but none whatsoever for PIRA involvement in the drugs trade.

Nodin · 25-02-2013 08:14PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't see any double standard. I condemn violence on both sides. One flag waving terrorist is just as bad as the other flag waving terrorist. Their affiliation certainly means little to those they blow up.

The Ulster Covenant praised as "peaceful defiance"? The tricolour described as "The flag of a foreign and historically aggressive state with aspirations of annexation"? You urge acceptance of unionist tradition but reject Republicans.....pull the other one.

GRMA · 25-02-2013 08:14PM

Reality is that the provos effectively kept drugs like heroin out of areas they had influence over for a long time

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2013 08:16PM

Bambi wrote: »

We'd had home rule "coming" for the previous 70 years, it never came.

Except the third home rule bill was actually passed while the two previous ones weren't. It was passed just postponed until after the war.

Chips Lovell · 25-02-2013 08:17PM

Nodin wrote: »

...but none whatsoever for PIRA involvement in the drugs trade.

No, not many. James McCann, the IRA gun runner, is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. They certainly didn't seem as directly involved as some of the other paramilitaries.

But the point I was making was that they were involved in a broad range of organised crime type activities and that it's odd that some republicans get outraged when drug dealing is mentioned but happily admit they were up to all the other stuff.

Nodin · 25-02-2013 08:22PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

..............
But the point I was making was that they were involved in a broad range of organised crime type activities and that it's odd that some republicans get outraged when drug dealing is mentioned but happily admit they were up to all the other stuff.

...because it isn't true.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2013 08:23PM

Nodin wrote: »

The Ulster Covenant praised as "peaceful defiance"? The tricolour described as "The flag of a foreign and historically aggressive state with aspirations of annexation"? You urge acceptance of unionist tradition but reject Republicans.....pull the other one.

1. The covenant itself was peaceful defiance while the phrase "in using all means which may be found necessary" may allude to armed insurrection it is not explicitly stated and surely any such campaign would be just as bad as the Irish terrorists on the other side.

2. From a unionist perspective Ireland is a foreign and historically aggressive state and you do have with aspirations of annexation.

You must have spent a while digging up my old posts, I must say I'm flattered you would put that much effort into arguing with me.

Nodin · 25-02-2013 08:30PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. The covenant itself was peaceful defiance while the phrase "in using all means which may be found necessary" may allude to armed insurrection it is not explicitly stated and surely any such campaign would be just as bad as the Irish terrorists on the other side. .

ahahahahaha. It's a threat. It's clearly a threat. Its widely acknowledged as a threat.

(The "but what about" with "Irish terrorists" at the end is good too. I lol'ed so I did)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

2. From a unionist perspective Ireland is a foreign and historically aggressive state and you do have with aspirations of annexation..

Yes, the unionist perspective, which you seem to have to no problem empathising with at all, while simultaneously denigrating the Republican, and all the while trying to claim you put a curse on both their houses....in an other context some would be urging you to take the brave step and leave the closet.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You must have spent a while digging up my old posts, I must say I'm flattered you would put that much effort into arguing with me.

O don't thank me, thank whatever gifted person perfected the search engine.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2013 08:35PM

Nodin wrote: »

ahahahahaha. It's a threat. It's clearly a threat. Its widely acknowledged as a threat.

(The "but what about" with "Irish terrorists" at the end is good too. I lol'ed so I did)

Widely acknowledged by who? Again you let you pre conceived notion of me dictate your views. Do you also allow preconceived notions to influence your political opinions? It would explain a lot.

(I never said what about)

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, the unionist perspective, which you seem to have to no problem empathising with at all, while simultaneously denigrating the Republican, and all the while trying to claim you put a curse on both their houses....in an other context some would be urging you to take the brave step and leave the closet.

Instead of claiming me to be what I'm obviously not perhaps you could have a go at refuting the statement? If you can that is.

Nodin wrote: »

O don't thank me, thank whatever gifted person perfected the search engine.

I think it was Dav but don't quote me, you should send him a thank you pm.

GRMA · 25-02-2013 08:36PM

A serious argument cannot be made that the covenant was not a threat - implied and explicit.

Nodin · 25-02-2013 08:39PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Widely acknowledged by who? Again you let you pre conceived notion of me dictate your views. Do you also allow preconceived notions to influence your political opinions? It would explain a lot.

It's widely acknowledged amongst historians to be a threat. To put it another way, I've never heard it it described as "peaceful".

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Instead of claiming me to be what I'm obviously not

......who said you were "obviously not"? If you aren't, theres certainly nothing obvious about it.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2013 08:44PM

Nodin wrote: »

It's widely acknowledged amongst historians to be a threat. To put it another way, I've never heard it it described as "peaceful".

Hmm, perhaps I was a bit rash to describe it as peaceful. I concede the point. The threat was implicit but it was there.

Nodin wrote: »

......who said you were "obviously not"? If you aren't, theres certainly nothing obvious about it.

Me.

Fratton Fred · 25-02-2013 09:20PM

GRMA wrote: »

Reality is that the provos effectively kept drugs like heroin out of areas they had influence over for a long time

Like Ballymun?

I wonder where the dissidents got the idea from to extort money from drug dealers?

They didn't lick it up off the floor, as the saying goes.

Nodin · 25-02-2013 10:00PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Like Ballymun?

I wonder where the dissidents got the idea from to extort money from drug dealers?

They didn't lick it up off the floor, as the saying goes.

More innuendo and shite Fred? Quelle Suprise.

Dyr · 25-02-2013 10:10PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Like Ballymun?

I wonder where the dissidents got the idea from to extort money from drug dealers?

They didn't lick it up off the floor, as the saying goes.

I grew up in Ballymun in that era. The provos were'nt in bed with the dealers, a lot of sinn fein heads were very active in the various anti drugs movements, lots of threats were made against them at the time.

The gardai had fairly cordial relations with some of the local dealers though..

GRMA · 25-02-2013 10:14PM

Bambi wrote: »

I grew up in Ballymun in that era. The provos were'nt in bed with the dealers, a lot of sinn fein heads were very active in the various anti drugs movements, lots of threats were made against them at the time.

The gardai had fairly cordial relations with some of the local dealers though..

Dirtbags shot Larry O'Toole at a first communion in Ballymun IIRC over his anti drugs activism

Dyr · 25-02-2013 10:18PM

GRMA wrote: »

Dirtbags shot Larry O'Toole at a first communion in Ballymun IIRC over his anti drugs activism

More late 90s though. Oddly enough a fair few of the dealers down here had previously been run out of the north by the provos

gallag · 25-02-2013 10:24PM

Bambi wrote: »

More late 90s though. Oddly enough a fair few of the dealers down here had previously been run out of the north by the provos

Must not have been paying them enough. I bought plenty of weed out of both Republican and loyalist areas, no sides hands are clean when talking about drug money and if you genuinely believe otherwise you are just nieve.

Chips Lovell · 25-02-2013 10:25PM

GRMA wrote: »

Dirtbags shot Larry O'Toole at a first communion in Ballymun IIRC over his anti drugs activism

Really? Because it was reported as more having something to do with a row the gunman had with O'Toole's son.

The 60 children had their Communion postponed a number of weeks, said Det Sgt, who told the judge there had been trouble between McCann and Mr O'Toole jnr which began when there was a domestic dispute at O'Tooles and the accused and his partner became involved. Later, in October 1997, O'Toole's flat was searched for drugs and a small amount found.

O'Toole jnr believed the accused informed on him. When summonses were served, in relation to the drugs, on Larry O'Toole jnr and his partner, the defendant was visited by a man purporting to be from Sinn Fein, told to desist from sale of drugs and latergrafitti appeared in the block saying there was ``hash at No 44'' the accused's address.

Sinn Féin,s "Republic Day".

Comments