Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Options
1…290291293295296…333

Comments

  • Options
    #8762
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,045 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    a very cool kid wrote: »
    Having thousands come up organised in uniform is a political circus.

    You might as well exaggerate too...everyone else is. :D


  • Options
    #8763
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    But you can, being innocent until proven guilty is a law term.
    Everyone who faces trial is believed guilty by someone or they wouldn't be there in the first place.
    An organisation like the IRA can be even known to be guilty of something, but finding the person or persons to charge and proving it in court very hard.
    Many IRA claimed atrocities have never been brought to trial as no individual could be proven to have committed them, but we know the IRA did it.

    but but but ... you cant be blaming people without anything to back it up. thats being guilty and having to prove innocence. good to see you finally admitting you dont believe in justice.


  • Options
    #8764
    a very cool kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭a very cool kid


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You might as well exaggerate too...everyone else is. :D

    Well what would you call it? It was hardly a "I am Spartacus" moment...


  • Options
    #8765
    RandomViewer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    But you can, being innocent until proven guilty is a law term.
    Everyone who faces trial is believed guilty by someone or they wouldn't be there in the first place.
    An organisation like the IRA can be even known to be guilty of something, but finding the person or persons to charge and proving it in court very hard.
    Many IRA claimed atrocities have never been brought to trial as no individual could be proven to have committed them, but we know the IRA did it.

    If we are convicting on hearsay shouldn't a certain blueshirt be serving 5 life sentences?


  • Options
    #8766
    Truthvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Truthvader


    Seems a bit of confusion here

    1. Whether someone did something or not is a matter of fact.

    2. Whether they are prosecuted or convicted in a Court of Law is a different thing and has no bearing on whether they did it or not. Prosecutions routinely fail or are not advanced at all for all kinds of reasons and "guilty" men go free.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8767
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Truthvader wrote: »
    Seems a bit of confusion here

    1. Whether someone did something or not is a matter of fact.

    2. Whether they are prosecuted or convicted in a Court of Law is a different thing and has no bearing on whether they did it or not. Prosecutions routinely fail or are not advanced at all for all kinds of reasons and "guilty" men go free.

    and our justice system says that you arent guilty until a case has been proven against you.

    If its obvious someone has done something then there will be this stuff called 'evidence' that would be used to arrest and detain them

    If there isnt any 'evidence' - after 16 years - then its about time the accusers copped on with themselves and go look for someone else. maybe people who had been found with 50 grand of the money. Might be a start.


  • Options
    #8768
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    maccored wrote: »
    and our justice system says that you arent guilty until a case has been proven against you.

    If its obvious someone has done something then there will be this stuff called 'evidence' that would be used to arrest and detain them

    If there isnt any 'evidence' - after 16 years - then its about time the accusers copped on with themselves and go look for someone else. maybe people who had been found with 50 grand of the money. Might be a start.

    Youd imagine,with all these "informers" which "riddled" said organisation....the evidence would soon come to light :pac:


    Quite the corner,the conspiracy theorists have painted themselves into,it seems :pac:


  • Options
    #8769
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Youd imagine,with all these "informers" which "riddled" said organisation....the evidence would soon come to light :pac:


    Quite the corner,the conspiracy theorists have painted themselves into,it seems :pac:

    Im sure they'll have some fine whataboutery to present (maybe starting with something like "Seems a bit of confusion here ..") to try and change the subject.


  • Options
    #8770
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Youd imagine,with all these "informers" which "riddled" said organisation....the evidence would soon come to light :pac:


    Quite the corner,the conspiracy theorists have painted themselves into,it seems :pac:


    So what is the revisionist republican narrative now?

    Gerry Adams wasn’t in the IRA.
    The IRA didn’t rob the Northern Bank.
    There were no informers in the IRA.

    Seems legit.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #8771
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    So what is the revisionist republican narrative now?

    Gerry Adams wasn’t in the IRA.
    The IRA didn’t rob the Northern Bank.
    There were no informers in the IRA.

    Seems legit.

    there were - had to be - informers in the IRA, but not to the extent you like to claim. As for your other two points ... you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, but yet cant show anything to back it up. Bar hearsay.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8772
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    maccored wrote: »
    Im sure they'll have some fine whataboutery to present (maybe starting with something like "Seems a bit of confusion here ..") to try and change the subject.
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    So what is the revisionist republican narrative now?

    Gerry Adams wasn’t in the IRA.
    The IRA didn’t rob the Northern Bank.
    There were no informers in the IRA.

    Seems legit.

    i rest my case


  • Options
    #8773
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    maccored wrote: »
    there were - had to be - informers in the IRA, but not to the extent you like to claim. As for your other two points ... you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, but yet cant show anything to back it up. Bar hearsay.

    The posters here who, in my opinion deny reality, constantly suggest posters with a different opinion educate themselves about the Troubles in order to have a serious discussion. The reality is that every serious, journalist, commentator and historian of the period accepts what you deny, to be the reality.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #8774
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,045 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The posters here who, in my opinion deny reality, constantly suggest posters with a different opinion educate themselves about the Troubles in order to have a serious discussion. The reality is that every serious, journalist, commentator and historian of the period accepts what you deny, to be the reality.

    The same set of journo's/ commentators who were in denial about British collusion as well. Funny that.

    I don't deny the IRA did the Northern Bank...I just don't know.


  • Options
    #8775
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The same set of journo's/ commentators who were in denial about British collusion as well. Funny that.

    I don't deny the IRA did the Northern Bank...I just don't know.

    Is there any serious journalist, commentator or historian that accepts the points above?

    In all seriousness, what historians would you recommend reading to get an objective overview of the conflict in the north?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #8776
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,045 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Is there any serious journalist, commentator or historian that accepts the points above?

    In all seriousness, what historians would you recommend reading to get an objective overview of the conflict in the north?

    What serious historian has given anything other than an opinion on the Northern Bank?

    Serious historians present facts, evidence and data and then extroplate from them. So link us to one who presents facts evidence and data on the Northern Bank robbery.
    Not interested in opinions btw, they are two a penny on NI.


  • Options
    #8777
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    What serious historian has given anything other than an opinion on the Northern Bank?

    Serious historians present facts, evidence and data and then extroplate from them. So link us to one who presents facts evidence and data on the Northern Bank robbery.
    Not interested in opinions btw, they are two a penny on NI.

    So no suggestions from your no doubt vast and varied reading on the subject then.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #8778
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    What serious historian has given anything other than an opinion on the Northern Bank?

    Serious historians present facts, evidence and data and then extroplate from them. So link us to one who presents facts evidence and data on the Northern Bank robbery.
    Not interested in opinions btw, they are two a penny on NI.

    From what I know about the northern bank robbery is that it wasn’t directly organised or carried out by any one organisation. How could it be seeing as most organisations implicated are cellular in nature with non linear power structures. This is one of the reasons that so difficult to infiltrate or prosecute anything. Also, while there has been evidence that it was carried out by a large group of republicans it doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone can categorically say that it was carried out by the IRA as some non IRA members were probably involved. But equally it is not correct to state that IRA members were not involved. Would that be a fair assessment?


  • Options
    #8779
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The same set of journo's/ commentators who were in denial about British collusion as well. Funny that.

    I don't deny the IRA did the Northern Bank...I just don't know.
    There's a lot you dont know


  • Options
    #8780
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Edgware wrote: »
    There's a lot you dont know

    Go easy on him he is a zealot on the easy questions and agnostic on the hard ones.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #8781
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,045 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    So no suggestions from your no doubt vast and varied reading on the subject then.

    I lived through the conflict...I don't think I have read a single history of it tbh.

    It's a live subject by the way as we still don't know what all the British were involved in.
    The story you choose to believe is one that emanates mostly from those who see the Irish as worse than the British. Not trustworthy IMO.
    Did you know that rather than reveal what they were involved in around the Dublin Monaghan bombings, they locked those files away for another few decades.

    How can any 'historiian' write a true record therefore.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8782
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I lived through the conflict...I don't think I have read a single history of it tbh.

    It's a live subject by the way as we still don't know what all the British were involved in.
    The story you choose to believe is one that emanates mostly from those who see the Irish as worse than the British. Not trustworthy IMO.
    Did you know that rather than reveal what they were involved in around the Dublin Monaghan bombings, they locked those files away for another few decades.

    How can any 'historiian' write a true record therefore.

    So your perspective is gained entirely from. Well your own perspective. Yet you criticise other posters for not seeing the big picture and relying on one sided sources.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #8783
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,045 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    So your perspective is gained entirely from. Well your own perspective. Yet you criticise other posters for not seeing the big picture and relying on one sided sources.

    I generally back up anything I say with links to facts.

    Still waiting for a historian doing the same on the Northern Bank robbery.


  • Options
    #8784
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The posters here who, in my opinion deny reality, constantly suggest posters with a different opinion educate themselves about the Troubles in order to have a serious discussion. The reality is that every serious, journalist, commentator and historian of the period accepts what you deny, to be the reality.

    if we lived in a world where governments didnts corrupt and get up to all kinds of sneaky ****e to mould whatever particular fight, war, conflict or civil unrest - then I would probably agree with you.

    If that were the case though, then they could use the evidence they have to bag their claims and lots of IRA people would be in jail.

    we dont though. We live in a world where governments do bad things. Thats why after 16 years the investigation hasnt got anywhere. it'll be the same in a further 16 years.

    The very simple point that you are missing - regardless of who has told you anything - is that the PSNI have never had a sniff of anything tracking back to the IRA. 26 million quid? Are you seriously saying that can leave no trace?

    If you took off the blinkers and started using your brain - and also took a good look and get a feel for the political ongoings at the time - you might realise that the whole thing has really gone right over your head.

    In order to blame then IRA, gossip is no good. It doesnt matter who suspects what. Proving it is the issue. To be able to blame one side, you really need to be able to back it up with more than a hunch. If you ever watched Starskey & Hutch, you'd know that.

    To do otherwise goes against the principle of innocent until proven guilty.


  • Options
    #8785
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    and another thing .... yes, don't debate a subject if you don't understand it. People like myself - and other posters - who have grown up through it (including those with opposing views) have a different understanding of the nuances of life during that time. Its so different from what you read in the media. therefore if someone gleans their knowledge from only the likes of the indo, then they really need to read some books and take time to develop their opinion before shooting off the hip because everyone tells then they should


  • Options
    #8786
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    joeguevara wrote: »
    From what I know about the northern bank robbery is that it wasn’t directly organised or carried out by any one organisation. How could it be seeing as most organisations implicated are cellular in nature with non linear power structures. This is one of the reasons that so difficult to infiltrate or prosecute anything. Also, while there has been evidence that it was carried out by a large group of republicans it doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone can categorically say that it was carried out by the IRA as some non IRA members were probably involved. But equally it is not correct to state that IRA members were not involved. Would that be a fair assessment?

    why not the uda or the uvf? or the real ira? or someone. Puzzles me why all fingers point to the ira. it suited a lot of people should SF lose political support around that time


  • Options
    #8787
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    maccored wrote: »
    why not the uda or the uvf? or the real ira? or someone. Puzzles me why all fingers point to the ira. it suited a lot of people should SF lose political support around that time

    From my extensive reading on the subject and from speaking to people, it appears that it isn’t one organisation that carried it out, or at least none where there is credible demonstrable evidence of an order. I never pointed the finger at anyone and was clear that it looks like a group of people rather than one org. What appears to be lost on a lot of people who are unaware of paramilitary organisations is that due to their cellular non linear structure, it is difficult for one person to know if a person in the next town over is a member or not.

    I agree that people jump to conclusions without knowledge and one thing i have learned is never to presume to know what it was like to grow up in the troubles and experience the disgusting things that were inflicted.

    I am fairly sure that the northern bank robbery was not carried out by a loyalist paramilitary organisation. But I agree that no one can categorically state it was the IRA.


  • Options
    #8788
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    joeguevara wrote: »
    From my extensive reading on the subject and from speaking to people, it appears that it isn’t one organisation that carried it out, or at least none where there is credible demonstrable evidence of an order. I never pointed the finger at anyone and was clear that it looks like a group of people rather than one org. What appears to be lost on a lot of people who are unaware of paramilitary organisations is that due to their cellular non linear structure, it is difficult for one person to know if a person in the next town over is a member or not.

    I agree that people jump to conclusions without knowledge and one thing i have learned is never to presume to know what it was like to grow up in the troubles and experience the disgusting things that were inflicted.

    I am fairly sure that the northern bank robbery was not carried out by a loyalist paramilitary organisation. But I agree that no one can categorically state it was the IRA.

    i have no idea who did it - I'll admit that ... but there was a lot going on politically in 2004. Theres many sides who could profit - not only from the actual money, but politically. I just find it a bit strange how its apparently so obvious the IRA done it - yet theres not a thing linking the IRA to it. Does not compute.


  • Options
    #8789
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    maccored wrote: »
    i have no idea who did it - I'll admit that ... but there was a lot going on politically in 2004. Theres many sides who could profit - not only from the actual money, but politically. I just find it a bit strange how its apparently so obvious the IRA done it - yet theres not a thing linking the IRA to it. Does not compute.

    My own opinion is that it more than likely was carried out by a group that probably contained some IRA members but not necessarily ordered by a centralised decision. I think it should be recognised that yourself and Francie have posted that you are unaware of who carried it out and arguments are based on posters stating conjecture as fact.


  • Options
    #8790
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    joeguevara wrote: »
    arguments are based on posters stating conjecture as fact.

    exactly


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8791
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    maccored wrote: »
    why not the uda or the uvf? or the real ira? or someone. Puzzles me why all fingers point to the ira. it suited a lot of people should SF lose political support around that time

    Legion of Mary, Knights of St. Columbanus? There was a lot of shadowy outfits operating there


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement