Is it just me or have SF vanished?

SafeSurfer · 02-08-2020 12:42pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't lecturing you.

I was explaining something that you misunderstood in my post.

I note you totally ignored that point when you diverted to lecture me on something I already know. 'Democracy' is always the first victim in a conflict or war.

So would you agree that it dangerous and foolish to believe something that comes out of the mouths of 'selective democrats'?

*I have already said clearly, I don't believe either the British version or the IRA version of 'who robbed the NI Bank'. I simply don't know who did it.

More nonsense. “Democracy” hasn’t been the first victim in most wars in history because “democracy” wasn’t present to begin with. Truth as the first victim of war is the cliche you were looking for.

FrancieBrady · 02-08-2020 12:54pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

More nonsense. “Democracy” hasn’t been the first victim in most wars in history because “democracy” wasn’t present to begin with. Truth as the first victim of war is the cliche you were looking for.

Yes it is a cliche. Because I believe that most wars/conflicts have been started by governments without the approval of the 'people'. Democracy is the will of the people of any given state.

So I hold by what I said...democracy is generally the first victim.

So any chance you can quit diverting and get back to the point... selectively believing the word of a government proven to have lied before? All around the parts of the world that they colonised and policed they have done this stuff.

SafeSurfer · 02-08-2020 1:04pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it is a cliche. Because I believe that most wars/conflicts have been started by governments without the approval of the 'people'. Democracy is the will of the people of any given state.

So I hold by what I said...democracy is generally the first victim.

So any chance you can quit diverting and get back to the point... selectively believing the word of a government proven to have lied before? All around the parts of the world that they colonised and policed they have done this stuff.

If you are asking me if I believe politicians, democratically elected or otherwise then we are in agreement.

When you say you don’t believe the IRA in what they say about the Northern Bank Robbery, they say they didn’t do it. So you don’t believe they didn’t do it?

Truthvader · 02-08-2020 1:23pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it is a cliche. Because I believe that most wars/conflicts have been started by governments without the approval of the 'people'. Democracfy is the will of the people of any given state.

So I hold by what I said...democracy is generally the first victim.

So any chance you can quit diverting and get back to the point... selectively believing the word of a government proven to have lied before? All around the parts of the world that they colonised and policed they have done this stuff.

By "without the approval of the people" Francie of course means whatever people Gerry Adams and his merry men decide they represent from time to time. Not a majority in Northern Ireland. Not a majority in the Republic (the Free State which they want to break).

Plus wars are started by eveil people who want to kill other people. Ie parachute regiment thugs, Shankill Butcher thugs and Sinn Fein IRA thugs. All of the same kind

FrancieBrady · 02-08-2020 1:53pm

Truthvader wrote: »

By "without the approval of the people" Francie of course means whatever people Gerry Adams and his merry men decide they represent from time to time. Not a majority in Northern Ireland. Not a majority in the Republic (the Free State which they want to break).

Plus wars are started by eveil people who want to kill other people. Ie parachute regiment thugs, Shankill Butcher thugs and Sinn Fein IRA thugs. All of the same kind

Wars and conflict start because of the absence of democracy invariably and sometimes because democracy is intolerable to some people.

The war/conflict here started indisputably because of the absence of democracy.

PS. I don't believe in the concept of 'evil'. It is a quaint little ruse promoted by religious organisations. As history shows us, when you allow war/conflict to break out anybody is capable of carrying out horrible crimes against others.

As a true democrats your duty is to stop war/conflict breaking out in the first place by holding those vested with power responsible if they behave as sectarian, bigoted governors.
I never supported the IRA and I am glad they are gone, but they stopped the violence when they negotiated an agreement. As an aside but wholly relevant, the government responsible for the absence of democracy here and who attempted to shore up and maintain the bigoted sectarian state have not stopped killing/covering up/lying for what they want to achieve though...have a look around the world.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rogue-sas-afghanistan-execution-squad-exposed-by-email-trail-7pg3dkdww

FrancieBrady · 02-08-2020 1:56pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you are asking me if I believe politicians, democratically elected or otherwise then we are in agreement.

When you say you don’t believe the IRA in what they say about the Northern Bank Robbery, they say they didn’t do it. So you don’t believe they didn’t do it?

No, I don't believe anybody on face value.

Show me evidence, until then my stance is 'I don't know'.

Truthvader · 02-08-2020 3:44pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I don't believe anybody on face value.

Show me evidence, until then my stance is 'I don't know'.

Clearly nonsense. The second world war was largely fought between democratically elected governments (bar Japan)

FrancieBrady · 02-08-2020 3:50pm

Truthvader wrote: »

Clearly nonsense. The second world war was largely fought between democratically elected governments (bar Japan)

If you cannot look beyond propaganda and spin, I cannot help you.

Governments may have wanted war, but did the people? Do your research.

SafeSurfer · 02-08-2020 4:31pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wars and conflict start because of the absence of democracy invariably and sometimes because democracy is intolerable to some people.

The war/conflict here started indisputably because of the absence of democracy.

PS. I don't believe in the concept of 'evil'. It is a quaint little ruse promoted by religious organisations. As history shows us, when you allow war/conflict to break out anybody is capable of carrying out horrible crimes against others.

As a true democrats your duty is to stop war/conflict breaking out in the first place by holding those vested with power responsible if they behave as sectarian, bigoted governors.
I never supported the IRA and I am glad they are gone, but they stopped the violence when they negotiated an agreement. As an aside but wholly relevant, the government responsible for the absence of democracy here and who attempted to shore up and maintain the bigoted sectarian state have not stopped killing/covering up/lying for what they want to achieve though...have a look around the world.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rogue-sas-afghanistan-execution-squad-exposed-by-email-trail-7pg3dkdww

Firstly I think it is simplistic to say that wars start because of the absence of democracy. Indeed, Athens, the “first democracy” fought many wars, some of which, were only ended following the abandonment of democracy, not due to its absence.

The duty of a democrat is not to stop war/conflict from breaking out in the first place as you say rather it is to peacefully accept the decision of the majority when those decisions are taken democratically.

Your euphemistic “holding those vested with power responsible”, for a democrat does not mean shooting, bombing etc, etc.

FrancieBrady · 02-08-2020 4:46pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Your euphemistic “holding those vested with power responsible”, for a democrat does not mean shooting, bombing etc, etc.

I never said it did. I have said again and again here that the violence was wrong from the start.

The war/conflict happened here because those in power abdicated their responsibilities- it was inevitable and if you properly inform yourself you will see that those ib power in Britain and indeed Ireland knew what was likely to happen.
Just as those in power abdicated their responsiblities to the Treaty of Versailles during the 30's have some responsibility for what inevitably happened.

SafeSurfer · 02-08-2020 5:15pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said it did. I have said again and again here that the violence was wrong from the start.

The war/conflict happened here because those in power abdicated their responsibilities- it was inevitable and if you properly inform yourself you will see that those ib power in Britain and indeed Ireland knew what was likely to happen.
Just as those in power abdicated their responsiblities to the Treaty of Versailles during the 30's have some responsibility for what inevitably happened.

So you are saying that the conflict happened because those Democratically elected to Power abdicated their responsibilities and also saying that conflict inevitably happens in the absence of democracy. Let me guess, you are now going to qualify what you mean by democracy.

FrancieBrady · 02-08-2020 5:30pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So you are saying that the conflict happened because those Democratically elected to Power abdicated their responsibilities and also saying that conflict inevitably happens in the absence of democracy. Let me guess, you are now going to qualify what you mean by democracy.

You seem to believe that NI was a democratic place...would that be correct?

Do you believe that what happened happened because them Taigs were born with a bloodlust?

The evidence or facts show that the side with a century's old prediliction for killing and oppression is the British one.
I respect the IRA for sitting at a table and stopping their violent campaign when they got an agreement.
The British continue to build their war machines.

markodaly · 02-08-2020 6:27pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said it did. I have said again and again here that the violence was wrong from the start.

The war/conflict happened here because those in power abdicated their responsibilities- it was inevitable and if you properly inform yourself you will see that those ib power in Britain and indeed Ireland knew what was likely to happen.
Just as those in power abdicated their responsiblities to the Treaty of Versailles during the 30's have some responsibility for what inevitably happened.

Yeap, yet you are on record time and again defending the murder of a 3 year old boy as collateral damage and the consequences of 'war' and some how helped Nationalists in the north.

Critism of people in power is one thing. Perpetual bad faith arguments and 'whatbaoutism' is another.

FrancieBrady · 02-08-2020 7:17pm

markodaly wrote: »

Yeap, yet you are on record time and again defending the murder of a 3 year old boy as collateral damage and the consequences of 'war' and some how helped Nationalists in the north.

Critism of people in power is one thing. Perpetual bad faith arguments and 'whatbaoutism' is another.

Lies again Mark.

You asked a question 'Did the bombing of Warrington help the nationalist cause'.
The answer I gave was not a defense of Warrington but a fairly widely accepted view that the bombing campaign in Britain did bring the British to the table. The GFA, which did most certainly help the nationalist cause, followed.

You can hold that appraisal of the history without defending either side.
Just as you can see that Hiroshama and Nagasakai brought the Japanese to surrender without defending the bombing itself.

But you know this anyway, just another of your many cheap shots in the absence of anything substantial to offer.

markodaly · 02-08-2020 7:32pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lies again Mark.

You asked a question 'Did the bombing of Warrington help the nationalist cause'.
The answer I gave was not a defense of Warrington but a fairly widely accepted view that the bombing campaign in Britain did bring the British to the table. The GFA, which did most certainly help the nationalist cause, followed.

You can hold that appraisal of the history without defending either side.
Just as you can see that Hiroshama and Nagasakai brought the Japanese to surrender without defending the bombing itself.

But you know this anyway, just another of your many cheap shots in the absence of anything substantial to offer.

No, the question I actually asked was, how did the murder of a 3-year-old toddler and 12-year-old boy help Nationalists in the North.

All I got was world-class 'Whataboutism' and some long-winded defence of that bombing.
As per this post, going on about atomic bombs in WWII Japan.

Truthvader · 02-08-2020 7:38pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you cannot look beyond propaganda and spin, I cannot help you.

Governments may have wanted war, but did the people? Do your research.

Poor Francie, his eyes dancing in his head with Sinn Fein IRA spin. Now like Pavlov's dog salivating to the sad lie that Sinn Fein IRA were "peacemakers". Agreeing to abandon a useless campaign of indiscrimiate murder in exchange for power doesn't make you a peacemaker.

maccored · 02-08-2020 9:53pm

his eyes are dancing in his head due to waffle like above. Pavolv's dog? What in the hell are you on about?

efanton · 02-08-2020 10:51pm

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

It appears not. SF got highest support of any party in the Sunday Times poll today.

FrancieBrady · 03-08-2020 1:20am

markodaly wrote: »

No, the question I actually asked was, how did the murder of a 3-year-old toddler and 12-year-old boy help Nationalists in the North.

All I got was world-class 'Whataboutism' and some long-winded defence of that bombing.
As per this post, going on about atomic bombs in WWII Japan.

And you got told how it helped 'nationalism' but you are in denial about it so you keep asking the question. Sad stuff really.

The IRA brought the campaign to the British and they got results...look at the timeline...look at the commentary.
You don't have to be a fan of the IRA to see that it worked.

FrancieBrady · 03-08-2020 1:21am

Truthvader wrote: »

Poor Francie, his eyes dancing in his head with Sinn Fein IRA spin. Now like Pavlov's dog salivating to the sad lie that Sinn Fein IRA were "peacemakers". Agreeing to abandon a useless campaign of indiscrimiate murder in exchange for power doesn't make you a peacemaker.

Are you gonna deal with the points made or try to taunt ghosts in your own head?

Hamsterchops · 03-08-2020 12:46pm

No chance of Sinn Fein vanishing, that's for sure, not with all the SF threads running on boards.ie...

markodaly · 03-08-2020 2:04pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you got told how it helped 'nationalism' but you are in denial about it so you keep asking the question. Sad stuff really.

The IRA brought the campaign to the British and they got results...look at the timeline...look at the commentary.
You don't have to be a fan of the IRA to see that it worked.

Killing toddlers and young boys got 'results'.

Lovely stuff Francie.
Your sycophantic defence for child-killers is disappointing.

FrancieBrady · 03-08-2020 4:01pm

markodaly wrote: »

Killing toddlers and young boys got 'results'.

Lovely stuff Francie.
Your sycophantic defence for child-killers is disappointing.

Desperate today Mark?

I didn't defend anything...you asked a question. I answered it.

Did the bombing campaign bring results...nobody denies that...the timeline underlines the fact the British attitude changed and the GFA got signed. Is the GFA a help to nationalists...most certainly.

Join the dots.
The killing of anyone was abhorrent, the killing of innocent children despicable.

SafeSurfer · 03-08-2020 5:48pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you got told how it helped 'nationalism' but you are in denial about it so you keep asking the question. Sad stuff really.

The IRA brought the campaign to the British and they got results...look at the timeline...look at the commentary.
You don't have to be a fan of the IRA to see that it worked.

The Fenians were bombing England since 1867, the IRA since 1939 and the provisionals since 1974. Yeah they got results alright. Just like the Luftwaffe in the blitz.

FrancieBrady · 03-08-2020 6:20pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The Fenians were bombing England since 1867, the IRA since 1939 and the provisionals since 1974. Yeah they got results alright. Just like the Luftwaffe in the blitz.

Another in denial of what is historical fact.
You cannot handwave away or snide meaningless comment away the fact that the British when bombed in their retail and financial heart lands negotiated with a still fully armed group to reach an agreement.

You don't have to defend or praise to properly assess the facts.

SafeSurfer · 03-08-2020 6:30pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Another in denial of what is historical fact.
You cannot handwave away or snide meaningless comment away the fact that the British when bombed in their retail and financial heart lands negotiated with a still fully armed group to reach an agreement.

You don't have to defend or praise to properly assess the facts.

I think you so want to believe that the IRA campaign achieved something which could not have been achieved by negotiation that you are blinded to the reality.

The British establishment had negotiated with a still armed IRA, as they have done with many other groups, for 30 years, under 5 prime ministers, both Conservatives and Labour. To claim that the IRA bombing campaign in England suddenly brought the British government to the negotiating table is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

FrancieBrady · 03-08-2020 6:42pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think you so want to believe that the IRA campaign achieved something which could not have been achieved by negotiation that you are blinded to the reality.

The British establishment had negotiated with a still armed IRA, as they have done with many other groups, for 30 years, under 5 prime ministers, both Conservatives and Labour. To claim that the IRA bombing campaign in England suddenly brought the British government to the negotiating table is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

SS the British had been insisting the IRA disarm before they would talk. John Major quietly dropped that demand and the deal got done.
Fact.

SafeSurfer · 03-08-2020 6:52pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SS the British had been insisting the IRA disarm before they would talk. John Major quietly dropped that demand and the deal got done.
Fact.

They were already talking and had been talking for sometime. How you jump the conclusion that the bombing campaign in England won the IRA the little victory of dumping their arms after, rather than before their capitulation is telling.

FrancieBrady · 03-08-2020 7:42pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They were already talking and had been talking for sometime. How you jump the conclusion that the bombing campaign in England won the IRA the little victory of dumping their arms after, rather than before their capitulation is telling.

You are trenchantly ignoring what it meant for the British government to negotiate with an armed group.
Quite simply they could see the deal evaporating and it was they who climbed off the high horse and quietly dropped their demand.

Keep talking the Brits up...I never supported the IRA but the facts are the facts.

SafeSurfer · 03-08-2020 8:01pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are trenchantly ignoring what it meant for the British government to negotiate with an armed group.
Quite simply they could see the deal evaporating and it was they who climbed off the high horse and quietly dropped their demand.

Keep talking the Brits up...I never supported the IRA but the facts are the facts.

They were already negotiating with the IRA while still fully armed. Your assertion that the IRA bombing campaign in England, somehow forced the British to the negotiating table is demonstrably untrue.

Ignoring what it meant for the British to negotiate with an armed group? Are you being serious. Even in the context of this island. Do you think the provisional IRA were the first armed group the British have negotiated with? Facts are facts but you appear to have a very selective grasp of them.

FrancieBrady · 03-08-2020 8:09pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They were already negotiating with the IRA while still fully armed. Your assertion that the IRA bombing campaign in England, somehow forced the British to the negotiating table is demonstrably untrue.

Ignoring what it meant for the British to negotiate with an armed group? Are you being serious. Even in the context of this island. Do you think the provisional IRA were the first armed group the British have negotiated with? Facts are facts but you appear to have a very selective grasp of them.

You clearly dont know the facts. SF were not going to be allowed to the table until the IRA disarmed.

What hapoened? Do your research. Dont read the version put out by those with a vested interest in pretending they won.

SafeSurfer · 03-08-2020 8:34pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You clearly dont know the facts. SF were not going to be allowed to the table until the IRA disarmed.

What hapoened? Do your research. Dont read the version put out by those with a vested interest in pretending they won.

Why don’t you take your own advice Francie.

FrancieBrady · 03-08-2020 9:21pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why don’t you take your own advice Francie.

You are the poster who gave their ignorance away. The British were not 'negotiating' they were trying to get the IRA to disarm...you are either wilfully ignoring this or you didn't know.

You bought a version of the story and it is wrong, wholly wrong.

The British who said they never would, did negotiate with a fully armed group after they flexed their muscle and bombed the heart lands of Britain.

Fact.

If it happened any other way you need to demonstrate that. Don't be making a fool of yourself make trite remarks for like...those liking your posts are equally ignorant of the facts.

SafeSurfer · 03-08-2020 9:43pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are the poster who gave their ignorance away. The British were not 'negotiating' they were trying to get the IRA to disarm...you are either wilfully ignoring this or you didn't know.

You bought a version of the story and it is wrong, wholly wrong.

The British who said they never would, did negotiate with a fully armed group after they flexed their muscle and bombed the heart lands of Britain.

Fact.

If it happened any other way you need to demonstrate that. Don't be making a fool of yourself make trite remarks for like...those liking your posts are equally ignorant of the facts.

Well it looks like the British got what they wanted then Francie.

FrancieBrady · 03-08-2020 9:52pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Well it looks like the British got what they wanted then Francie.

More triteness because you cannot debate the facts.

What did the British want SS when they gunned down innocent people all over this island?

The British 'wanted' expediency...they didn't care about the Union Jack toting Sandy Rower or the Tricolour toting Falls Roader. They got the political expediency they wanted and they capitulated to do it. Then they sold a story of victory over a spy ridden IRA (good old James Bond gung ho stuff) that you bought because you are too lazy to look at the facts.
The British saw a deal they wanted slipping away because of the demands they were making and they folded. Simple as.

Thankfully they did and thankfully the IRA went with it.

SafeSurfer · 03-08-2020 10:05pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More triteness because you cannot debate the facts.

What did the British want SS when they gunned down innocent people all over this island?

The British 'wanted' expediency...they didn't care about the Union Jack toting Sandy Rower or the Tricolour toting Falls Roader. They got the political expediency they wanted and they capitulated to do it. Then they sold a story of victory over a spy ridden IRA (good old James Bond gung ho stuff) that you bought because you are too lazy to look at the facts.
The British saw a deal they wanted slipping away because of the demands they were making and they folded. Simple as.

Thankfully they did and thankfully the IRA went with it.

They say a fanatic is one who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

You have to face facts Francie. You have lost all faculties of subjective analysis. Only someone who is, at heart, riven by doubt can be as irrationally dogmatic in following the republican narrative of the last 50 years.

You have made statements in the last number of posts that are simply untrue.
The British negotiated many times with armed groups.

The IRA were heavily infiltrated with those working for British intelligence. Even their head of counter intelligence was a British agent.

Do you think the IRA would have survived post 2001, after 9/11 and the war on terror, when the political atmosphere in Washington was not so welcoming of former or would be former terrorists?

You said yourself the British wanted the IRA to disarm. That is the reality we are living with now.
Fact. (The ending of any statement with the word fact is pathetic, in my opinion).

FrancieBrady · 03-08-2020 10:19pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They say a fanatic is one who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

You have to face facts Francie. You have lost all faculties of subjective analysis. Only someone who is, at heart, riven by doubt can be as irrationally dogmatic in following the republican narrative of the last 50 years.

You have made statements in the last number of posts that are simply untrue.
The British negotiated many times with armed groups.

The IRA were heavily infiltrated with those working for British intelligence. Even their head of counter intelligence was a British agent.

Do you think the IRA would have survived post 2001, after 9/11 and the war on terror, when the political atmosphere in Washington was not so welcoming of former or would be former terrorists?

You said yourself the British wanted the IRA to disarm. That is the reality we are living with now.
Fact. (The ending of any statement with the word fact is pathetic, in my opinion).

Wow.

The British wanted the IRA to disarm before SF were allowed to the table. They did much high moral grounding about this stance as did Unionists. Bombs went off in the heartland of their economic and business communities...John Major quietly dropped the demand and the talks moved on resulting in an agreement that brought power sharing and parity of esteem for nationalists.

To avoid that reality of FACT you now want to discuss navel gazing stuff about the aftermath of 9-11???

I am, as I said, no supporter of the IRA or anyone who used violence, but you SS are as brainwashed as anyone on here.

SafeSurfer · 03-08-2020 11:25pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wow.

The British wanted the IRA to disarm before SF were allowed to the table. They did much high moral grounding about this stance as did Unionists. Bombs went off in the heartland of their economic and business communities...John Major quietly dropped the demand and the talks moved on resulting in an agreement that brought power sharing and parity of esteem for nationalists.

To avoid that reality of FACT you now want to discuss navel gazing stuff about the aftermath of 9-11???

I am, as I said, no supporter of the IRA or anyone who used violence, but you SS are as brainwashed as anyone on here.

Perhaps you could remind us who John Major was due to meet in Downing Street on the day the Docklands bomb, in which 2 people were killed and over 100 injured, was detonated?

markodaly · 04-08-2020 1:38am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't defend anything...you asked a question. I answered it.

In this case, the answer you provided is defending the murder of children.

Did the bombing campaign bring results...nobody denies that...the timeline underlines the fact the British attitude changed and the GFA got signed. Is the GFA a help to nationalists...most certainly.

Plenty of people deny it. John Hume for one!

The Provo's wanted a UI by the bomb and gun, they failed... so again how exactly did the murder of a 3-year-old boy help the average nationalist in the North?

markodaly · 04-08-2020 1:51am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you think the IRA would have survived post 2001, after 9/11 and the war on terror, when the political atmosphere in Washington was not so welcoming of former or would be former terrorists?

This.

The provos knew they were done.
Omagh did them and their cause incredible damage.
9/11 was the final nail in the coffin, due to their reliance on arms and money from nostalgic Irish Americans.

Add to that, the leadership of SF and the Provo's were riddled with informers.
Loyalists too seemed to have their number and were killing more and more Republicans.

In essence, by anyone recognising, the Provo campaign was a failure, if one was to look at the demands they had set out in the late 60's/early 70's. They kept these demands up for decades until they stole the clothes from the SDLP and told us all that killing kids and women was really about equality after all. Only the brainwashed really believe that.

Today, the North is still British and armed crown forces still dominate the streets.
What they got in return is a glorified talking shop in Stormont where they can make no decisions of substance.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2020 7:42am

Were SF allowwd to the negotiatong table SS?
I never said anything about 'meetings'.

costacorta · 04-08-2020 8:14am

maccored wrote: »

the only facts are the 50 grand found in the ruc leisure centre.

feel free to show me the court rulings where anyone in SF or in the IRA was convicted of anything to do with the robbery.

until you have that then Im afraid you cant pin the blame on anyone - certainly not until the almost 20 year old investigation is finished.

Then again, sure if enough people say it then it must be true - thats the kind of logic you two geniuses seem to be following

You forgot to mention the thousands that were found in wheelie bins in Farran Co Cork in a house of a known sympathiser . I suppose the RUC planted it there as well lol ...

mattser · 04-08-2020 8:56am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Perhaps you could remind us who John Major was due to meet in Downing Street on the day the Docklands bomb, in which 2 people were killed and over 100 injured, was detonated?

You know they're struggling when they have a pop at the thankers

:D

04-08-2020 9:07am

markodaly wrote: »

so again how exactly did the murder of a 3-year-old boy help the average nationalist in the North?

If you are to believe the ira was riddled with informers and provided info surronding location of bomb......surely you must admit then, this is the fault of the british??

How did this killing help.the british security effort?

BloodyBill · 04-08-2020 9:07am

maccored wrote: »

This id the second time to repeat and third time over all to explain to you, so focus really hard or do whatever you need to do to get that little brain thing of yours to start working.

50 thousand euro has been found in an RUC leisure centre

theres no-one in sf or the ira who are being held under investigation of or indeed accused or convicted of anything to do with the fobbery (bar the ira guy who was accused of the robbery and when they couldnt pin that on him, they jailed him for being in the IRA instead)

Both of those are facts - therefore the evidence to date points to the RUC. There has never been anything pointing to the IRA.

You can misrepresent that in any fashion you like in order to avoid admitting those two facts are correct - but it’d be very obvious thats what you're hoping to do.

You keep blaming the ira, you get asked if you can back that up and in reply you say the security forces say so. If that were true then either the investigation is a pretty **** one considering theres no movement in 16 years, or else its just crap.

In society, we say innocent til proven guilty. Its the founding stone of the justice system. You obviously arent a fan of that idea

The IRA robbed the bank. They planted 50,000 grand bizarrely to see if they could muddy the waters. They couldn't. That you could imagine the police robbing the bank is hilarious.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2020 9:20am

BloodyBill wrote: »

The IRA robbed the bank. They planted 50,000 grand bizarrely to see if they could muddy the waters. They couldn't. That you could imagine the police robbing the bank is hilarious.

The reality was the 'police' was so mired in very much non hilarious collusion and partisan policing their name had to be wiped and they were restructured.
There have been persistent allegations that there are elements of the old guard politically policing still.
Again, who does it help for you to believe without proof that a certain side did this?

In the context of NI 'I don't know' is a safer point of view until you have proof.

maccored · 04-08-2020 9:34am

costacorta wrote: »

You forgot to mention the thousands that were found in wheelie bins in Farran Co Cork in a house of a known sympathiser . I suppose the RUC planted it there as well lol ...

'known sympathiser' ... so neither in the IRA or SF. Thats cleared that up. I did say no hearsay btw, only actual facts linking to SF or the IRA.

maccored · 04-08-2020 9:35am

BloodyBill wrote: »

The IRA robbed the bank. They planted 50,000 grand bizarrely to see if they could muddy the waters. They couldn't. That you could imagine the police robbing the bank is hilarious.

the ira planted 50 grand in a high security, camera'd up to the eyeball RUC leisure centre where RUC officers wouldnt have immediate access to their arms, and therefore would be secure as **** - yeah right. where'd you read that, The Dandy?

surely they should never have had to mortor ruc stations then since they could have just walked in and planted bombs rather than 50 grand packages. Thats hilarious thinking.

markodaly · 04-08-2020 9:55am

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are to believe the ira was riddled with informers and provided info surronding location of bomb......surely you must admit then, this is the fault of the british??

How did this killing help.the british security effort?

PIRA plants a bomb in the middle of an English market town on a Saturday afternoon which kills a 3 year old toddler and 12 year old boy.... who to blame?
The British.

Weren't you blaming the PSNI for the death of Lyra McKee earlier?

I don't think anyone should take your views on the matter seriously.

markodaly · 04-08-2020 9:58am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In the context of NI 'I don't know' is a safer point of view until you have proof.

Like when Gerry Adams was never in the IRA?

Adams is like Donald Trump with his bare-faced lies. He lies so much he doesn't even know it. And we have our MAGA hat-wearing cheerleaders here to match those across the pond with zealot brainwashing.

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Comments