In Praise of Sinn Féin Watch

FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#221
Report 9 years ago
#221
(Original post by yawn)
The official coroner for the City of Derry/Londonderry, retired British army Major Hubert O'Neill, who issued a statement on August 21, 1973, at the completion of the inquest into the people killed. He declared:
[/B]


I have already referenced his comments on this Forum, although I'm not sure it was on this thread. You can do a TSR search if you wish. It makes for sorry reading, and difficult to defend what appears to be the indefensible, doesn't it?






All these enquiry outcomes that evidence collusion at the highest levels might very well have to be acted upon, if and when the Truth & Reconcilation process starts.

Not a General then, but a retired Major.

Is that your taxi outside?
0
quote
reply
shamrock92
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#222
Report 9 years ago
#222
(Original post by L i b)
Nelson Mandela used force to bring about civil rights, the IRA used force for nationalistic purposes.
The right to work, vote and live in your country without violence, oppression and intimidation is pretty much a civil right.

(And in your sense, Mandela was fighting for national rights: he wanted to overturn the colonialist/racist ownership of South Africa and replace it with an egalitarian republic.)
0
quote
reply
shamrock92
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#223
Report 9 years ago
#223
(Original post by TomGeorge)
attacks on civillians and non-combatants are no justifiable. they never are. what more would you like me to say?

i condemn the IRA because they did activly target civillians, they did not have the balls to attack on duty soliders, they rather would go for remeberence day services.

A minority of the MK did commit a far smaller amount of acts of terrorism against civillians as part of a civil righst campaign far bigger than that in northern ireland. Those actions were not supported by Mandella or many other leading ANC members. Adams and Sinn Fein fully endorsed the murders of the IRA.
That is the difference.

There is a very good reason why it is the moderates of northern ireland (hume and trimble) who got the Nobel Peace Prize and NOT adams.
Well you've just said that "attacks on civilians are never justifiable"; so the motives of the MK are pretty much irrelevant. All that's up for debate is the scale of the atrocities.

Your claim that the MK committed far fewer anti-civilian attacks than the IRA is, frankly, laughable. I've already pointed out the Church Street bombing. Where on Earth have you got this idea from?
0
quote
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#224
Report 9 years ago
#224
(Original post by FiveFiveSix)
Not a General then, but a retired Major.

Is that your taxi outside?
indeed a very valid point ....

a Major is a middle manager , a general is VSM / Board
0
quote
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#225
Report 9 years ago
#225
(Original post by zippyRN)
indeed a very valid point ....

a Major is a middle manager , a general is VSM / Board
Nothing valid about that point, zippy.

What is valid is the validity of the decision of the official coroner...a retired British Army Major...giving his verdict following the enquiry into the deaths of the 14 people killed in NI. His verdict was that, because of the events and evidence produced at the coroners inquest, these 14 people had been murdered by the soldiers who killed them.

Like it or not, Coroners give verdicts on the reasons for death every single day of the week, up and down the length and breadth of this kingdom and NI...and these verdicts are recorded on legal documents.
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#226
Report 9 years ago
#226
(Original post by yawn)
Nothing valid about that point, zippy.

What is valid is the validity of the decision of the official coroner...a retired British Army Major...giving his verdict following the enquiry into the deaths of the 14 people killed in NI. His verdict was that, because of the events and evidence produced at the coroners inquest, these 14 people had been murdered by the soldiers who killed them.

Like it or not, Coroners give verdicts on the reasons for death every single day of the week, up and down the length and breadth of this kingdom and NI...and these verdicts are recorded on legal documents.
Not a 'high-ranking general' as you previously claimed?

I notice you have a real problem with admitting when you're wrong, as you've never backed down over your thinly veiled albeit laughable threats on the previous pages...
0
quote
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#227
Report 9 years ago
#227
(Original post by yawn)
Nothing valid about that point, zippy.

What is valid is the validity of the decision of the official coroner...a retired British Army Major...giving his verdict following the enquiry into the deaths of the 14 people killed in NI. His verdict was that, because of the events and evidence produced at the coroners inquest, these 14 people had been murdered by the soldiers who killed them.

Like it or not, Coroners give verdicts on the reasons for death every single day of the week, up and down the length and breadth of this kingdom and NI...and these verdicts are recorded on legal documents.
Yawn

as fivefivesix points out you previously claimed the that the Coroner in question was a General Officer, not a Field Officer as it turns out that he is.

consequently you are wrong on that point

A coroner cannot make an official statement that someone has been 'murdered'. only that the finding of the court is that someone was unlawfully killed, this covers a range of potential criminal charges, the laying of which require the identification of a specific person or persons to be charged. the personal opinions ofthe coroner carry no more legal weight than the opinions of anyone else.

consequently, you are wrong on that point as well

Subsequently if the charges are laid there then is required the finding of both fact and guilt to the criminal standard of proof. the finding of fact is aided somewhat in this situation why the existance of a coroner's verdict of unlawful killing, but there is still the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the individuals named on the charge.

consequently your assertion that the finding of the coroner that these individuals were unlawfully killed proves that the British Army are Murderers is also equally flawed.
0
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#228
Report 9 years ago
#228
(Original post by zippyRN)
Yawn

as fivefivesix points out you previously claimed the that the Coroner in question was a General Officer, not a Field Officer as it turns out that he is.

consequently you are wrong on that point

A coroner cannot make an official statement that someone has been 'murdered'. only that the finding of the court is that someone was unlawfully killed, this covers a range of potential criminal charges, the laying of which require the identification of a specific person or persons to be charged. the personal opinions ofthe coroner carry no more legal weight than the opinions of anyone else.

consequently, you are wrong on that point as well

Subsequently if the charges are laid there then is required the finding of both fact and guilt to the criminal standard of proof. the finding of fact is aided somewhat in this situation why the existance of a coroner's verdict of unlawful killing, but there is still the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the individuals named on the charge.

consequently your assertion that the finding of the coroner that these individuals were unlawfully killed proves that the British Army are Murderers is also equally flawed.
She won't reply mate, she doesn't when she's proved wrong.

She tried telling me to watch what I say, or I'd become like the bloke apparently kicked out of uni for saying nasty things online, and also that she could be monitoring what squaddies say online to stop them being nasty to civvies!

I pointed out if she was a high-ranking officer, she'd at least know what DIN we were all breaking, haven't heard back since!

The terms head, banging, and brick wall come to mind!
0
quote
reply
TomGeorge
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#229
Report 9 years ago
#229
(Original post by shamrock92)
Well you've just said that "attacks on civilians are never justifiable"; so the motives of the MK are pretty much irrelevant. All that's up for debate is the scale of the atrocities.

Your claim that the MK committed far fewer anti-civilian attacks than the IRA is, frankly, laughable. I've already pointed out the Church Street bombing. Where on Earth have you got this idea from?
Give me the figures of IRA bombing compared to MK
Then it can be "Frankly laughable"
0
quote
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#230
Report 9 years ago
#230
(Original post by zippyRN)
Yawn

as fivefivesix points out you previously claimed the that the Coroner in question was a General Officer, not a Field Officer as it turns out that he is.

consequently you are wrong on that point
That is of little consequence to the Coroner inquest outcome. It was still the view of a former serving officer of the British Army. In fact, clutching to this litte mistake demonstrates a desperation to seek to undermine the view of the Chief Coroner.

A coroner cannot make an official statement that someone has been 'murdered'. only that the finding of the court is that someone was unlawfully killed, this covers a range of potential criminal charges, the laying of which require the identification of a specific person or persons to be charged. the personal opinions ofthe coroner carry no more legal weight than the opinions of anyone else.

consequently, you are wrong on that point as well
I think that the very fact that the Coroner made public his ownership of his view - in light of the evidence presented to him at the time - is salient. He would hardly have risked making his heartfelt opinion public unless he had sufficient reason to hold that opinion.

Subsequently if the charges are laid there then is required the finding of both fact and guilt to the criminal standard of proof. the finding of fact is aided somewhat in this situation why the existance of a coroner's verdict of unlawful killing, but there is still the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the individuals named on the charge.

consequently your assertion that the finding of the coroner that these individuals were unlawfully killed proves that the British Army are Murderers is also equally flawed.
The difference between the Coroners decision and a Court of Law is that the Coroner Inquest only has to look at "on the balance on probabilites" and on that basis this was the outcome.

However, in a Court of Law - and for the purposes of determing guilt - there is a requirement to determine guilt "beyond reasonable doubt.

Therein lies the difference between the two.

Ergo...my statement was not incorrect on this basis...not is the Chief Coroners conclusion flawed for the purposes of the Coroner Enquiry.
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#231
Report 9 years ago
#231
Haha. I am wrong, but it is of very little consequence.

Yawn, don't ever change.














I lie. Bugger off from whence you came.
0
quote
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#232
Report 9 years ago
#232
Yawn

stop trying to justify yourself , just have the guts to admit you made some very bad calls on this and go back to glorifying terrorism and/or religious bigotry
0
quote
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#233
Report 9 years ago
#233
(Original post by zippyRN)
Yawn

stop trying to justify yourself , just have the guts to admit you made some very bad calls on this and go back to glorifying terrorism and/or religious bigotry
zippy,

I don't have any reason to justify myself...the facts I posted in #232 highlight that...and unless you have evidence that I have 'glorified' terrorism, whether State sanctioned or otherwise, and evidence that I have 'glorified' religious bigotry, withdraw those accusations as they amount to personal harassment and abuse.

And then try to enter into the spirit of mature debate (if you can) rather than being the mouth-piece of some very silly, immature individual/s.
quote
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#234
Report 9 years ago
#234
(Original post by yawn)
zippy,

I don't have any reason to justify myself...the facts I posted in #232 highlight that...and unless you have evidence that I have 'glorified' terrorism, whether State sanctioned or otherwise, and evidence that I have 'glorified' religious bigotry, withdraw those accusations as they amount to personal harassment and abuse.

And then try to enter into the spirit of mature debate (if you can) rather than being the mouth-piece of some very silly, immature individual/s.
evidence of glorification of terrorism - everything you have posted i nthis thread

evidence of the promotion of religious bigotry search isn't working too well at the minutes but there's plenty there in your past posts
0
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#235
Report 9 years ago
#235
(Original post by zippyRN)
or send in the WI ,


actually , not the WI could give the special forces a run for their money ...

and some of the cakes cooked by the less culinary gifted members of the WI are against the geneva convention....
Damn straight! Have you not seen Hot Fuzz? Some of those old ladies are scary...


I'd take playtime in a cellar on the Shankill with Mr Black and Decker over one of my granny's rock cakes anyday...
0
quote
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#236
Report 9 years ago
#236
(Original post by zippyRN)
evidence of glorification of terrorism - everything you have posted i nthis thread
Show me some examples.

evidence of the promotion of religious bigotry search isn't working too well at the minutes but there's plenty there in your past posts
If there's plenty of religious bigotry evidence in my past posts, you won't have any problems highlighting them, will you?

Remember, if you can't find anything that is explicitly glorifying terrorism or promoting religious bigotry from me, and not your own distorted interpretation, then according to natural justice you should withdraw your accusations and apologise.

But I have my doubts that you'll do the latter because you're...you.
quote
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#237
Report 9 years ago
#237
(Original post by TomGeorge)
what? they were in a community which percieved them as an occupying force, they were not wanted.
but how is this different from mainland Uk where the police are 'not wanted' by Yardies, Nigerians gangsters, Ex -Miners, <insert choice of group thatdoesn't want police presence>

the British Army was deployeded on British soil as Military Aid to the Civil Power ...

those who give credence to the 'occupying power' excrement spouted by 'rirish republician' terrorists and their sympathesisers really need to go and do a little bit of research...
0
quote
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#238
Report 9 years ago
#238
(Original post by yawn)
Show me some examples.



If there's plenty of religious bigotry evidence in my past posts, you won't have any problems highlighting them, will you?

Remember, if you can't find anything that is explicitly glorifying terrorism or promoting religious bigotry from me, and not your own distorted interpretation, then according to natural justice you should withdraw your accusations and apologise.

But I have my doubts that you'll do the latter because you're...you.
all of which is immaterial becasue i'm not the one supporting proscribed organisations ... i can sleep peacefully in my bed not fearing a visit from The Branch
0
quote
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#239
Report 9 years ago
#239
(Original post by zippyRN)
all of which is immaterial becasue i'm not the one supporting proscribed organisations ... i can sleep peacefully in my bed not fearing a visit from The Branch
Have you got your evidence that I promote glorification of terrorism, whether state sanctioned or otherwise, or that I promote glorification of religious bigotry?

No...you have just pigeon-holed me because I offer balance between the two former antagonists.

In fact, I'm a peacemaker with the realistic view that to sustain peace, one has to treat the underlying causes and recognise the hurts that both have inflicted upon each other. And this is nothing novel for me to say...I have been saying it consistently on every single thread about NI for the last few years on TSR. It's a shame that you blinded yourself to those posts.
quote
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#240
Report 9 years ago
#240
(Original post by yawn)
Have you got your evidence that I promote glorification of terrorism, whether state sanctioned or otherwise, or that I promote glorification of religious bigotry?

No...you have just pigeon-holed me because I offer balance between the two former antagonists.

In fact, I'm a peacemaker with the realistic view that to sustain peace, one has to treat the underlying causes and recognise the hurts that both have inflicted upon each other. And this is nothing novel for me to say...I have been saying it consistently on every single thread about NI for the last few years on TSR. It's a shame that you blinded yourself to those posts.
your self defintion on this site proves that support bigotry, the Sect you align yourself with is well known for it's bigotry and tolerance of criminal activty among it's ranks whether Irish republican terrorists or the perverts and abusers in the priesthood.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (140)
18.49%
No (459)
60.63%
Not really bothered about them (158)
20.87%

Watched Threads

View All