aye, and my arse farts butterfies

[Lance]

Ballymurphy inquest: Gerry Adams denies IRA membership - BBC News


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


mad

not a great headline.
This makes more sense from further down

Asked directly about his connections to the IRA by a barrister for the coroner, Mr Adams said: "I was not a member of the IRA, I have never disassociated myself with the IRA, and I never will, until the day I die.

"I would've been in a minority," he told the court.

"The military tendency within republicanism was the dominant tendency."

which to me says, not a member but associated with. Isn't that what Sinn Fein were always accused of being?

[NotAllThere]

In other contexts, perhaps, and perhaps even in events of the morning if that day, but not necessarily in the context of British soldiers shooting unarmed UK citizens that afternoon.

British Army committing an atrocity (allegedly) in no way detracts from Adams being a nasty piece of work with a very murky past.

[meridian]

aye, and my arse farts butterfies

British Army committing an atrocity (allegedly) in no way detracts from Adams being a nasty piece of work with a very murky past.

“Atrocity” is your word, I was careful to use “****up” earlier - the difference in my view, although there were arses in the British Army that would shoot at anything that moved, they didn’t have a sustained campaign of targeting civilians. That doesn’t make them any less responsible for their own ****ups, though.

But yes, agreed that his past is murky. His claim of not being a member is probably just semantics, I doubt that they had a membership card. Becoming a full member was probably as simple as joining an attack, and as a “back room general” if he didn’t get his hands dirty then he technically wasn’t a “member”.

[original PM]

Why are we talking about something which happened 30 years ago?

Only a week or two back a couple of IRA gunmen killed a 30 year old reporter in cold blood and with absolutely no remorse.

They are fooking animals and need to be treated as such.

[meridian]

aye, and my arse farts butterfies

Why are we talking about something which happened 30 years ago?

Because a crime may or may not have been committed, and there are people passionate enough about it to pursue it.

Only a week or two back a couple of IRA gunmen killed a 30 year old reporter

Correct.

in cold blood and with absolutely no remorse.

We don’t know that yet. Does that description also apply to the soldiers in the inquest?

They are fooking animals and need to be treated as such.

Who are you describing as “they”, and what relevance does that have to civilians being shot?

Be careful here - if you’re suggesting that an entire group of people should be treated as animals because of the actions of a few, then that could easily be applied to the British Army...

[BrilloPad]

Why are we talking about something which happened 30 years ago?

Only a week or two back a couple of IRA gunmen killed a 30 year old reporter in cold blood and with absolutely no remorse.

They are fooking animals and need to be treated as such.

oPM for PM!

[original PM]

Because...

I do not understand why you are trying to protect or rationalise a group of people who start a fight if they do not get to dress in a certain colour and walk down a certain street - because they have always done it and the only reason they do it is to spark conflict.

An abolsute fooking joke - small minded petty people doing small minded petty things.

[meridian]

I do not understand why you are trying to protect or rationalise a group of people who start a fight if they do not get to dress in a certain colour and walk down a certain street - because they have always done it and the only reason they do it is to spark conflict.

An abolsute fooking joke - small minded petty people doing small minded petty things.

Show me one quote here where I have tried to protect or rationalise a group of people.

Note for the hard of comprehension: Holding an inquest into why certain soldiers did a certain thing on a certain day, is not “protecting or rationalising” the actions of another group of people.

[Yorkie62]

Show me one quote here where I have tried to protect or rationalise a group of people.

Note for the hard of comprehension: Holding an inquest into why certain soldiers did a certain thing on a certain day, is not “protecting or rationalising” the actions of another group of people.

But is does show the bias of the Good Friday agreement. IRA terrorists have immunity from prosecution under the Good Friday agreement so why should the same not be extended to members of the Britsh Armed Forces?

You asked me to explain my leap and there you have to in your own quote. Perhaps you would now like to answer my original question.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

[meridian]

So. You are quite content that IRA terrorists get immunity from prosecution under the Good Friday agreement but British solders do not?

But is does show the bias of the Good Friday agreement. IRA terrorists have immunity from prosecution under the Good Friday agreement so why should the same not be extended to members of the Britsh Armed Forces?

You asked me to explain my leap and there you have to in your own quote. Perhaps you would now like to answer my original question.

You haven’t explained your leap at all. Show me where I’m “quite content” that one side gets immunity but the other doesn’t, or withdraw your accusation.

Then we can have a proper conversation about the apparent discrepancies in the GFA.