Irish governments turn to answer claims of collusion

[Nally Stand]

"a minority, within a minority within a minority" Who said this? The IRA's (IRB's) first and best PR man himself - Michael Collins

When surely he'd have loved to have been fit to say the opposite.

There was little support for Connolly's socialism in Ireland at this time - remember he was a socialist first - not a republican and his rhetoric made this clear.

He was still a nationalist and a republican.

There's a distinct difference between actively supporting and sympathy for the goals of the rebels in 1916. There was public sympathy and aspirations for nationhood - this is well documented - the rising and aftermath helped to provide a catalyst and a focus that turned sympathy into support.

Equally, there was a majority of people across the 32 counties had sympathy for the goals of the Provos. The fact remains that like the provos, the men of 1916 had no mandate for their actions but still, I'm immensely proud of the Volunteers from both eras.

[lawnseed]

or I could point to the gfa and the political accommodation put in place by reps of all the parties including the two governments and say republicans should support that and theres is no reason to kill psni officers in light of that agreement. right?

The GFA is no different to the Anglo-Irish Treaty. It is not supported by all parties. Why should the dissidents accept it? Why should all Republicans not support their continuing struggle? Bear in mind you are not defending the GFA from attacks by me. It's the dissidents who would brand everyone in SF as traitors for supporting it.

how do you know that ten years time the dissies wont be topping the polls? I don't have a crystal ball.. how do you know that the dissies aren't rogue british agents working in tandem with the irish state to unhinged sinn feins rise in the polls..

[Nally Stand]

I've just heard Adams remarks...FFS he is completely out of touch. I'd say the comments have lost the Shinners some votes. Whatever happened to "whatever you say, say nothing". Adams is well past his use by date.

I know I asked you this already, but I'd love to know your answer. What comments from Adams upset you so much? Was it that he pointed out the contradiction in the report which said there was collusion but there was no evidence found of collusion? Or was it that he suggested the two RUC men were careless about their safety? If it's the first, then isn't he merely pointing out a glaring contradiction? Or if it's the latter, isn't he just saying what the report said, and what you said yourself?...

They also may have contributed to their own deaths by using the same car that they had used for three years instead of availing of the "ghost cars" available to them which changed every three months.

[deiseach]

how do you know that ten years time the dissies wont be topping the polls? I don't have a crystal ball.. how do you know that the dissies aren't rogue british agents working in tandem with the irish state to unhinged sinn feins rise in the polls..

I can't prove a negative. You might as well ask me how I don't know the ants are going to take over. However, you can explain your position as to why MODERN IRA = GOOD AND DISSIDENT IRA = BAD. You won't though because the cognitive dissonance would fry your Borg mind. That's not a question.

[CD]

"a minority, within a minority within a minority" Who said this? The IRA's (IRB's) first and best PR man himself - Michael Collins

When surely he'd have loved to have been fit to say the opposite.

There was little support for Connolly's socialism in Ireland at this time - remember he was a socialist first - not a republican and his rhetoric made this clear.

He was still a nationalist and a republican.

There's a distinct difference between actively supporting and sympathy for the goals of the rebels in 1916. There was public sympathy and aspirations for nationhood - this is well documented - the rising and aftermath helped to provide a catalyst and a focus that turned sympathy into support.

Equally, there was a majority of people across the 32 counties had sympathy for the goals of the Provos. The fact remains that like the provos, the men of 1916 had no mandate for their actions but still, I'm immensely proud of the Volunteers from both eras.

I agree with what you're saying Nally and always read your comments with interest.

My original point about this was that given time, historical revisionism is inevitable, and many of the current protagonists will be viewed in a different light. I think this is a healthy thing. The discussion about Public Opinion in 1916 is a great example. I remember being taught that the rebels had no support and that public opinion changed as a result of British brutality in dealing with them in the aftermath of the Rising. This is a gross generalisation and a great piece of romanticisation that some people continue to pedal.

[lawnseed]

"a minority, within a minority within a minority" Who said this? The IRA's (IRB's) first and best PR man himself - Michael Collins

When surely he'd have loved to have been fit to say the opposite.

There was little support for Connolly's socialism in Ireland at this time - remember he was a socialist first - not a republican and his rhetoric made this clear.

He was still a nationalist and a republican.

There's a distinct difference between actively supporting and sympathy for the goals of the rebels in 1916. There was public sympathy and aspirations for nationhood - this is well documented - the rising and aftermath helped to provide a catalyst and a focus that turned sympathy into support.

Equally, there was a majority of people across the 32 counties had sympathy for the goals of the Provos. The fact remains that like the provos, the men of 1916 had no mandate for their actions but still, I'm immensely proud of the Volunteers from both eras.

and now nearly everybody in Dublin fought in the GPO  also there were an awful lot of messengers don't forget them..

[AQMP]

What was said in the dail yesterday in reaction to the 'probable' collusion by repesentative (s) of the state,

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2013-12-04a.206

Speaking of rent-a-mobs...

Christ, some scary stuff there...and I don't mean from Adams.  Has Timmy Dooley finished his finger painting yet??  I have to laugh at Gilmore stating that he's tried to encourage SF to engage in the Haass talks, when SF have been fully involved from Day One.

[LeoMc]

My response to the question you no doubt have prepared in response is that the rebels of 1916 would quickly be able to claim the support of the Irish people.

So the rising was legitimate because of the potential for a retrospective mandate for it?

yeap! lets all just 'want' a free Ireland but then when the shooting starts get disgusted and then support it if theres a chance the brits are too busy fighting the germanst too take notice. also worth mentioning that Britain was giving norn iron away for support in the war.. Ireland/dev refused and Irishmen died in british uniforms anyway

Really?

[AQMP]

On a wider note, I think SF have blundered here.  The Tribunal was about alleged collusion between individual members of the Guards and the Provies.  That's something for the current government or previous governments to handle.  Quite what Adams was doing ensuring the spotlight was on himself/SF is beyond me.  What he should have said was something along the lines of... "You know what, this is a 450 page document and I haven't had the time to read what is a very important report.  I will give my considered opinion during the planned Dail debate on the report.  However I note in the executive summary Peter Smithwick states that he found no evidence of collusion".  Adams' hasty and ill thought out remarks (even if there's an element of "truth" in them) presented an open goal to SF bashers when it really had nothing to do with SF and was an issue for the government and An Garda Siochana to comment on.

[deiseach]

On a wider note, I think SF have blundered here.  The Tribunal was about alleged collusion between individual members of the Guards and the Provies.  That's something for the current government or previous governments to handle.  Quite what Adams was doing ensuring the spotlight was on himself/SF is beyond me.  What he should have said was something along the lines of... "You know what, this is a 450 page document and I haven't had the time to read what is a very important report.  I will give my considered opinion during the planned Dail debate on the report.  However I note in the executive summary Peter Smithwick states that he found no evidence of collusion".  Adams' hasty and ill thought out remarks (even if there's an element of "truth" in them) presented an open goal to SF bashers when it really had nothing to do with SF and was an issue for the government and An Garda Siochana to comment on.

+1

[CD]

On a wider note, I think SF have blundered here.  The Tribunal was about alleged collusion between individual members of the Guards and the Provies.  That's something for the current government or previous governments to handle.  Quite what Adams was doing ensuring the spotlight was on himself/SF is beyond me.  What he should have said was something along the lines of... "You know what, this is a 450 page document and I haven't had the time to read what is a very important report.  I will give my considered opinion during the planned Dail debate on the report.  However I note in the executive summary Peter Smithwick states that he found no evidence of collusion".  Adams' hasty and ill thought out remarks (even if there's an element of "truth" in them) presented an open goal to SF bashers when it really had nothing to do with SF and was an issue for the government and An Garda Siochana to comment on.

+1

+1

The SF PR machine is usually much better than this.

[Nally Stand]

On a wider note, I think SF have blundered here.  The Tribunal was about alleged collusion between individual members of the Guards and the Provies.  That's something for the current government or previous governments to handle.  Quite what Adams was doing ensuring the spotlight was on himself/SF is beyond me.  What he should have said was something along the lines of... "You know what, this is a 450 page document and I haven't had the time to read what is a very important report.  I will give my considered opinion during the planned Dail debate on the report.  However I note in the executive summary Peter Smithwick states that he found no evidence of collusion".  Adams' hasty and ill thought out remarks (even if there's an element of "truth" in them) presented an open goal to SF bashers when it really had nothing to do with SF and was an issue for the government and An Garda Siochana to comment on.

At the end of the day, Adams is a party leader and to palm of commenting on one of the biggest stories in the news "until he has read the report" is impossible. The SF bashers are always going to come out on this story anyway. If he said nothing he'd have been lambasted from every side for showing disregard for the report or some such nonsense. Adams said nothing controversial. He pointed out an inconsistency in the report's wording (that there was collusion but that there was no evidence of collusion), and pointed out another aspect of the report which was the lack of caution for their own safety by the two RUC men. The latter point being the one which seems to stir most of the bitter ramblings from the "rent-a-mob" attacks on him calling his remarks on this as "callous", "insulting", "incredible", despite the fact that Adam's point was also made in the report itself by witness from the Gardai, the RUC and the IRA!! Their petty digs and jibes ("FARC" etc ffs!!) will be seen for what they are, cheap, vindictive point scoring from the lowest common denominators of hypocrisy.

[Puckoon]

He pointed out an inconsistency in the report's wording (that there was collusion but that there was no evidence of collusion), and pointed out another aspect of the report which was the lack of caution for their own safety by the two RUC men.

Could his comments be filed under one of the board's favourite terms for this kind of discussion - Whataboutery?

[Myles Na G.]

Regardless of the argument, SF have committed political suicide with Adams statement and then compounded it with the performance on Vincent Brown last night.

People suddenly find out Adams was an IRA supporter now just? 

Hypocritical or not the vast majority of people in the south have no interest in violence be it war or terrorism.

Yes they do. If they stand to benefit from it, that is. Come on to this thread on Easter Sunday 2016 when the thousands and thousands will be parading through Dublin and try telling me then that the good-two-shoes people of the 26 counties don't condone violence.

People, me for one, who had been warming a little to SF, in the belief that they had left the past behind have been shocked back into the cold reality of what SF really are.
Its a real pity, I thought they might develop into a credible alternative over time, but no votes from me Mr Adams.

So what exactly did Gerry say yesterday that upset you? That the RUC officers were too relaxed about their own safety? Wasn't he then only repeating what was stated in the report? Was you problem that he said the report was contradictory? Well it did say there was collusion but that there was no evidence found of collusion. Wasn't Gerry just calling a spade a spade? Or calling a contradiction a contradiction?

For someone who's freedom was won at gunpoint, but who is so appalled by violence, maybe you could tell us what your opinion was on the Gardaí openly co-operating with the RUC?

Michael Collins, the wind that shakes the barley every film depicting Irish life around the time 1916 has Irish volunteers shooting Brits ffs even far and away a film with tom cruise and Nicole kidman has a Irishman taking aim at a Brit, all are depicted as heroes i,ve yet to see a show where the old IRA man was the baddie the Irish government annually line up were mick Collins was shot he was a leader of the IRA and yet  for some reason blowing the brains out of a British soldier in 1900 is different than doing it in 1989. records show that turn of the century 'volunteers' shot their land owning proddy neighbours- fellow Irishmen in every sense of the word for their land. now we have the direct descendants in government in the south- actual blood relations of these same old IRA men feigning disgust at the same thing happening in south Armagh.. a warzone! a warzone recognised by the Brits and the yanks and anyone who cares to look at the history of the place.

I want to know what the difference is? why is OLD IRA = GOOD AND MODERN IRA=BAD

I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = WANKERS. The men of 1916 and those who fought the War of Independence won nothing but the partition of my country. Their 'achievement' has been supported by every new generation of wankers from 1922 until the present day. The result is that Ireland today is a country in which the division runs deeper and is far more firmly entrenched than ever, socially, politically and culturally. Had the men of 1916 not been so keen to demonstrate their machismo and had instead concentrated their efforts on a political strategy, we might not have been in the mess we're in today. Consider this: Sinn Fein took 73 of the 105 seats in 1918, or just over 40 more than the non-republican candidates returned. Assume that this sort of majority would have been repeated in subsequent elections. What would the Sinn Fein influence have been had the party decided to take its seats in Westminster? There have been 25 British general elections since 1918. About 10 of those parliaments have had majorities of 40 or less. How long do you think successive British governments would have tolerated the Shinners holding the balance of power in the mother of Parliaments before they gave them what they wanted just to be rid of them? Ah, but principles, you say. Principles my hole. Where were the principles when they took their seats in Stormont and the Dail? What was lacking was vision and cool heads. Too many psychotics like the blood-fetishist Pearse running about looking for martyrdom. Wankers with a capital W.

[Maguire01]

On a wider note, I think SF have blundered here.  The Tribunal was about alleged collusion between individual members of the Guards and the Provies.  That's something for the current government or previous governments to handle.  Quite what Adams was doing ensuring the spotlight was on himself/SF is beyond me.  What he should have said was something along the lines of... "You know what, this is a 450 page document and I haven't had the time to read what is a very important report.  I will give my considered opinion during the planned Dail debate on the report.  However I note in the executive summary Peter Smithwick states that he found no evidence of collusion".  Adams' hasty and ill thought out remarks (even if there's an element of "truth" in them) presented an open goal to SF bashers when it really had nothing to do with SF and was an issue for the government and An Garda Siochana to comment on.

At the end of the day, Adams is a party leader and to palm of commenting on one of the biggest stories in the news "until he has read the report" is impossible. The SF bashers are always going to come out on this story anyway. If he said nothing he'd have been lambasted from every side for showing disregard for the report or some such nonsense. Adams said nothing controversial. He pointed out an inconsistency in the report's wording (that there was collusion but that there was no evidence of collusion), and pointed out another aspect of the report which was the lack of caution for their own safety by the two RUC men. The latter point being the one which seems to stir most of the bitter ramblings from the "rent-a-mob" attacks on him calling his remarks on this as "callous", "insulting", "incredible", despite the fact that Adam's point was also made in the report itself by witness from the Gardai, the RUC and the IRA!! Their petty digs and jibes ("FARC" etc ffs!!) will be seen for what they are, cheap, vindictive point scoring from the lowest common denominators of hypocrisy.

He would have been best to just spin the usual line - terrible times, regrettable anyone had to die etc. etc. There was nothing to gain in what he said - from a republican perspective, or any other perspective, and whatever about challenging the conclusion, it's an 'odd' one that he highlighted the 'caution for their own safety' aspect - a small part of a massive document.