Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[LeoMc]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I found it strange that no one else mentioned his opening comments, in the rush to hammer him. Mary Lou actually put it quite well

[LeoMc]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

But here the bottom line is they were unarmed, one waved a white hanky. You miss my point...Adams could have made bland generalised comments but he chose to make what I am entitled to believe were unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appaling remarks. I accept the point of my comments was it is damaging to SF. It is damaging because most potential voters have no concept of the Northern troubles are what they were about, they don't even understand that 1916 was the same conflict only on an All Island scale. They won't understand the rank hypocrisy of Charlie Flannigan or Vincent Browne. Fair play to MacLochlainn for taking them on but Gerry fed him to the bears. I noticed also that he refused to say that killing these guys was a duty. Again I say it to me it was Shoot to Kill in reverse.

Waved a white handkerchief? Apparently so. Could the IRA keep prisoners or something? You do realise how such guerrilla armies have to operate? The IRA were not the state forces. The IRA were at war and shooting-to-kill was their whole point. The state, by their own proclamation, were not at war and so, their own stated standards dictated that they shouldn't have been carrying out 'shoot-to-kill' operations. And they could take prisoners. And again, if you believe Adam's comments were "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then is it fair to say you view the report which he was referencing as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too then?

That part of the IRA statements to Smithwicks can be accepted as facts but the other part of their testimony that they spied on the police couldn't as it did not fit with the narrative!

[Maguire01]

SF TD hints at party exit as anger with Adams grows

NIALL O'CONNOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT – 10 DECEMBER 2013

SINN FEIN looks set to lose one of its most promising TDs in what will prove to be a huge blow to under-fire leader Gerry Adams.

The Irish Independent can reveal that Meath West TD Peadar Toibin has told his supporters that he is likely to quit the party in the new year.

In a clear indication of his dissatisfaction with the Sinn Fein leader, Mr Toibin last night contradicted Mr Adams's shocking comments about the deaths of two RUC officers.

Mr Toibin rejected outright Mr Adams's claim that Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan displayed a "laissez faire" approach to their safety prior to their savage murder in 1989.

"I don't believe it's ever correct to say that two police officers were murdered because of their own actions. These men's deaths were not determined by their own actions but the actions of the IRA. The IRA is responsible for the murder of these two men, not the officers themselves," he told the Irish Independent.

Mr Toibin's rebuke came as sources in Meath West confirmed that he was preparing to leave the party. While he did not want to comment on the matter last night, well-placed sources said he had already held talks with members of other parties.

Mr Toibin, who is one of the Dail's youngest TDs, was suspended by Sinn Fein in July after voting against the contentious abortion measures.

Sinn Fein figures believed he would return in the new year; however, it has emerged that Mr Toibin has engaged in serious discussion with senior Fianna Fail figures about a potential move to Micheal Martin's party.

Sources in Meath West have said that Mr Toibin is likely to vote against Sinn Fein again in relation to two private members' bills on the issue of abortion.

"Peadar is prepared to vote in line with his conscience. That will mean he will defy the party again," said a well-placed source.

The news of Mr Toibin's expected defection will prove to be a major blow for Mr Adams, who is due to travel to South Africa tomorrow to attend memorial events for Nelson Mandela.

While Mr Adams has received the backing of some of his TDs, others, such as deputy leader Mary Lou McDonald and finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty, did not respond to a request for comment last night.

Dublin North West TD Dessie Ellis refused to support the use of the phrase "laissez faire" by Mr Adams, but said the two officers had been "lax" in relation to their security.

"I know the area and you don't get away with that, even the Brits themselves wouldn't travel like that," he said.

Padraig McLoughlin, Caoimhghin O Caolain, Brian Stanley, Jonathan O'Brien, Martin Ferris and Sean Crowe all said they supported their leader's remarks.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sf-td-hints-at-party-exit-as-anger-with-adams-grows-29823286.html



Peadar has denied the above on Twitter.

Meath West TD Peadar Tóibín, who was suspended from Sinn Féin after he voted against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, has said he is not joining Fianna Fáil.

Speaking on RTÉ's News at One, he said he was quite shocked at reports that he planned to do so.

Mr Tóibín said that aside from his stance on the abortion issue, there was no other issue in Sinn Féin that he disagrees with.

He said there is no doubt that he wants to rejoin Sinn Féin and that his home is with the party.

Looks like you are a wee bit premature again with the Indo lies Maguire 

Not premature at all - I posted the story that had been published and also noted that Peadar had denied it.

[Myles Na G.]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

But here the bottom line is they were unarmed, one waved a white hanky. You miss my point...Adams could have made bland generalised comments but he chose to make what I am entitled to believe were unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appaling remarks. I accept the point of my comments was it is damaging to SF. It is damaging because most potential voters have no concept of the Northern troubles are what they were about, they don't even understand that 1916 was the same conflict only on an All Island scale. They won't understand the rank hypocrisy of Charlie Flannigan or Vincent Browne. Fair play to MacLochlainn for taking them on but Gerry fed him to the bears. I noticed also that he refused to say that killing these guys was a duty. Again I say it to me it was Shoot to Kill in reverse.

Waved a white handkerchief? Apparently so. Could the IRA keep prisoners or something? You do realise how such guerrilla armies have to operate? The IRA were not the state forces. The IRA were at war and shooting-to-kill was their whole point. The state, by their own proclamation, were not at war and so, their own stated standards dictated that they shouldn't have been carrying out 'shoot-to-kill' operations. And they could take prisoners. And again, if you believe Adam's comments were "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then is it fair to say you view the report which he was referencing as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too then?

That part of the IRA statements to Smithwicks can be accepted as facts but the other part of their testimony that they spied on the police couldn't as it did not fit with the narrative!

Other parts of the IRA testimony do not stand up to close scrutiny. The idea that the plan to kill the two police officers only swung into action when they had been spotted going into Dundalk station is ludicrous. This article gives a useful timeline of events on that day:

http://www.thejournal.ie/smithwick-tribunal-timeline-1204775-Dec2013/

The idea that an operation involving so many people could be underway within 10 minutes defies common sense. The IRA lied to the tribunal in order to protect the identity of its informer or informers. That shouldn't surprise anyone. What does cause surprise is that the IRA was asked to give testimony in the first place, given that the organisation had a motive to lie, and given its track record of lying in the past when the truth was inconvenient.

[Rossfan]

. What does cause surprise is that the IRA was asked to give testimony in the first place, given that the organisation had a motive to lie, and given its track record of lying in the past when the truth was inconvenient.

Unlike the RUC, Gardai etc etc who of course always told the truth no matter how inconvenient 

[Myles Na G.]

. What does cause surprise is that the IRA was asked to give testimony in the first place, given that the organisation had a motive to lie, and given its track record of lying in the past when the truth was inconvenient.

Unlike the RUC, Gardai etc etc who of course always told the truth no matter how inconvenient 

Fair point, but the difference is that state bodies are accountable and subject to scrutiny, so that the truth is likely to come out at some point, even if it takes many years for that to happen. We know the truth about what the British Army got up to on Bloody Sunday, we still don't really know what Martin McGuinness was doing that day. We know a good deal about the activities of state forces over the years, but we're still not allowed to know that Gerry Adams was in the Ra. 

[Applesisapples]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

But here the bottom line is they were unarmed, one waved a white hanky. You miss my point...Adams could have made bland generalised comments but he chose to make what I am entitled to believe were unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appaling remarks. I accept the point of my comments was it is damaging to SF. It is damaging because most potential voters have no concept of the Northern troubles are what they were about, they don't even understand that 1916 was the same conflict only on an All Island scale. They won't understand the rank hypocrisy of Charlie Flannigan or Vincent Browne. Fair play to MacLochlainn for taking them on but Gerry fed him to the bears. I noticed also that he refused to say that killing these guys was a duty. Again I say it to me it was Shoot to Kill in reverse.

Waved a white handkerchief? Apparently so. Could the IRA keep prisoners or something? You do realise how such guerrilla armies have to operate? The IRA were not the state forces. The IRA were at war and shooting-to-kill was their whole point. The state, by their own proclamation, were not at war and so, their own stated standards dictated that they shouldn't have been carrying out 'shoot-to-kill' operations. And they could take prisoners. And again, if you believe Adam's comments were "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then is it fair to say you view the report which he was referencing as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too then?

Nally I'll leave my comments as they are. As an uncritical supporter of SF you will never accept any wrong doing. But take it from me as a potential voter his comments are a concern.

You can leave them as they are all you want, I'm just wondering why it's not OK for Gerry Adams to mention the same thing the report mentions.

Nally read my comments in full don't just select the bits you don't like. Strip it back and what I am saying is simply that Adams has damaged SF by the timing and nature of his comments. I have addressed all the other stuff that surrounds them, such as the hypocrisy of unionists, Fg, FF etc... But the fact remains it could have been handled better.

[Nally Stand]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

But here the bottom line is they were unarmed, one waved a white hanky. You miss my point...Adams could have made bland generalised comments but he chose to make what I am entitled to believe were unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appaling remarks. I accept the point of my comments was it is damaging to SF. It is damaging because most potential voters have no concept of the Northern troubles are what they were about, they don't even understand that 1916 was the same conflict only on an All Island scale. They won't understand the rank hypocrisy of Charlie Flannigan or Vincent Browne. Fair play to MacLochlainn for taking them on but Gerry fed him to the bears. I noticed also that he refused to say that killing these guys was a duty. Again I say it to me it was Shoot to Kill in reverse.

Waved a white handkerchief? Apparently so. Could the IRA keep prisoners or something? You do realise how such guerrilla armies have to operate? The IRA were not the state forces. The IRA were at war and shooting-to-kill was their whole point. The state, by their own proclamation, were not at war and so, their own stated standards dictated that they shouldn't have been carrying out 'shoot-to-kill' operations. And they could take prisoners. And again, if you believe Adam's comments were "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then is it fair to say you view the report which he was referencing as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too then?

Nally I'll leave my comments as they are. As an uncritical supporter of SF you will never accept any wrong doing. But take it from me as a potential voter his comments are a concern.

You can leave them as they are all you want, I'm just wondering why it's not OK for Gerry Adams to mention the same thing the report mentions.

Nally read my comments in full don't just select the bits you don't like. Strip it back and what I am saying is simply that Adams has damaged SF by the timing and nature of his comments. I have addressed all the other stuff that surrounds them, such as the hypocrisy of unionists, Fg, FF etc... But the fact remains it could have been handled better.

Yes but if he has damaged SF by his comments, and you regard his comments as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then I'm just wondering if you believe Smithwick's report is "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too for raising the exact same subject as Adams?

[Rossfan]

, but we're still not allowed to know that Gerry Adams was in the Ra. 

Sure he says he wasn't  ( like nally says he isn't a member of SF )

[lawnseed]

so that's what happened in loughgall.. they forgot to bring a white hanky

[Myles Na G.]

so that's what happened in loughgall.. they forgot to bring a white hanky

What happened at loughgall was that a group of heavily armed men were ambushed by another group of heavily armed men. In the other incident, two unarmed men were ambushed by a group of heavily armed men. Spot the difference?

[Lar Naparka]

Other parts of the IRA testimony do not stand up to close scrutiny. The idea that the plan to kill the two police officers only swung into action when they had been spotted going into Dundalk station is ludicrous. This article gives a useful timeline of events on that day:

http://www.thejournal.ie/smithwick-tribunal-timeline-1204775-Dec2013/

The idea that an operation involving so many people could be underway within 10 minutes defies common sense. The IRA lied to the tribunal in order to protect the identity of its informer or informers. That shouldn't surprise anyone. What does cause surprise is that the IRA was asked to give testimony in the first place, given that the organisation had a motive to lie, and given its track record of lying in the past when the truth was inconvenient.

Without a doubt, it would be daft to think so.
I'm fairly sure that the IRA lied to the tribunal also.
I would agree that nobody should be surprised about this.
All of this is simple common sense.
All the mole, if he existed, had to do was tip off somebody that the pair were about to leave Dundalk.
The Provos had to already know that Buchanan and Breen would be leaving Dundalk to return home shortly and would be taking no security precautions of any sort. They didn't need a mole to tell them their targets were there.
If you go by what the Journal says, up to 70 people   had been involved in the preparation and planning of the ambush and yet the Gardai, RUC and the pair who were killed took no precautions of any sort.
As far back as 1987, the Gardai and RUC knew that the Provos were planning to kill RUC officers who liaised with their counterparts in the south. Buchanan was told the following year that his name was on the hitlist. But he continued travelling to Dundalk up to ten times a month in his own car.
It's not surprising that Smithwick commented on this lack of security measures, which made it easy for the IRA to carry out the fatal ambush.
But it was hypocritical for politicians and the media (in the republic anyway) to attack Gerry Adams for saying basically the same thing.
They should have enough reasons to have a go at Adams without this mock outrage.

[Applesisapples]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

But here the bottom line is they were unarmed, one waved a white hanky. You miss my point...Adams could have made bland generalised comments but he chose to make what I am entitled to believe were unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling remarks. I accept the point of my comments was it is damaging to SF. It is damaging because most potential voters have no concept of the Northern troubles are what they were about, they don't even understand that 1916 was the same conflict only on an All Island scale. They won't understand the rank hypocrisy of Charlie Flannigan or Vincent Browne. Fair play to MacLochlainn for taking them on but Gerry fed him to the bears. I noticed also that he refused to say that killing these guys was a duty. Again I say it to me it was Shoot to Kill in reverse.

Waved a white handkerchief? Apparently so. Could the IRA keep prisoners or something? You do realise how such guerrilla armies have to operate? The IRA were not the state forces. The IRA were at war and shooting-to-kill was their whole point. The state, by their own proclamation, were not at war and so, their own stated standards dictated that they shouldn't have been carrying out 'shoot-to-kill' operations. And they could take prisoners. And again, if you believe Adam's comments were "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then is it fair to say you view the report which he was referencing as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too then?

Nally I'll leave my comments as they are. As an uncritical supporter of SF you will never accept any wrong doing. But take it from me as a potential voter his comments are a concern.

You can leave them as they are all you want, I'm just wondering why it's not OK for Gerry Adams to mention the same thing the report mentions.

Nally read my comments in full don't just select the bits you don't like. Strip it back and what I am saying is simply that Adams has damaged SF by the timing and nature of his comments. I have addressed all the other stuff that surrounds them, such as the hypocrisy of unionists, Fg, FF etc... But the fact remains it could have been handled better.

Yes but if he has damaged SF by his comments, and you regard his comments as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then I'm just wondering if you believe Smithwick's report is "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too for raising the exact same subject as Adams?

I think all these enquiries and reports are unnecessarily picking at scabs that would be best left alone. You seem to ignore my other comments in relation to the appalling treatment of Padraig MacLochlainn by Vincent Browne and the obnoxious Charlie Flannigan. There is a collective amnesia in this country regarding the rising, the Ulster Covenant and the abandonment of Northern Nationalists by the predecessors of Fine Gael and what became Fianna Fail. We were getting to the stage where the IRA campaign of the '70's, '80's and '90's was being sidelined except in the minds of people like Tom Elliott, Dodds and a few others. Adams comments have reopened this can of worms. No one is listening to the context, many in the south forgot about the north 50 years ago, many in the North from the nationalist side have embraced their NI/UK identity, to these people Adams has made SF unpalatable.

[Nally Stand]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

But here the bottom line is they were unarmed, one waved a white hanky. You miss my point...Adams could have made bland generalised comments but he chose to make what I am entitled to believe were unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling remarks. I accept the point of my comments was it is damaging to SF. It is damaging because most potential voters have no concept of the Northern troubles are what they were about, they don't even understand that 1916 was the same conflict only on an All Island scale. They won't understand the rank hypocrisy of Charlie Flannigan or Vincent Browne. Fair play to MacLochlainn for taking them on but Gerry fed him to the bears. I noticed also that he refused to say that killing these guys was a duty. Again I say it to me it was Shoot to Kill in reverse.

Waved a white handkerchief? Apparently so. Could the IRA keep prisoners or something? You do realise how such guerrilla armies have to operate? The IRA were not the state forces. The IRA were at war and shooting-to-kill was their whole point. The state, by their own proclamation, were not at war and so, their own stated standards dictated that they shouldn't have been carrying out 'shoot-to-kill' operations. And they could take prisoners. And again, if you believe Adam's comments were "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then is it fair to say you view the report which he was referencing as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too then?

Nally I'll leave my comments as they are. As an uncritical supporter of SF you will never accept any wrong doing. But take it from me as a potential voter his comments are a concern.

You can leave them as they are all you want, I'm just wondering why it's not OK for Gerry Adams to mention the same thing the report mentions.

Nally read my comments in full don't just select the bits you don't like. Strip it back and what I am saying is simply that Adams has damaged SF by the timing and nature of his comments. I have addressed all the other stuff that surrounds them, such as the hypocrisy of unionists, Fg, FF etc... But the fact remains it could have been handled better.

Yes but if he has damaged SF by his comments, and you regard his comments as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then I'm just wondering if you believe Smithwick's report is "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too for raising the exact same subject as Adams?

I think all these enquiries and reports are unnecessarily picking at scabs that would be best left alone. You seem to ignore my other comments in relation to the appalling treatment of Padraig MacLochlainn by Vincent Browne and the obnoxious Charlie Flannigan. There is a collective amnesia in this country regarding the rising, the Ulster Covenant and the abandonment of Northern Nationalists by the predecessors of Fine Gael and what became Fianna Fail. We were getting to the stage where the IRA campaign of the '70's, '80's and '90's was being sidelined except in the minds of people like Tom Elliott, Dodds and a few others. Adams comments have reopened this can of worms. No one is listening to the context, many in the south forgot about the north 50 years ago, many in the North from the nationalist side have embraced their NI/UK identity, to these people Adams has made SF unpalatable.

You're avoiding a very simple and diret question though. Was the report also "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling"?

[Applesisapples]

I don't think I avoided the question, all these tribunals in my view were unnecessary. I can't say it was callous as it was a legal report, hurtful most likley.