British State Collusion

[Myles Na G.]

1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?

They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?

Which demonstrates my point- the RUC was a corrupt police state force and even they made no claims that he was in the IRA. I do trust the findings of the Stevens team who could find not one solitary shred of evidence that he was an IRA member. Surely if they cannot even find evidence to back up the claim, then you are probably not in any position to substantiate the claims that you present as fact. And why do I not believe Sean O'Callaghan? Hmmmm let me think   

You've missed, or side stepped, the point. The fact that the agencies you mention were unable to turn up evidence on PF's membership of the IRA is hardly surprising. As I've pointed out (and you've ignored) Gerry Adams has been a leader of the IRA for most of his adult life, yet they have never been able to evidence this. (the IRA's a SECRET organisation, geddit?) Gerry still lies about it, as does Marty. People like you either believe them, or choose to ignore their lies, yet you then castigate O'Callaghan for lying! Presumably you think Frank Hegarty's mother is a liar too?

OK I'll spell it out slowly.... the word of Sean O'Callaghan is not evidence. Just because you say witness statements are used in court does not mean that a court would believe any witness statement without regard. Does the word of a renowned liar who actively works for a unionist political party seem like a reliable piece of evidence which a court would accept as being enough to state as absolute fact, as you have done, that Pat Finucane was in the IRA? Bear in mind that neither the RUC nor the Stevens Inquiry team regard the word of Sean the tout O'Callaghan as evidence of what you present as fact.

And I'll spell it out for you once more, as you seem determined not to get the point: Gerry Adams, lifelong leader of the IRA, has never been convicted of IRA membership due to lack of evidence. However, noone seriously thinks he was never a member. What do you think? Was Gerry a member of the IRA? Likewise, there is no evidence that has so far emerged - other than the eyewitness O'Callaghan - that PF was an IRA member. Like Gerry, that doesn't mean he wasn't. Why do you think so many people within the British establishment were convinced PF was in the IRA? Perhaps it was because one or more of the many British agents operating at a high level within the Belfast IRA at that time were telling their handlers that this was the case. Not rocket science, really.

[Oraisteach]

Once again, that malleable doublethink, so convenient for the hypocrite to live with himself, free from the pangs of guilt or doubt.

You really DO have to be an evil genius to express two equal and opposite views and believe both of them.

On the one hand, you staunchly advocate the rule of law and categorically renounce murder, yet at the same time you're perfectly
comfortable with the manner of Pat Finucane's death.

Well, hit me with a hurley, preferably by an agent of the state, up a dark alley, and have him close his eyes while he's doing it so that "no compunctious visitings of nature" may invade his conscience and prevent him from completing his murderous act, and being pleased with its outcome.

So this is the brave new world of NI that you envisage? Where law is fiercely upheld except when it's fiercely not upheld.

[Myles Na G.]

Myles, would you please let go of Gerry and Marty.  They're a red herring as far as the fundamental issue of this thread is concerned.

In your mindset, it is perfectly acceptable for the state to summarily execute its citizens without a trial, without evidence presented, without a defense mounted, without the not-yet-accused being able to be judged by his peers. 
WOW.

So your paragon of judicial excellence would be Don Corleone, is that right?  So screw fundamental human rights?

Myles, I don't know how old you are, but I'm thinking that even 1960's NI might be too tame a world for you.

Actually they're not. If there isn't enough evidence to convict Gerry of IRA membership, why should the case be different for PF?

And I never said that it was acceptable for the state to execute anyone. I think it's morally abhorrent that anyone is summarily executed. That's why I oppose the IRA, the biggest killers of the lot, and argue with their apologists.

[Evil Genius]

I would have thought that anyone who believes in the rule of law would be in favour of the accused to have a solicitor representing them.  Is it just Finucane...

Of course every accused should have a solicitor to represent them. It's just I don't think that a criminal/terrorist like Finucane is fit to do that job.

... or would you have no sympathy for any solicitor being murdered in their home?

Of course I have sympathy for any innocent who is murdered, whether solicitor or no.

In every case, I feel such killings should be condemned and the perpetrators brought ot justice. but neither process automatically requires sympathy for the victim, at least where that victim is a sc**bag like Finucane.

Anyhow, if you're still having difficulty with that concept, why not go back to my opening sentence on the matter:

"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"

Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now? 

[Nally Stand]

1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?

They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?

Which demonstrates my point- the RUC was a corrupt police state force and even they made no claims that he was in the IRA. I do trust the findings of the Stevens team who could find not one solitary shred of evidence that he was an IRA member. Surely if they cannot even find evidence to back up the claim, then you are probably not in any position to substantiate the claims that you present as fact. And why do I not believe Sean O'Callaghan? Hmmmm let me think   

You've missed, or side stepped, the point. The fact that the agencies you mention were unable to turn up evidence on PF's membership of the IRA is hardly surprising. As I've pointed out (and you've ignored) Gerry Adams has been a leader of the IRA for most of his adult life, yet they have never been able to evidence this. (the IRA's a SECRET organisation, geddit?) Gerry still lies about it, as does Marty. People like you either believe them, or choose to ignore their lies, yet you then castigate O'Callaghan for lying! Presumably you think Frank Hegarty's mother is a liar too?

OK I'll spell it out slowly.... the word of Sean O'Callaghan is not evidence. Just because you say witness statements are used in court does not mean that a court would believe any witness statement without regard. Does the word of a renowned liar who actively works for a unionist political party seem like a reliable piece of evidence which a court would accept as being enough to state as absolute fact, as you have done, that Pat Finucane was in the IRA? Bear in mind that neither the RUC nor the Stevens Inquiry team regard the word of Sean the tout O'Callaghan as evidence of what you present as fact.

And I'll spell it out for you once more, as you seem determined not to get the point: Gerry Adams, lifelong leader of the IRA, has never been convicted of IRA membership due to lack of evidence. However, noone seriously thinks he was never a member. What do you think? Was Gerry a member of the IRA? Likewise, there is no evidence that has so far emerged - other than the eyewitness O'Callaghan - that PF was an IRA member. Like Gerry, that doesn't mean he wasn't. Why do you think so many people within the British establishment were convinced PF was in the IRA? Perhaps it was because one or more of the many British agents operating at a high level within the Belfast IRA at that time were telling their handlers that this was the case. Not rocket science, really.

I don't know if you saw my post a while back where I outlined proof of O'Callaghan's tendency to lie (re: his attitude to the Ulster Unionist Party and whether he ever supported them). A few more little details about the man:


O'Callaghan also once stated that in 1990 he was told in Crumlin Road Jail, by Danny Morrison, of a secret IRA Army Council strategy which proves that the peace process is a sham. This despite the fact that he previously admitted that he was suspected of being a tout well before 1990, and in 1985 was under investigation by Tralee SF for embezzling several thousand pounds of party funds. Sound like someone Danny Morrison would tell a top secret IRA plot to? More-so when we consider that the peace process wasn't even started in 1990? Certainly the Gardai didn't trust him....in February 1997, Senior gardai told the Irish Independent that O'Callaghan's story was "highly exaggerated'' and dismissed his claims.

He is also a man who says he was the Head of Southern Command of the IRA and went to Army Council meetings during the same period when several of the IRA's largest arms shipments landed, and yet said he was not aware of any details of it, claimed he got word that something was afoot and warned his handlers, but nothing was done.



And you in this thread present this man's word as good enough for you to say that Finucane "was in the IRA"?

And you say that people in the British establishment were convinced he was in the IRA... surely the RUC would have found it easy enough to catch him out if he was seriously considered to have been a member?


LAUGHABLE

[lynchbhoy]

1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.
As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.
Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

I dont even think your loyalist brethren even believe he was in the IRA.

Here's a quote from OWC on the subject:

'I just heard Mrs Finucane on Talkback, not happy etc......what I didn't hear (as ever) was any questioning of why her husband was targetted in the first place.
Whilst I don't wish to condone murder, as a human being I find it hard any sympathy whatsoever for the death of someone who was so obviously an active member of a sectarian murder gang.'

As usual LB, you have your finger on the pulse of unionist / loyalist opinion. 

glad I dont !
Delighted to be on a different wavelength from yourself and your owc loyalist scum who effectively condone the killing by way of attempting to let oon this guy was in the IRA but cannot find any evidence or proof that anyone can show different.
if it was a secret, then how are you so sure?
because you and other loyalist/unionist scum wish it to be true.
you dont surprise anyone on here though.
as for your alter ego, he has no problem in running down the man's character also 'becasue he was solicitor to provos etc.
feck sake someone had to defend them, and he was good, which is why they colluded to kill him !!!

[Puckoon]

Once again - I didn't realise that this was a thread where unless you are in agreement with the OP - you cannot post, nor ask a simple question.

I didn't actually ask you anything (nor come even remotely close to taking issue with your posts, as you've asserted) - but if I was to ask someone on this post directly - it would be you - considering that it is indeed you who have mentioned is UUP links a number of times - ergo, I thought you might have an answer or information I asked for in good faith. Is that so difficult to understand that you need to take such umbrage at my post?

Has it gotten to the stage where if you don't question and address every post on a topic that Nally doesn't agree with that you feel the need to wield the whataboutery in order to defend an attack that you are not under? If the paranoia has crept in that badly... well, I dunno.

As for Myles - his crassness knows no low - and I feel that his comments on this thread have been more than adequately handled (Jim and Oraisteach to name a few). I'm also of the opinion that your interest in my opinion on Myles is a perverse deflection regarding the actual information in the thread, one I shouldn't even have to answer (given I have made no reference, nor been in agreement nor disagreement with anything he has said) - and it speaks volumes.

So to simplify it further:

1. I'm not taking issue with your post - I wanted to know more about a topic you brought into the discussion. For a poster who's most famous m.o. is following other posters and HIGHLIGHTING IN BOLD A DEMAND FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, well I'm not sure why you couldn't have just answered mine - or said that you don't know?

[Oraisteach]

So, in short, Myles, your argument is "If there isn't enough evidence to convict someone, then it's OK to summarily kill them, as long as you believe that murder is wrong."

I want a piece of that society.

[Nally Stand]

Once again - I didn't realise that this was a thread where unless you are in agreement with the OP - you cannot post, nor ask a simple question.

I didn't actually ask you anything (nor come even remotely close to taking issue with your posts, as you've asserted) - but if I was to ask someone on this post directly - it would be you - considering that it is indeed you who have mentioned is UUP links a number of times - ergo, I thought you might have an answer or information I asked for in good faith. Is that so difficult to understand that you need to take such umbrage at my post?

Has it gotten to the stage where if you don't question and address every post on a topic that Nally doesn't agree with that you feel the need to wield the whataboutery in order to defend an attack that you are not under? If the paranoia has crept in that badly... well, I dunno.

As for Myles - his crassness knows no low - and I feel that his comments on this thread have been more than adequately handled (Jim and Oraisteach to name a few). I'm also of the opinion that your interest in my opinion on Myles is a perverse deflection regarding the actual information in the thread, one I shouldn't even have to answer (given I have made no reference, nor been in agreement nor disagreement with anything he has said) - and it speaks volumes.

So to simplify it further:

1. I'm not taking issue with your post - I wanted to know more about a topic you brought into the discussion. For a poster who's most famous m.o. is following other posters and HIGHLIGHTING IN BOLD A DEMAND FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, well I'm not sure why you couldn't have just answered mine - or said that you don't know?

The opening lines of your post were a simple enquiry about a topic I raised. Your continuance of "Surely the entire idea is and was getting both sides to work together? Why has this been used in 3 or 4 posts here as a stick to beat him with?" was not about knowing more, but about challenging me. Don't get upset when I defend my posts and ask why you weren't so quick to challenge Myles on what I would have thought was a much more outlandish claim than anything I have written on the thread.

[lynchbhoy]

"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"

Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now? 

that sums you and unionism/loyalism up alright - make crazed excuses for killing an innocent man and try to pass it off as an incident similar to a proven and self admitted convicted killer.
showing your true colours!!

[Puckoon]

Well it is about knowing more... I am curious as to why him working with the UUP is a bad thing in terms of his credibility?

Being a liar I can understand. I don't know what he did with the UUP so I am wondering if there is something I am missing, especially if it serves to undermine is credibility (as you have suggested).

And yes - your deflection via Myles is genuinely pathetic Nally.

To simplify again:
1. I didn't know Sean O'Callaghan worked for the UUP until you mentioned it.
2. I do know Myles is a WUM, whom I choose to largely ignore (if you care to go back and check).
3. You don't got to be the head cashier at the Spar to follow what I am asking. There is no trickery in it.

Incase you haven't gotten the gist yet - you can't dictate what posts people are interested in and why. As someone said previously - this isnt the school yard. This isn't that hard.

[pintsofguinness]

I would have thought that anyone who believes in the rule of law would be in favour of the accused to have a solicitor representing them.  Is it just Finucane...

Of course every accused should have a solicitor to represent them. It's just I don't think that a criminal/terrorist like Finucane is fit to do that job.

... or would you have no sympathy for any solicitor being murdered in their home?

Of course I have sympathy for any innocent who is murdered, whether solicitor or no.

In every case, I feel such killings should be condemned and the perpetrators brought ot justice. but neither process automatically requires sympathy for the victim, at least where that victim is a sc**bag like Finucane.

Anyhow, if you're still having difficulty with that concept, why not go back to my opening sentence on the matter:

"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"

Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now? 

No I don't get it, I don't care if you have sympathy for him or not. I don't understand how you can say on one breath you're a believer in the rule of law but on the next say that you have no sympathy for a solicitor murdered because he represented people accused of crimes (if you want to call it that), that was his job.
What about Rosemary Nelson, have you sympathy for her? 

[Evil Genius]

"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"

Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now? 

that sums you and unionism/loyalism up alright - make crazed excuses for killing an innocent man and try to pass it off as an incident similar to a proven and self admitted convicted killer.
showing your true colours!!

I did not make any excuses for killing Finucane - any such killing is inexcusable, which is why I condemn it and would like to see the killers tried and convicted etc.

But that is out of concern for the Rule of Law, rather than for Finucane, who I no more believe to have been an "innocent man" than I believe eg Gerry Adams never to have been in the IRA.

[gallsman]

"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"

Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now? 

that sums you and unionism/loyalism up alright - make crazed excuses for killing an innocent man and try to pass it off as an incident similar to a proven and self admitted convicted killer.
showing your true colours!!

I did not make any excuses for killing Finucane - any such killing is inexcusable, which is why I condemn it and would like to see the killers tried and convicted etc.

But that is out of concern for the Rule of Law, rather than for Finucane, who I no more believe to have been an "innocent man" than I believe eg Gerry Adams never to have been in the IRA.

There is plenty of evidence to presume Adams was in the Ra, what is there for Finucane?

[Nally Stand]

Well it is about knowing more... I am curious as to why him working with the UUP is a bad thing in terms of his credibility?

Being a liar I can understand. I don't know what he did with the UUP so I am wondering if there is something I am missing, especially if it serves to undermine is credibility (as you have suggested).

And yes - your deflection via Myles is genuinely pathetic Nally.

To simplify again:
1. I didn't know Sean O'Callaghan worked for the UUP until you mentioned it.
2. I do know Myles is a WUM, whom I choose to largely ignore (if you care to go back and check).
3. You don't got to be the head cashier at the Spar to follow what I am asking. There is no trickery in it.

Incase you haven't gotten the gist yet - you can't dictate what posts people are interested in and why. As someone said previously - this isnt the school yard. This isn't that hard.

My explanation for mentioning the UUP is outlined in my post on the previous page where I referred to his ego being behind anything the man says or does, and his record of lying about his involvement/support for the UUP). As for trying to "dictate" what you are interested in, nowhere I did try to. I asked the simple question, "have anything to add to Myles na G's claims here Puck, or once again, is it only my posts which you take issue with?". Anyway, I'm going to argue no more with you. In regards to my UUP references, as I say, see the previous page in the thread.