Gerry 'Whitey' Bradley

[Zapatista]

On the contrary, both fully endorsed the notion of peace.  However they had serious misgivings about the leaderships willingness to settle for something far less than they had demanded from the outset of the campaign, and at the end far less than they had demanded at the outset of the peace process. A key republican demand, unity, the demand which defined republicanism, had been cast aside.

Getting a raw deal in negotiations is is a matter of opinion. Expecting a United Ireland in return for an end to the armed struggle is crazy.

So they are angry at Adams as Ireland is still divided? I think that's a little unreasonable.

[lynchbhoy]

On the contrary, both fully endorsed the notion of peace.  However they had serious misgivings about the leaderships willingness to settle for something far less than they had demanded from the outset of the campaign, and at the end far less than they had demanded at the outset of the peace process. A key republican demand, unity, the demand which defined republicanism, had been cast aside.

no harm to you , but plenty such as yourself have been somehow convinced that this was the main reason for war and fighting etc etc.
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.

if you cast your mind back or look back at the history books, the fightback started because the Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class community just wouldnt take it any more and like the civil rights movements in other countries - rose up against the persecution and oppression.
when this was met with violence, they responded eventually with violence.

The objective was to end such systematic persecution, oppression, inequality, second class citizenship etc etc.

Hughes (I dont know much about bradley) was a man of war. that was his 'talent'. He couldnt really do 'peace' imo. Certainly he didnt give me that impression when I spoke to him.

[TransitVanMan]

Getting a raw deal in negotiations is is a matter of opinion. Expecting a United Ireland in return for an end to the armed struggle is crazy.

So they are angry at Adams as Ireland is still divided? I think that's a little unreasonable.

As far back as 1986 the British state was made aware of the likely direction in which Adams wished to steer the republican project. What concerned Hughes, Bradley and many others is the fact that SF entered into 'negotiations' full in the knowledge that strategic theatre was already set.

SF were to be encouraged into constitutional politics while facing no limits on their political growth in the North, so long as every concession ceded by the British was ring fenced in by the consent principle, long described by SF as the 'unionist veto '.

Anger is not an emotion which filters through in writings, instead one gets a feeling of the desolation they felt because, if SF accepted the principle of consent what had the armed campaign and all the suffering been for in the intervening years?

[TransitVanMan]

no harm to you , but plenty such as yourself have been somehow convinced that this was the main reason for war and fighting etc etc.
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.

if you cast your mind back or look back at the history books, the fightback started because the Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class community just wouldnt take it any more and like the civil rights movements in other countries - rose up against the persecution and oppression.
when this was met with violence, they responded eventually with violence.

The objective was to end such systematic persecution, oppression, inequality, second class citizenship etc etc.

Hughes (I dont know much about bradley) was a man of war. that was his 'talent'. He couldnt really do 'peace' imo. Certainly he didnt give me that impression when I spoke to him.

Yes in 1641,1798,1916,1956 or does the history of our country and it's illegal occupation by Britain begin in 1969.

[Zapatista]

As far back as 1986 the British state was made aware of the likely direction in which Adams wished to steer the republican project. What concerned Hughes, Bradley and many others is the fact that SF entered into 'negotiations' full in the knowledge that strategic theatre was already set.

SF were to be encouraged into constitutional politics while facing no limits on their political growth in the North, so long as every concession ceded by the British was ring fenced in by the consent principle, long described by SF as the 'unionist veto '.

Anger is not an emotion which filters through in writings, instead one gets a feeling of the desolation they felt because, if SF accepted the principle of consent what had the armed campaign and all the suffering been for in the intervening years?

Adams wasn't alone is wishing to see the end of the armed conflict. You are conveniently separating SF and the IRA in 1986. There was no separation. SF was controlled by the IRA in 1986 and Hughes and Bradley were both members who give their support to the IRA with the Amalite and SF with the ballot box. Of course the Brits were made aware of the IRA's strategy as it involved their input. If they didn't know Adams and others were looking to steer towards politics away from the war there would have been no point to the strategy. If the IRA thought that the Brits the Brits weren't interested in steering themselves away from war it never would have ended either.

SF walked into politics with open eyes. Electoral success is a means to an end not an end in itself. With the absence of war (which we both accept was part of the intended direction) it leaves only politics. it's not possible to ignore the issue of consent when you are in politics. If you ignore the consent of the people then you are not involved in politics and therefore either dissapear or return to war. As ending the war was an objective there is no reason to return, it has been 'ring fenced'.

For your last part see Lynchbhoy's post.

[TransitVanMan]

if SF accepted the principle of consent what had the armed campaign and all the suffering been for in the intervening years?

Adams wasn't alone is wishing to see the end of the armed conflict. You are conveniently separating SF and the IRA in 1986. There was no separation. SF was controlled by the IRA in 1986 and Hughes and Bradley were both members who give their support to the IRA with the Amalite and SF with the ballot box. Of course the Brits were made aware of the IRA's strategy as it involved their input. If they didn't know Adams and others were looking to steer towards politics away from the war there would have been no point to the strategy. If the IRA thought that the Brits the Brits weren't interested in steering themselves away from war it never would have ended either.

SF walked into politics with open eyes. Electoral success is a means to an end not an end in itself. With the absence of war (which we both accept was part of the intended direction) it leaves only politics. it's not possible to ignore the issue of consent when you are in politics. If you ignore the consent of the people then you are not involved in politics and therefore either dissapear or return to war. As ending the war was an objective there is no reason to return, it has been 'ring fenced'.

For your last part see Lynchbhoy's post.

The intervening years I am referring to are 1986 - 1994. Your assertion that the IRA controlled SF in 1986 is untrue.

Brendan Hughes was released from jail 1986.  He returned to a key role within the republican movement. By then Adams had risen to yet another prominent position within Sinn Fein. Hughes set about reinvigorating a weakened and highly compromised IRA structure, only to find that it had been intentionally run down.

How can you give your support to  a policy of Armalite and Ballot Box when there is (soon to be) no Armalite?  Don't swallow the party line listen to the man's own words.

Lynchboy can't see past 1969, why don't you answer my question, if SF accepted the principle of consent (1986) what was the armed campaign and all the suffering  for in the intervening years (1994)?

[ardmhachaabu]

From watching the programme the other night, the Dark clearly said that his problem with Adams et al was that they had abandoned the working class in their pursuit of political power.  He didn't see any need for any war and wasn't calling for a return to war.  When he was interviewed he was more concerned with going out to work

I met Hughes before, a long time ago now, he was working on a site I was doing a bit of labouring on.  The craic was good, as you would imagine he had lots of stories to tell.  In my view anyone who says he couldn't live with peace didn't know him.  His war was to improve conditions for ordinary folk, sadly, he failed in that respect because the movement went in a middle-class direction

I hope Adams doesn't appear at Bradley's funeral the way he did with Hughes.  It was wrong of him to go to Hughes's funeral as he knew the Dark didn't want him there. 

[Myles Na G.]

On the contrary, both fully endorsed the notion of peace.  However they had serious misgivings about the leaderships willingness to settle for something far less than they had demanded from the outset of the campaign, and at the end far less than they had demanded at the outset of the peace process. A key republican demand, unity, the demand which defined republicanism, had been cast aside.

no harm to you , but plenty such as yourself have been somehow convinced that this was the main reason for war and fighting etc etc.
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.if you cast your mind back or look back at the history books, the fightback started because the Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class community just wouldnt take it any more and like the civil rights movements in other countries - rose up against the persecution and oppression.
when this was met with violence, they responded eventually with violence.

The objective was to end such systematic persecution, oppression, inequality, second class citizenship etc etc.

Hughes (I dont know much about bradley) was a man of war. that was his 'talent'. He couldnt really do 'peace' imo. Certainly he didnt give me that impression when I spoke to him.

So explain the IRA campaigns which took place in the decades before 1969. The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.

[Maguire01]

The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.

My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.

[ardmhachaabu]

The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.

My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.

Correct

[red hander]

'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'

In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations

[Myles Na G.]

'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'

In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations

So the provos were so concerned with the plight of northern Catholics that they proceeded to kill more of them than any other armed group? That makes sense.

[Minder]

Only certain people like Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison are allowed to write books about the "struggle".

http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/10/29/you-have-to-ask-yourself-are-they-the-leadership-the-only-ones-allowed-to-write-books/

[TransitVanMan]

His war was to improve conditions for ordinary folk, sadly, he failed in that respect because the movement went in a middle-class direction

Hughes never waivered in that respect,so in actual fact the movement(SF) failed him.Much in the same way as it has failed Gerry McGeough,Colin Duffy and others. 

[Zapatista]

The intervening years I am referring to are 1986 - 1994. Your assertion that the IRA controlled SF in 1986 is untrue.

Brendan Hughes was released from jail 1986.  He returned to a key role within the republican movement. By then Adams had risen to yet another prominent position within Sinn Fein. Hughes set about reinvigorating a weakened and highly compromised IRA structure, only to find that it had been intentionally run down.

How can you give your support to  a policy of Armalite and Ballot Box when there is (soon to be) no Armalite?  Don't swallow the party line listen to the man's own words.

Lynchboy can't see past 1969, why don't you answer my question, if SF accepted the principle of consent (1986) what was the armed campaign and all the suffering  for in the intervening years (1994)?

My assertion that SF and the IRA were one and the same is true. If not why would O'Brady have walked out when Adams became president of SF? Why would O'Brady have cared if the the IRA and SF were different? Why would Hughes have cared about Adams leadership of SF if the IRA were acting independent of SF?

I disagree that the structure of the IRA had been run down. Many of the Republicans who left prison couldn't go back to within the IRA structures as it would have endangered other volunteers. Many thought the best place for them was within SF. This weakened the structures of the IRA and made SF stronger. The long and hard protests in the H-Blocks and Armagh weakened the IRA structures too. The IRA fought a very long and hard battle in the prisons which strenghtened SF nationally and internationally it was very hard on the army. Even though the war continued SF's role was becoming more and more important.

Of course you can support the armalite and the ballot box. You are assuming the leadership and the volunteers wanted the armed struggle to continue forever? The protests and the Hungerstrikes would have been extremely difficult to recover from. Watching 10 comrades die after the years on protest had a lasting effect on every volunteer. It insppired a nation but it was a very high price to pay.

Eventually a decision was made that the IRA had achieved all it could with the armed struggle. It would have been stupid to continue the armed struggle if you thought it couldn't bring you any further. How do you not see this?

If Hughes was fighting a class struggle then there were ways of doing it outside SF. If you think that an active IRA today would further the cause of the worker then we are never going to agree.