From Slugger O'Toole:Mick Fealty
The News Letter today has a big splash on the Smithwick Tribunal (that's the one the Irish government previously threatened to wind up just about now)... As Philip Bradfield notes, the taoiseach, Enda Kenny has been a hard man for Unionist representatives to pin down on any matter regarding alleged collusion between the IRA and Irish state forces:
Until Mr Kennedy was able to approach the Taoiseach in person at the North-South Ministerial Council in Armagh on Friday, the UUP minister had been trying for months to get the Irish leader to engage.
He goes on to quote Danny Kennedy on the matter:
QuoteApologies have been made by the British government for numerous cases but the Irish government cannot escape their responsibility, specifically when they are making noises about other [collusion] cases [in Northern Ireland]."
Then Bradfield remarks:
QuoteThe unionists are saying that with every UK statutory investigation into Troubles related deaths, the history of the Troubles is being rewritten to portray British forces as the primary cause of bloodshed. But they point out that the IRA claimed significantly more lives than any other organisation during the Troubles — 1,778 in total — and that a much more balanced historical examination is critical to properly make peace with the past.
Solicitor John McBurney, the solicitor acting on behalf of RUC relatives at Smithwick:
Quote...said that two issues that had to be brought out into the open were the Irish state's frequent refusal to extradite IRA members for "the most heinous crimes" in Northern Ireland and the failure of the Garda to supply intelligence on the IRA to the RUC.
"I suspect there was much intelligence never shared in a timely fashion with the RUC," he said. "Those who carried out the Kingsmills massacre went to ground in the Republic." He said the Garda knew "quite a lot" about the individuals involved and "quite a lot was discovered" about their links to Kingsmills.
"But the PSNI's Historical Enquiries Team report on Kingsmills never once mentions any Garda intelligence on those responsible. Why is that?"
Quote from: thejuice on November 23, 2011, 01:10:39 PM
From Slugger O'Toole:
Mick Fealty
The News Letter today has a big splash on the Smithwick Tribunal (that's the one the Irish government previously threatened to wind up just about now)... As Philip Bradfield notes, the taoiseach, Enda Kenny has been a hard man for Unionist representatives to pin down on any matter regarding alleged collusion between the IRA and Irish state forces:
Until Mr Kennedy was able to approach the Taoiseach in person at the North-South Ministerial Council in Armagh on Friday, the UUP minister had been trying for months to get the Irish leader to engage.
He goes on to quote Danny Kennedy on the matter:
QuoteApologies have been made by the British government for numerous cases but the Irish government cannot escape their responsibility, specifically when they are making noises about other [collusion] cases [in Northern Ireland]."
Then Bradfield remarks:
QuoteThe unionists are saying that with every UK statutory investigation into Troubles related deaths, the history of the Troubles is being rewritten to portray British forces as the primary cause of bloodshed. But they point out that the IRA claimed significantly more lives than any other organisation during the Troubles — 1,778 in total — and that a much more balanced historical examination is critical to properly make peace with the past.
Solicitor John McBurney, the solicitor acting on behalf of RUC relatives at Smithwick:
Quote...said that two issues that had to be brought out into the open were the Irish state's frequent refusal to extradite IRA members for "the most heinous crimes" in Northern Ireland and the failure of the Garda to supply intelligence on the IRA to the RUC.
"I suspect there was much intelligence never shared in a timely fashion with the RUC," he said. "Those who carried out the Kingsmills massacre went to ground in the Republic." He said the Garda knew "quite a lot" about the individuals involved and "quite a lot was discovered" about their links to Kingsmills.
"But the PSNI's Historical Enquiries Team report on Kingsmills never once mentions any Garda intelligence on those responsible. Why is that?"
Maybe that is what the brits were doing when they were caught in the south having illegally crossed the border in South Armagh, Louth. maybe they were trying to reach Dundalk to clean house.
I would not believe one word of any RUC mouthpiece.
Irish police officers colluded in the IRA murders of two senior Northern Ireland police officers, an inquiry has found.
Chief Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan were shot dead in an ambush in March 1989 in south Armagh.
The attack happened as they crossed the border into Northern Ireland after a meeting in Dundalk Garda station.
In the report of his inquiry, judge Peter Smithwick said he was "satisfied there was collusion in the murders".
The evidence is circumstantial is it not?
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
All we need now is the Brits to have an enquiry into the 700 or more equivalents by their agents/employees.
"You crowd killed more than our crowd, ergo we're better than youse'ns."
This body-count bingo game is a bit tedious.
Quote from: All of a Sludden on December 03, 2013, 05:52:59 PM
Irish police officers colluded in the IRA murders of two senior Northern Ireland police officers, an inquiry has found.
Chief Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan were shot dead in an ambush in March 1989 in south Armagh.
The attack happened as they crossed the border into Northern Ireland after a meeting in Dundalk Garda station.
In the report of his inquiry, judge Peter Smithwick said he was "satisfied there was collusion in the murders".
Source?
Smithwhick has a wider (and probably fairer) definition of collusion - a failure to act - than they would up in the north, it should be stated. If that definition was used up north, it would be found at every level of government.
There are also massive, massive differences between a state that organises the killing of what it terms its own civilians with the forces who are paid by the taxes it took from those same civilians, then continues to salary those involved in the obfuscation of evidence.
That said, it's interesting in relation to the recent vilification of Sinn Féin by TV3: will there be an expose into the state, given the gun-running of Haughey, etc?
By the way, the fact that this is on the front page of the BBC UK section is a bit hilarious. Very short memories.
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
RA needed all the help they could get,just think more Garda should have been helping them instead of colluding with the RUC to kill and jail fellow Irishmen who were fighting oppression in a part of their country.
I guess we are just not used such a damning verdict based on ifs and buts when we had years of concrete evidence in British state collusion which was ignored.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
Surely all collusion is bad and should never be something that one should be 'fairly content' about.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
Big difference alright between the "few bad apples" ( or good ones in some eyes) and a whole state policy.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
x2
Quote from: michaelg on December 03, 2013, 10:12:05 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
Surely all collusion is bad and should never be something that one should be 'fairly content' about.
Indeed, including Gardaí co-operation with the terrorist RUC.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 10:27:22 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 03, 2013, 10:12:05 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
Surely all collusion is bad and should never be something that one should be 'fairly content' about.
Indeed, including Gardaí co-operation with the terrorist RUC.
So why use the term fairly content as you did earlier?
Collusion is collusion boys, there can be no excuses made, no bullshit whataboutery, the lines trotted out like 'a few bad apples' are the same lines Ruc collusion apologists trotted out ad nauseum.
Quote from: michaelg on December 03, 2013, 10:41:18 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 10:27:22 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 03, 2013, 10:12:05 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
Surely all collusion is bad and should never be something that one should be 'fairly content' about.
Indeed, including Gardaí co-operation with the terrorist RUC.
So why use the term fairly content as you did earlier?
Content to know that I won't have to listen to the Gregory Campbells of the world slabbering about collusion with the IRA being a state policy, as individuals like him would just love to have been the case.
Quote from: bennydorano on December 03, 2013, 10:57:57 PM
Collusion is collusion boys, there can be no excuses made, no bullshit whataboutery, the lines trotted out like 'a few bad apples' are the same lines Ruc collusion apologists trotted out ad nauseum.
Benny, it's a noble sounding argument but it doesn't stand up to sense. Are you therefore claiming that Garda collusion with the IRA was Irish state policy or are you suggesting that collusion with loyalists over thirty years was just due to "bad apples"? Your post clearly implies that one of those claims must be true. The report makes it abundantly clear - this WAS a case of one or maybe two bad apples acting in total isolation resulting in two deaths in over thirty years. Collusion in the six counties, simply WAS NOT a case of a few bad apples. There is a mountain of evidence which suggests it was full blown british state policy to collude with paramilitary gangs in the murder of hundreds of people. If you read Lethal Allies, you would be in absolutely no doubt about the extent of it. To equate the actions of one or two rogue guards with a decades long
state murder campaign is fanciful.
My point is you dont have to equivocate, condemn it for what it is or say nowt, it's not defensible.
Quote from: bennydorano on December 03, 2013, 10:57:57 PM
Collusion is collusion boys, there can be no excuses made, no bullshit whataboutery, the lines trotted out like 'a few bad apples' are the same lines Ruc collusion apologists trotted out ad nauseum.
But sorry, collusion isn't collusion here. It's Smithwhick's definition of it. So the 'state' part of this thread title is completely ridiculous, since the 'state' is represented by literally 2 guards. As said, if 'the failure to act' is collusion then we have successive British Cabinets involved in collusion rather than just 'one or two bad apples' (David Ford).
The person who equivocated is the judge himself. It's not whataboutery, it's based on what he himself said.
Quote from: stibhan on December 04, 2013, 12:59:28 AM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 03, 2013, 10:57:57 PM
Collusion is collusion boys, there can be no excuses made, no bullshit whataboutery, the lines trotted out like 'a few bad apples' are the same lines Ruc collusion apologists trotted out ad nauseum.
But sorry, collusion isn't collusion here. It's Smithwhick's definition of it. So the 'state' part of this thread title is completely ridiculous, since the 'state' is represented by literally 2 guards. As said, if 'the failure to act' is collusion then we have successive British Cabinets involved in collusion rather than just 'one or two bad apples' (David Ford).
The person who equivocated is the judge himself. It's not whataboutery, it's based on what he himself said.
.
Revenge for Loughgall and someone in Dundalk Garda Station fed the info to the IRA.
It was hardly systematic.
And in the end the IRA recognised Norn Irn anyway.
Quote from: bennydorano on December 03, 2013, 11:23:34 PM
My point is you dont have to equivocate, condemn it for what it is or say nowt, it's not defensible.
No it isn't, and it doesn't reflect well on the guards. Not because they were all in cahoots with the Provos but because of an unwillingness to deal with dodgy elements in their own ranks. It was the same with the McBrearty debacle in Donegal. The upper echelons knew something was wrong but they kept kicking the can down the road in the hope that . . . well, I don't know what they were hoping. Basically that it would all go away.
Note that any objective assessment of the murders of Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen has to incorporate their amazingly cavalier attitude to their own safety. They had a self-image of being ordinary peelers going about their day's work helping old ladies across the street and giving rapscallions a toe up the behind. They would regularly pop into any barracks along the border to talk shop. It was an insane way for two senior RUC officers to behave and the longer it went on the more the chances of something happening to them approached 1.
Why would it surprise anyone that a Garda colluded with the IRA? Maybe not just one but quite a number for all we know. Listening to Gerry Adams response this morning though was embarrassing. The man has no shame. At the end of the day he could have just said yes there appears to have been collusion, the deaths are regrettable and on behalf of Republicans we again apologise for the grief and hurt felt by these families. Trotting out what-a-boutery is disingenuous and as bad as the typically over hyped what-a-boutery of Tom Elliott who confirms his idiocy with every statement. Gerry managed to make Jeffrey Donaldson sound reasonable...some feat that. It is clear that there was no clear state collusion with the IRA in the way that loyalists in the RUC/UDR/RIR clearly aided and participated in loyalist murders. But that doesn't excuse the actions of individual Gardai.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Why would it surprise anyone that a Garda colluded with the IRA? Maybe not just one but quite a number for all we know. Listening to Gerry Adams response this morning though was embarrassing. The man has no shame. At the end of the day he could have just said yes there appears to have been collusion, the deaths are regrettable and on behalf of Republicans we again apologise for the grief and hurt felt by these families. Trotting out what-a-boutery is disingenuous and as bad as the typically over hyped what-a-boutery of Tom Elliott who confirms his idiocy with every statement. Gerry managed to make Jeffrey Donaldson sound reasonable...some feat that. It is clear that there was no clear state collusion with the IRA in the way that loyalists in the RUC/UDR/RIR clearly aided and participated in loyalist murders. But that doesn't excuse the actions of individual Gardai.
From what I heard, he didn't engage in whataboutery, but rather pointed out the contradiction in the report which stated that:
1. There was collusion
but that..
2. There was no evidence of collusion found
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 04, 2013, 10:27:13 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Why would it surprise anyone that a Garda colluded with the IRA? Maybe not just one but quite a number for all we know. Listening to Gerry Adams response this morning though was embarrassing. The man has no shame. At the end of the day he could have just said yes there appears to have been collusion, the deaths are regrettable and on behalf of Republicans we again apologise for the grief and hurt felt by these families. Trotting out what-a-boutery is disingenuous and as bad as the typically over hyped what-a-boutery of Tom Elliott who confirms his idiocy with every statement. Gerry managed to make Jeffrey Donaldson sound reasonable...some feat that. It is clear that there was no clear state collusion with the IRA in the way that loyalists in the RUC/UDR/RIR clearly aided and participated in loyalist murders. But that doesn't excuse the actions of individual Gardai.
From what I heard, he didn't engage in whataboutery, but rather pointed out the contradiction in the report which stated that:
1. There was collusion
but that..
2. There was no evidence of collusion found
And it was their own fault wandering into South Armagh, what did they expect with their "laissez faire" attitude.
http://www.judecollins.com/2013/12/6477/ (http://www.judecollins.com/2013/12/6477/)
JUDE COLLINS
"I find myself with five questions:
1. Mr Justice Smithwick makes it clear that two garda sergeants who were in touch with the IRA were not, repeat not the people who tipped off the IRA about the RUC men. He says there was garda collusion but he doesn't know who did it. How then does he know there was collusion? Or that the tip-off came from within Dundalk Garda Station?
2. Prior to the ambush, Superintendent Bob Buchanan made frequent trips to Dundalk Garda Station, using the same car and not bothering even to change the number plates. Why was this?
3. What were two such high-ranking RUC men doing travelling without back-up on a remote South Armagh road known to be highly dangerous for security forces?
4. Chief Superintendent Harry Breen looked after Complaints and Discipline in the RUC. and was Divisional Commander of H Division: that is, he was in charge of operations in South Armagh and South Down. That's why he was the RUC presence at the press conference following the shooting dead of eight IRA men at Loughgall in a 1987 ambush by the SAS. Does Mr Justice Smithwick conclude that the killing of Breen and Buchanan may have been seen by the IRA as revenge for Loughgall?
5. While all deaths in the conflict were primitive and brutal, does the high rank held by Breen and Buchanan make their deaths any more tragic than the violent deaths of less high-ranking RUC officers or British Army personnel or IRA volunteers?"
QuoteAnd it was their own fault wandering into South Armagh, what did they expect with their "laissez faire" attitude.
Their attitude was astonishing. It also mean that that least bit of information could lead to their deaths.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Why would it surprise anyone that a Garda colluded with the IRA? Maybe not just one but quite a number for all we know. Listening to Gerry Adams response this morning though was embarrassing. The man has no shame. At the end of the day he could have just said yes there appears to have been collusion, the deaths are regrettable and on behalf of Republicans we again apologise for the grief and hurt felt by these families. Trotting out what-a-boutery is disingenuous and as bad as the typically over hyped what-a-boutery of Tom Elliott who confirms his idiocy with every statement. Gerry managed to make Jeffrey Donaldson sound reasonable...some feat that. It is clear that there was no clear state collusion with the IRA in the way that loyalists in the RUC/UDR/RIR clearly aided and participated in loyalist murders. But that doesn't excuse the actions of individual Gardai.
What did Jeffrey Donaldson have to say about it? He's never shown any concern before about State collusion in acts of murder.
Quote from: seafoid on December 04, 2013, 08:04:17 AM
Quote from: stibhan on December 04, 2013, 12:59:28 AM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 03, 2013, 10:57:57 PM
Collusion is collusion boys, there can be no excuses made, no bullshit whataboutery, the lines trotted out like 'a few bad apples' are the same lines Ruc collusion apologists trotted out ad nauseum.
But sorry, collusion isn't collusion here. It's Smithwhick's definition of it. So the 'state' part of this thread title is completely ridiculous, since the 'state' is represented by literally 2 guards. As said, if 'the failure to act' is collusion then we have successive British Cabinets involved in collusion rather than just 'one or two bad apples' (David Ford).
The person who equivocated is the judge himself. It's not whataboutery, it's based on what he himself said.
.
Revenge for Loughgall and someone in Dundalk Garda Station fed the info to the IRA.
It was hardly systematic.
And in the end the IRA recognised Norn Irn anyway.
[/color]
When did the IRA do this.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 04, 2013, 11:10:23 AM
QuoteAnd it was their own fault wandering into South Armagh, what did they expect with their "laissez faire" attitude.
Their attitude was astonishing. It also mean that that least bit of information could lead to their deaths.
they were on a road frequently patrolled by heavily armed volunteers.. :o and they got shot :o imagine that!! a road only covered by army helicopters.. emmm? helicopters that the volunteers were actively targeting.. they could have walked to the train its only about a hundred metres from Dundalk garda station
no shit Sherlock something stinks about the whole thing. the behaviour of these two senior officers is not normal it just doesn't add up
Quote from: deiseach on December 04, 2013, 10:17:29 AM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 03, 2013, 11:23:34 PM
My point is you dont have to equivocate, condemn it for what it is or say nowt, it's not defensible.
No it isn't, and it doesn't reflect well on the guards. Not because they were all in cahoots with the Provos but because of an unwillingness to deal with dodgy elements in their own ranks. It was the same with the McBrearty debacle in Donegal. The upper echelons knew something was wrong but they kept kicking the can down the road in the hope that . . . well, I don't know what they were hoping. Basically that it would all go away.
Note that any objective assessment of the murders of Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen has to incorporate their amazingly cavalier attitude to their own safety. They had a self-image of being ordinary peelers going about their day's work helping old ladies across the street and giving rapscallions a toe up the behind. They would regularly pop into any barracks along the border to talk shop. It was an insane way for two senior RUC officers to behave and the longer it went on the more the chances of something happening to them approached 1.
Careful deiseach, Adams is getting hammered in the Dail and the media for saying the same thing.
Quote from: AQMP on December 04, 2013, 02:39:23 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 04, 2013, 10:17:29 AM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 03, 2013, 11:23:34 PM
My point is you dont have to equivocate, condemn it for what it is or say nowt, it's not defensible.
No it isn't, and it doesn't reflect well on the guards. Not because they were all in cahoots with the Provos but because of an unwillingness to deal with dodgy elements in their own ranks. It was the same with the McBrearty debacle in Donegal. The upper echelons knew something was wrong but they kept kicking the can down the road in the hope that . . . well, I don't know what they were hoping. Basically that it would all go away.
Note that any objective assessment of the murders of Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen has to incorporate their amazingly cavalier attitude to their own safety. They had a self-image of being ordinary peelers going about their day's work helping old ladies across the street and giving rapscallions a toe up the behind. They would regularly pop into any barracks along the border to talk shop. It was an insane way for two senior RUC officers to behave and the longer it went on the more the chances of something happening to them approached 1.
Careful deiseach, Adams is getting hammered in the Dail and the media for saying the same thing.
That's class!! Almost as good as the rapists defence of "the way she was dressed she deserved it!!!
Cop on lads!
Quote from: screenexile on December 04, 2013, 02:44:15 PM
That's class!! Almost as good as the rapists defence of "the way she was dressed she deserved it!!!
Cop on lads!
Look, Smithwick wasn't asked to investigate the murder of Buchanan and Breen, just the allegations of collusion coming from Dundalk garda station. If someone from the station does come before a court for aiding in their killing the first thing the defence will say ask is what about (yeah, I know) the guards in Carrickmacross and Castleblaney who received visits from one or other of the victims on an almost weekly basis. The Provos only had to be able to read a number plate to work out their movements. The real scandal here is the shoulder-shrugging manner in which the guards handled the allegations of collusion.
Quote from: screenexile on December 04, 2013, 02:44:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on December 04, 2013, 02:39:23 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 04, 2013, 10:17:29 AM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 03, 2013, 11:23:34 PM
My point is you dont have to equivocate, condemn it for what it is or say nowt, it's not defensible.
No it isn't, and it doesn't reflect well on the guards. Not because they were all in cahoots with the Provos but because of an unwillingness to deal with dodgy elements in their own ranks. It was the same with the McBrearty debacle in Donegal. The upper echelons knew something was wrong but they kept kicking the can down the road in the hope that . . . well, I don't know what they were hoping. Basically that it would all go away.
Note that any objective assessment of the murders of Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen has to incorporate their amazingly cavalier attitude to their own safety. They had a self-image of being ordinary peelers going about their day's work helping old ladies across the street and giving rapscallions a toe up the behind. They would regularly pop into any barracks along the border to talk shop. It was an insane way for two senior RUC officers to behave and the longer it went on the more the chances of something happening to them approached 1.
Careful deiseach, Adams is getting hammered in the Dail and the media for saying the same thing.
That's class!! Almost as good as the rapists defence of "the way she was dressed she deserved it!!!
Cop on lads!
No they deserved it for the 80+ sectarian Glenanne Gang murders to which Breen supplied the weapons and the 'take no prisoners' Loughgall ambush in which he helped organise. That the driver Bob Buchanan believed God would protect him despite being so cavalier about their personal safety just made it easier.
Ah there you have it, bleat on about lack of evidence on collusion, but blow two guys away with out the benefit of due process.
Along the lines of it gave closure to victims, he's all for victims and whist it happened here relationships between the PSNI/Gardai are a lot better now. None of the utterly predictable bollocks the Elliott was spouting. Elliott is to the right of the TUV.
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.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
I've just heard Adams remarks...FFS he is completely out of touch.
Which remarks have you
just heard? The one's you earlier (around 7 hours ago) said you were listening to on the radio this morning?...
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Listening to Gerry Adams response this morning though was embarrassing. The man has no shame.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
Adams is well past his use by date.
The same Gerry Adams who brought SF to be the largest party in the six counties and tripled their representation in the Dáil since the last election? That Gerry Adams? The man whom Fr Alec Reid, in his last public interview, described as "probably the most capable politician we have...probably one of the most capable politicians in Europe". Him?
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 04, 2013, 05:14:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
I've just heard Adams remarks...FFS he is completely out of touch.
Which remarks have you just heard? The one's you earlier said you were listening to on the radio this morning?...
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Listening to Gerry Adams response this morning though was embarrassing. The man has no shame.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
Adams is well past his use by date.
The same Gerry Adams who brought SF to be the largest party in the six counties and tripled their representation in the Dáil since the last election? That Gerry Adams?
Past history. His comments in this instance are ill judged both in timing and in assessing the mood of voters.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:17:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 04, 2013, 05:14:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
I've just heard Adams remarks...FFS he is completely out of touch.
Which remarks have you just heard? The one's you earlier said you were listening to on the radio this morning?...
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Listening to Gerry Adams response this morning though was embarrassing. The man has no shame.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
Adams is well past his use by date.
The same Gerry Adams who brought SF to be the largest party in the six counties and tripled their representation in the Dáil since the last election? That Gerry Adams?
Past history. His comments in this instance are ill judged both in timing and in assessing the mood of voters.
Past history? So the longest surviving political party leader in Ireland, and who, as I mentioned above, was described in Fr Alec Reid's last public interview as "probably the most capable politician we have...probably one of the most capable politicians in Europe", has been deemed by applesisapples as being "past his sell by date" as of the last election (an election in which the party under his leadership tripled it's representation)?
Sad that one or two individuals were prepared to betray their colleagues and their country by conspiring with the enemies of the Irish state. One thing that surprises me is why the tribunal accepted a statement from the IRA. If the conclusions of the judge are correct - and everyone seems to have accepted them - then it follows that the IRA lied in their statement, since they denied that they'd received information from the guards. That surprises me not one jot, since it has been demonstrated over a very long period that the IRA lies, lies and lies again, until such time the lies are exposed at which point it changes tack and issues a different version of events. Gerry Adams personifies this approach - the man lies virtually every time he opens his mouth. Like I said, I'm not surprised at the fact they've lied again, just surprised they were allowed the opportunity to disrespect a state sponsored enquiry.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:17:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 04, 2013, 05:14:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
I've just heard Adams remarks...FFS he is completely out of touch.
Which remarks have you just heard? The one's you earlier said you were listening to on the radio this morning?...
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Listening to Gerry Adams response this morning though was embarrassing. The man has no shame.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
Adams is well past his use by date.
The same Gerry Adams who brought SF to be the largest party in the six counties and tripled their representation in the Dáil since the last election? That Gerry Adams?
Past history. His comments in this instance are ill judged both in timing and in assessing the mood of voters.
GTF Apples, you're always scraping around for an excuse to attack him and it's particularly reprehensible you're mimicking unionists and Free State gombeens (Martin & Shatter) who use death for cheap personal attacks. In this case Adams comments reflect the substance of Smithwick's report and for you and other to suggest different takes us all for idiots.
Quote from: qubdub on December 03, 2013, 10:24:20 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
x2
x3
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 04:54:58 PM
Ah there you have it, bleat on about lack of evidence on collusion, but blow two guys away with out the benefit of due process.
Thanks AiA!!!
Quote from: Ulick on December 04, 2013, 05:46:06 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:17:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 04, 2013, 05:14:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
I've just heard Adams remarks...FFS he is completely out of touch.
Which remarks have you just heard? The one's you earlier said you were listening to on the radio this morning?...
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Listening to Gerry Adams response this morning though was embarrassing. The man has no shame.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
Adams is well past his use by date.
The same Gerry Adams who brought SF to be the largest party in the six counties and tripled their representation in the Dáil since the last election? That Gerry Adams?
Past history. His comments in this instance are ill judged both in timing and in assessing the mood of voters.
GTF Apples, you're always scraping around for an excuse to attack him and it's particularly reprehensible you're mimicking unionists and Free State gombeens (Martin & Shatter) who use death for cheap personal attacks. In this case Adams comments reflect the substance of Smithwick's report and for you and other to suggest different takes us all for idiots.
Absolutely not. But Adams remarks amount to blaming the men for their own deaths. They were unarmed...shoot to kill?????
Adams has been a liability for a long time, comes across as a practiced liar, so entrenched he belives what he says himself, why Sinn Fein dont do a complete sweep of politicians who has questionable backgrounds and bring in young people with no ira background history which is the common stick used to beat them by unionsit politicans. Ever the DUP has the sense to keep Willie McCrea on a low profile and reduce his influence in the party after been on stage with Billy Wright. Sinn Fein could become a party all could vote for in the north, if they got rid of the link to the IRA which keeps coming back on them all the time.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on December 04, 2013, 06:39:55 PM
Adams has been a liability for a long time, comes across as a practiced liar, so entrenched he belives what he says himself, why Sinn Fein dont do a complete sweep of politicians who has questionable backgrounds and bring in young people with no ira background history which is the common stick used to beat them by unionsit politicans. Ever the DUP has the sense to keep Willie McCrea on a low profile and reduce his influence in the party after been on stage with Billy Wright. Sinn Fein could become a party all could vote for in the north, if they got rid of the link to the IRA which keeps coming back on them all the time.
The people who fixate so much on whether or not Adams was in the IRA are the sort of people who wouldn't vote for him if they could write Adam's statements and speeches for him themselves. Gerry Adams at the most recent election led his party to over triple their representation in the Dáil. He topped the poll in his constituency. He has come out top in countless opinion polls (as recently as this summer) as the most popular party leader in the country. You can't argue with results. I'd say SF are in no big rush to change a winning formula by and replace him until he decides to put his feet up and retire.
Quote from: Ulick on December 04, 2013, 02:54:32 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 04, 2013, 02:44:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on December 04, 2013, 02:39:23 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 04, 2013, 10:17:29 AM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 03, 2013, 11:23:34 PM
My point is you dont have to equivocate, condemn it for what it is or say nowt, it's not defensible.
No it isn't, and it doesn't reflect well on the guards. Not because they were all in cahoots with the Provos but because of an unwillingness to deal with dodgy elements in their own ranks. It was the same with the McBrearty debacle in Donegal. The upper echelons knew something was wrong but they kept kicking the can down the road in the hope that . . . well, I don't know what they were hoping. Basically that it would all go away.
Note that any objective assessment of the murders of Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen has to incorporate their amazingly cavalier attitude to their own safety. They had a self-image of being ordinary peelers going about their day's work helping old ladies across the street and giving rapscallions a toe up the behind. They would regularly pop into any barracks along the border to talk shop. It was an insane way for two senior RUC officers to behave and the longer it went on the more the chances of something happening to them approached 1.
Careful deiseach, Adams is getting hammered in the Dail and the media for saying the same thing.
That's class!! Almost as good as the rapists defence of "the way she was dressed she deserved it!!!
Cop on lads!
No they deserved it for the 80+ sectarian Glenanne Gang murders to which Breen supplied the weapons and the 'take no prisoners' Loughgall ambush in which he helped organise. That the driver Bob Buchanan believed God would protect him despite being so cavalier about their personal safety just made it easier.
and cavaliers aren't buletproof
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on December 04, 2013, 06:39:55 PM
Adams has been a liability for a long time, comes across as a practiced liar, so entrenched he belives what he says himself, why Sinn Fein dont do a complete sweep of politicians who has questionable backgrounds and bring in young people with no ira background history which is the common stick used to beat them by unionsit politicans. Ever the DUP has the sense to keep Willie McCrea on a low profile and reduce his influence in the party after been on stage with Billy Wright. Sinn Fein could become a party all could vote for in the north, if they got rid of the link to the IRA which keeps coming back on them all the time.
yes
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 04, 2013, 06:47:35 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on December 04, 2013, 06:39:55 PM
Adams has been a liability for a long time, comes across as a practiced liar, so entrenched he belives what he says himself, why Sinn Fein dont do a complete sweep of politicians who has questionable backgrounds and bring in young people with no ira background history which is the common stick used to beat them by unionsit politicans. Ever the DUP has the sense to keep Willie McCrea on a low profile and reduce his influence in the party after been on stage with Billy Wright. Sinn Fein could become a party all could vote for in the north, if they got rid of the link to the IRA which keeps coming back on them all the time.
yes your right
The people who fixate so much on whether or not Adams was in the IRA are the sort of people who wouldn't vote for him if they could write Adam's statements and speeches for him themselves. Gerry Adams at the most recent election led his party to over triple their representation in the Dáil. He topped the poll in his constituency. He has come out top in countless opinion polls (as recently as this summer) as the most popular party leader in the country. You can't argue with results. I'd say SF are in no big rush to change a winning formula by and replace him until he decides to put his feet up and retire.
yes your also right
that's the position sinn fein find themselves in
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 04, 2013, 06:47:35 PM
. Gerry Adams at the most recent election led his party to over triple their representation in the Dáil. He topped the poll in his constituency. He has come out top in countless opinion polls (as recently as this summer) as the most popular party leader in the country. You can't argue with results.
And still you refuse to join them :o
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 04, 2013, 05:14:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
Adams is well past his use by date.
The same Gerry Adams who brought SF to be the largest party in the six counties and tripled their representation in the Dáil since the last election? That Gerry Adams? The man whom Fr Alec Reid, in his last public interview, described as "probably the most capable politician we have...probably one of the most capable politicians in Europe". Him?
Wasn't that the same interview that Fr Alec Reid said Gerry was "sent by God"... ???
That aside, there's no denying Adams' political leadership. That he managed to bring the vast majority of the republican movement to where we are today - convince them to abandon violence for an agreement that was light years away from their objectives - is nothing short of spectacular.
Having said that, I wouldn't want him running the country. And his political achievements in the south are fairly modest. Yes, he topped the poll in Louth, but the party ran one candidate. Yes, he tripled Dáil representation, but from a very low base, and in the context of an outgoing government that were always going to be hammered... well you just wonder what another leader might have managed.
it amazes me how Irish civil servants working in Dublin castle in 1916 and for some time thereafter who supplied details of the names of British agents and spies to the IRA (who wasted no time in shooting them) are heroes now and whose relatives adorn jaomeebollix's liveline show every week applauded by the listening public on the state broadcaster. and now guards who 'may' have did the same thing are traitors..
get this in 1989 THERE WAS WAR HERE!! a filthy dirty war.. these two cops were killed in the war just like those poor guys in cemeteries in Flanders or the kids being flown back to Wotton bassett from Afghanistan.. they were combatants!
a war Gerry adams helped bring to an end. btw
Quote from: glens abu on December 03, 2013, 09:05:41 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
RA needed all the help they could get,just think more Garda should have been helping them instead of colluding with the RUC to kill and jail fellow Irishmen who were fighting oppression in a part of their country.
So what, the Garda should have colluded with the IRA to kill (more) fellow Irishmen?
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 04, 2013, 07:40:29 PM
Quote from: glens abu on December 03, 2013, 09:05:41 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
RA needed all the help they could get,just think more Garda should have been helping them instead of colluding with the RUC to kill and jail fellow Irishmen who were fighting oppression in a part of their country.
So what, the Garda should have colluded with the IRA to kill (more) fellow Irishmen?
I doubt if either of these ruc men considered themselves 'irishmen'. I can categorically tell you that any of the on the runs in the 26 during the war were absolutely tortured by their fellow 'irishmen' in the guards
Quote from: lawnseed on December 04, 2013, 07:32:42 PM
it amazes me how Irish civil servants working in Dublin castle in 1916 and for some time thereafter who supplied details of the names of British agents and spies to the IRA (who wasted no time in shooting them) are heroes now and whose relatives adorn jaomeebollix's liveline show every week applauded by the listening public on the state broadcaster. and now guards who 'may' have did the same thing are traitors..
get this in 1989 THERE WAS WAR HERE!! a filthy dirty war.. these two cops were killed in the war just like those poor guys in cemeteries in Flanders or the kids being flown back to Wotton bassett from Afghanistan.. they were combatants!
a war Gerry adams helped bring to an end. btw
"As far as Gerry Adams having referring to there being a war at the time, it was a war substantially created by the Provisional IRA."
Alan Shatter today, reflecting the views of the vast majority of Irish people on this island.
Quote from: lawnseed on December 04, 2013, 07:32:42 PM
it amazes me how Irish civil servants working in Dublin castle in 1916 and for some time thereafter who supplied details of the names of British agents and spies to the IRA (who wasted no time in shooting them) are heroes now and whose relatives adorn jaomeebollix's liveline show every week applauded by the listening public on the state broadcaster. and now guards who 'may' have did the same thing are traitors..
get this in 1989 THERE WAS WAR HERE!! a filthy dirty war.. these two cops were killed in the war just like those poor guys in cemeteries in Flanders or the kids being flown back to Wotton bassett from Afghanistan.. they were combatants!
a war Gerry adams helped bring to an end. btw
You gotta love the old "it was a war" line to justify murder. Different story though when its armed IRA men killed on active service.
i think the shoot to kill line get used in them circumstances even if they have guns. Usually war status comes under the geneva convention in relation to rules of war, otherwise former serbs never would have ended up in the hague under war crimes!so is killing 2 unarmed men a war crime? saying the IRA never could facilitate prisoners. Next trial for IRA men could end up in the hague for war crimes if Sinn Fein keep trotting out the old it was a war line (or maybe the use of a conflict occurred does the need for any of that away?)
Quote from: lawnseed on December 04, 2013, 07:50:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 04, 2013, 07:40:29 PM
Quote from: glens abu on December 03, 2013, 09:05:41 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 03, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
I wonder if Nally Stand is as upset with this collusion.
Rest assured, Nally Stand won't lose any sleep over an ambush on two senior RUC men; one of whom was named by John Weir in a sworn affidavit as belonging to a loyalist paramilitary group in County Down who were closely tied to the UVF. I am also fairly content to know that any collusion was, as evidenced in today's report, due to "someone", in one garda station who passed on information to the IRA, and was not a functioning, long running state policy, as was the case with british state collusion.
RA needed all the help they could get,just think more Garda should have been helping them instead of colluding with the RUC to kill and jail fellow Irishmen who were fighting oppression in a part of their country.
So what, the Garda should have colluded with the IRA to kill (more) fellow Irishmen?
I doubt if either of these ruc men considered themselves 'irishmen'. I can categorically tell you that any of the on the runs in the 26 during the war were absolutely tortured by their fellow 'irishmen' in the guards
Regardless of what they considered themselves, they were Irishmen. But I wasn't referring exclusively to these men - if the Garda had colluded with the IRA on a larger scale (as the previous poster suggested "should" have happened), they would, without doubt, have been killing fellow Irishmen.
Quote from: michaelg on December 04, 2013, 09:33:08 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 04, 2013, 07:32:42 PM
it amazes me how Irish civil servants working in Dublin castle in 1916 and for some time thereafter who supplied details of the names of British agents and spies to the IRA (who wasted no time in shooting them) are heroes now and whose relatives adorn jaomeebollix's liveline show every week applauded by the listening public on the state broadcaster. and now guards who 'may' have did the same thing are traitors..
get this in 1989 THERE WAS WAR HERE!! a filthy dirty war.. these two cops were killed in the war just like those poor guys in cemeteries in Flanders or the kids being flown back to Wotton bassett from Afghanistan.. they were combatants!
a war Gerry adams helped bring to an end. btw
You gotta love the old "it was a war" line to justify murder. Different story though when its armed IRA men killed on active service.
Personally I've no particular issue with what Adams said, it was a war and the IRA were at war with the RUC and the british army. I also do not whinge when the SAS or whoever shot IRA men who were unarmed and neither should republicans. I also have no interest in what the Israeli apologist Shatter (talk about real terrorists), the disgraced traitors from Fine Fail or the blueshirts have to say about it either.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 04, 2013, 10:36:46 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 04, 2013, 09:33:08 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 04, 2013, 07:32:42 PM
it amazes me how Irish civil servants working in Dublin castle in 1916 and for some time thereafter who supplied details of the names of British agents and spies to the IRA (who wasted no time in shooting them) are heroes now and whose relatives adorn jaomeebollix's liveline show every week applauded by the listening public on the state broadcaster. and now guards who 'may' have did the same thing are traitors..
get this in 1989 THERE WAS WAR HERE!! a filthy dirty war.. these two cops were killed in the war just like those poor guys in cemeteries in Flanders or the kids being flown back to Wotton bassett from Afghanistan.. they were combatants!
a war Gerry adams helped bring to an end. btw
You gotta love the old "it was a war" line to justify murder. Different story though when its armed IRA men killed on active service.
Personally I've no particular issue with what Adams said, it was a war and the IRA were at war with the RUC and the british army. I also do not whinge when the SAS or whoever shot IRA men who were unarmed and neither should republicans. I also have no interest in what the Israeli apologist Shatter (talk about real terrorists), the disgraced traitors from Fine Fail or the blueshirts have to say about it either.
shatter should stick to the porn books he'd know a bit more about it.
as micheal martin started in the dail yesterday about what 'he' thought I was hoping Gerry would answer I don't give a flying fuk what 'you' think you fukn traitor you put a generation of young irish people on the plane!
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 09:29:07 AM
as micheal martin started in the dail yesterday about what 'he' thought I was hoping Gerry would answer I don't give a flying fuk what 'you' think you fukn traitor you put a generation of young irish people on the plane!
Yeah, true sons of Erin put young Irish people in a box.
I'm a bit surprised that SF are being so forthright in offering an opinion on this report. It's not just a case of them being asked questions that they've been asked - they've been quite happy to ignore the question asked in the past ("I condemn ALL violence"). Anyone got any theories on their angle? Trying to embarrass the Brits into having a proper inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane?
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 09:38:41 AM
I'm a bit surprised that SF are being so forthright in offering an opinion on this report. It's not just a case of them being asked questions that they've been asked - they've been quite happy to ignore the question asked in the past ("I condemn ALL violence"). Anyone got any theories on their angle? Trying to embarrass the Brits into having a proper inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane?
monaghan and Dublin, finucane.. and on and on take your pick
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2013, 08:36:28 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 04, 2013, 07:32:42 PM
it amazes me how Irish civil servants working in Dublin castle in 1916 and for some time thereafter who supplied details of the names of British agents and spies to the IRA (who wasted no time in shooting them) are heroes now and whose relatives adorn jaomeebollix's liveline show every week applauded by the listening public on the state broadcaster. and now guards who 'may' have did the same thing are traitors..
get this in 1989 THERE WAS WAR HERE!! a filthy dirty war.. these two cops were killed in the war just like those poor guys in cemeteries in Flanders or the kids being flown back to Wotton bassett from Afghanistan.. they were combatants!
a war Gerry adams helped bring to an end. btw
"As far as Gerry Adams having referring to there being a war at the time, it was a war substantially created by the Provisional IRA."
Alan Shatter today, reflecting the views of the vast majority of Irish people on this island.
Myles, I think Adams is a liar and a liability. But Shatter shows his own ignorance of what went on here by those comments...but then not surprising from a Blueshirt. Adams would have been best served yesterday by saying absolutely nothing. At the end of the Day the Gardai are agents of the Irish Government and it was up to them to comment. Anything SF would say on the issue was going to annoy and rub salt in the wounds. Adams showed himself up as being completely hypocritical and out of touch. These guys might have been combatants but they were unarmed. 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. Alan McQuillan implied as much this morning. But they were unarmed and shot dead that is as wrong as Loughgall or any other British war crime...this appears to be lost on SF. We were all complicit in the war. The Brits and Unionists for the sectarian violence and blatant discrimination, the fruits of which still linger today in that catholic areas still fill the top ten spots for housing, social and economic need. The Irish Government for ignoring their Northern fellow citizens plight for decades in spite of the contribution made to the 26 by many Northerners. And of course the Provos who went beyond targeting the Brits and economic targets to killing their own countrymen whether unionist or nationalist. Having said all of that it still does not excuse the callous way in which Adams spoke about this yesterday.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 05, 2013, 09:46:18 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2013, 08:36:28 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 04, 2013, 07:32:42 PM
it amazes me how Irish civil servants working in Dublin castle in 1916 and for some time thereafter who supplied details of the names of British agents and spies to the IRA (who wasted no time in shooting them) are heroes now and whose relatives adorn jaomeebollix's liveline show every week applauded by the listening public on the state broadcaster. and now guards who 'may' have did the same thing are traitors..
get this in 1989 THERE WAS WAR HERE!! a filthy dirty war.. these two cops were killed in the war just like those poor guys in cemeteries in Flanders or the kids being flown back to Wotton bassett from Afghanistan.. they were combatants!
a war Gerry adams helped bring to an end. btw
"As far as Gerry Adams having referring to there being a war at the time, it was a war substantially created by the Provisional IRA."
Alan Shatter today, reflecting the views of the vast majority of Irish people on this island.
Myles, I think Adams is a liar and a liability. But Shatter shows his own ignorance of what went on here by those comments...but then not surprising from a Blueshirt. Adams would have been best served yesterday by saying absolutely nothing. At the end of the Day the Gardai are agents of the Irish Government and it was up to them to comment. Anything SF would say on the issue was going to annoy and rub salt in the wounds. Adams showed himself up as being completely hypocritical and out of touch. These guys might have been combatants but they were unarmed. 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. Alan McQuillan implied as much this morning. But they were unarmed and shot dead that is as wrong as Loughgall or any other British war crime...this appears to be lost on SF. We were all complicit in the war. The Brits and Unionists for the sectarian violence and blatant discrimination, the fruits of which still linger today in that catholic areas still fill the top ten spots for housing, social and economic need. The Irish Government for ignoring their Northern fellow citizens plight for decades in spite of the contribution made to the 26 by many Northerners. And of course the Provos who went beyond targeting the Brits and economic targets to killing their own countrymen whether unionist or nationalist. Having said all of that it still does not excuse the callous way in which Adams spoke about this yesterday.
Callous my arse,what was callous about it.You are talking like a blueshirt yourself.
Quote from: glens abu on December 05, 2013, 09:49:01 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 05, 2013, 09:46:18 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2013, 08:36:28 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 04, 2013, 07:32:42 PM
it amazes me how Irish civil servants working in Dublin castle in 1916 and for some time thereafter who supplied details of the names of British agents and spies to the IRA (who wasted no time in shooting them) are heroes now and whose relatives adorn jaomeebollix's liveline show every week applauded by the listening public on the state broadcaster. and now guards who 'may' have did the same thing are traitors..
get this in 1989 THERE WAS WAR HERE!! a filthy dirty war.. these two cops were killed in the war just like those poor guys in cemeteries in Flanders or the kids being flown back to Wotton bassett from Afghanistan.. they were combatants!
a war Gerry adams helped bring to an end. btw
"As far as Gerry Adams having referring to there being a war at the time, it was a war substantially created by the Provisional IRA."
Alan Shatter today, reflecting the views of the vast majority of Irish people on this island.
Myles, I think Adams is a liar and a liability. But Shatter shows his own ignorance of what went on here by those comments...but then not surprising from a Blueshirt. Adams would have been best served yesterday by saying absolutely nothing. At the end of the Day the Gardai are agents of the Irish Government and it was up to them to comment. Anything SF would say on the issue was going to annoy and rub salt in the wounds. Adams showed himself up as being completely hypocritical and out of touch. These guys might have been combatants but they were unarmed. 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. Alan McQuillan implied as much this morning. But they were unarmed and shot dead that is as wrong as Loughgall or any other British war crime...this appears to be lost on SF. We were all complicit in the war. The Brits and Unionists for the sectarian violence and blatant discrimination, the fruits of which still linger today in that catholic areas still fill the top ten spots for housing, social and economic need. The Irish Government for ignoring their Northern fellow citizens plight for decades in spite of the contribution made to the 26 by many Northerners. And of course the Provos who went beyond targeting the Brits and economic targets to killing their own countrymen whether unionist or nationalist. Having said all of that it still does not excuse the callous way in which Adams spoke about this yesterday.
Callous my arse,what was callous about it.You are talking like a blueshirt yourself.
Put youself in the plces of those families...callous. But you can't see that.
Regardless of the argument, SF have committed political suicide with Adams statement and then compounded it with the performance on Vincent Brown last night.
Hypocritical or not the vast majority of people in the south have no interest in violence be it war or terrorism.
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
Regardless of the argument, SF have committed political suicide with Adams statement and then compounded it with the performance on Vincent Brown last night.
Hypocritical or not the vast majority of people in the south have no interest in violence be it war or terrorism.
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.
What made you think SF had abandoned the past? You only have to read the contributors here (accepting that none of them are members of SF; makes you wonder who is) to know that they are proud of that past.
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 10:05:25 AM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
Regardless of the argument, SF have committed political suicide with Adams statement and then compounded it with the performance on Vincent Brown last night.
Hypocritical or not the vast majority of people in the south have no interest in violence be it war or terrorism.
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.
What made you think SF had abandoned the past? You only have to read the contributors here (accepting that none of them are members of SF; makes you wonder who is) to know that they are proud of that past.
Not abandoned, but were moving on from it. Seems not.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 11:04:18 AM
Not abandoned, but were moving on from it. Seems not.
How would 'moving on' manifest itself? What would have been the appropriate response to the Smithwick tribunal?
This argument is nothing new. At it's core, it's simply about people in uniform being more highly prized by state forces (on both sides of the border) than people in non-state forces. There would be no moral revulsion in the Dail and within the media following a review of the events at Loughgall which are pretty similar in nature to the events in this case. It comes down to, in BBC/RTE speak, 'police officers' and 'terrorists' and all that follows. Thankfully those days are mostly gone. Listening to the likes of Alan McQuillan and archive soundbites from Jack Herman on the radio again is a little chilling with all that is now known.
What did people expect Gerry to say?
" Absolutely disgraceful murder of two innocent police officers"???
He might as well then add - the whole campaign of the ProvoIRA was "a disgraceful terrorist campaign"
What next - FG and FF to repudiate 1916 as a "disgraceful event by a bunch of extremists which must be condemend by all right thinking people"??
No doubt the Provos saw the killing of Breen/Buchanan as a good days work and Gerry as their leader( of the SF wing only of course) can hardly repudiate that.
Quote from: sheamy on December 05, 2013, 11:20:18 AM
This argument is nothing new. At it's core, it's simply about people in uniform being more highly prized by state forces (on both sides of the border) than people in non-state forces. There would be no moral revulsion in the Dail and within the media following a review of the events at Loughgall which are pretty similar in nature to the events in this case. It comes down to, in BBC/RTE speak, 'police officers' and 'terrorists' and all that follows. Thankfully those days are mostly gone. Listening to the likes of Alan McQuillan and archive soundbites from Jack Herman on the radio again is a little chilling with all that is now known.
This is a good point. It's clear that the authorities in the North had their suspicions but there was Jack Herman dismissing the suggestion out of hand. It was politically expedient for everyone to turn a blind eye to collusion so where is the ordure for the politicians of the time for failing the Buchanan and Breen families?
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 11:11:40 AM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 11:04:18 AM
Not abandoned, but were moving on from it. Seems not.
How would 'moving on' manifest itself? What would have been the appropriate response to the Smithwick tribunal?
Maybe a cliché, but, moving on would manifest itself in acknowledging the past without glorifying it. The use of the word brave was wrong.
An appropriate response would have been an acknowledgement of the context in which the executions took place without heroising ? those who carried it out. Calling them brave does this.
To be honest it was more the performance of their rep on TV3 that I was taken by.
Political leaders make statements all the time to serve different audiences and they dont neccessarily mean a lot.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 11:32:58 AM
Maybe a cliché, but, moving on would manifest itself in acknowledging the past without glorifying it. The use of the word brave was wrong.
An appropriate response would have been an acknowledgement of the context in which the executions took place without heroising ? those who carried it out. Calling them brave does this.
To be honest it was more the performance of their rep on TV3 that I was taken by.
Political leaders make statements all the time to serve different audiences and they dont neccessarily mean a lot.
That's fair enough, but I don't see what you saw in Sinn Féin previously that made you think they would behave any differently here than they did. They are nothing if not 'on message'.
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 11:41:38 AM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 11:32:58 AM
Maybe a cliché, but, moving on would manifest itself in acknowledging the past without glorifying it. The use of the word brave was wrong.
An appropriate response would have been an acknowledgement of the context in which the executions took place without heroising ? those who carried it out. Calling them brave does this.
To be honest it was more the performance of their rep on TV3 that I was taken by.
Political leaders make statements all the time to serve different audiences and they dont neccessarily mean a lot.
That's fair enough, but I don't see what you saw in Sinn Féin previously that made you think they would behave any differently here than they did. They are nothing if not 'on message'.
Yeah. Maybe I was just taken in by the Mary Lou factor.
Quote from: Rossfan on December 05, 2013, 11:20:53 AM
What did people expect Gerry to say?
" Absolutely disgraceful murder of two innocent police officers"???
He might as well then add - the whole campaign of the ProvoIRA was "a disgraceful terrorist campaign"
What next - FG and FF to repudiate 1916 as a "disgraceful event by a bunch of extremists which must be condemend by all right thinking people"??
No doubt the Provos saw the killing of Breen/Buchanan as a good days work and Gerry as their leader( of the SF wing only of course) can hardly repudiate that.
jeez we agree ;)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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 your 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?
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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 happing 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
Time
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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 happing 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
Time
what is the cut off point when did it change
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 12:47:07 PM
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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 happing 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
Time
what is the cut off point when did it change
How long is a piece of string Lawnseed? Because our society, politics, values and outlook are constantly changing, our view of the past is constantly evolving. People who were viewed as villains 50 years ago are heroes today and vice versa. All knowledge is provisional and is rigorously challenged. I think this is a good thing. I have no doubt that some of the leading players in NI over the past 30 years will at some point in the future be viewed in a different light - one way or the other.
Quote from: hardstation on December 05, 2013, 12:49:18 PM
Lawnseed, why does everything in your life have to be related back to films?
maybe you'd try to address the question
upon the release of the movie micheal Collins and the wind.. there was nearly a full week of jaomeebollix phone in time on the state broadcaster. people streaming out of irish cinemas all applauding the shows.. how they were based on fact and how their grand fathers took part in the actual events WHY was that action good. why was it ok for volunteers in the 26 to fight for their freedom and not ok for us to do the same in the six?
whats the difference
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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 happing 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
Time
So is it that time can make something (say a bullet in the head for instance) which was say morally wrong and unjustifiable, actually become moral and justifiable? Or is it just that time makes it easier to justify to ones self the holding of grossly hypocritical views?
Quote from: hardstation on December 05, 2013, 01:11:59 PM
How long after the events of 1916 did Ireland decide to hold dear the memory of our GPO heroes and why can we not use the same time frame, CD?
exactly! castledawson? whats wrong with us doing the same as fine gael in cork.
hold on Mexicans.. we're still fighting! we're not shooting but we are still fighting things aren't quite right here yet. we're getting there but theres a way to go. not only have we to fix this place but we have to fix your place as well.. yous might be happy with having a shite government for a hundred years but that's not how we see our future.. roll on the dungout
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 01:21:17 PM
hold on Mexicans.. we're still fighting! we're not shooting but we are still fighting things aren't quite right here yet. we're getting there but theres a way to go. not only have we to fix this place but we have to fix your place as well.. yous might be happy with having a shite government for a hundred years but that's not how we see our future.. roll on the dungout
Yer too late late, we've already been sold on to the Germans.
Quote from: hardstation on December 05, 2013, 01:11:59 PM
How long after the events of 1916 did Ireland decide to hold dear the memory of our GPO heroes and why can we not use the same time frame, CD?
It's a myth that Irish Public Opinion was against the Rising from the start and that the subsequent treatment of the ringleaders coupled with British brutality led to a ground swell of support. Public sympathy for the goals of the 'rebels' was always there.
The same time frame can't be used because it's a different time.
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: hardstation on December 05, 2013, 01:11:59 PM
How long after the events of 1916 did Ireland decide to hold dear the memory of our GPO heroes and why can we not use the same time frame, CD?
It's a myth that Irish Public Opinion was against the Rising from the start and that the subsequent treatment of the ringleaders coupled with British brutality led to a ground swell of support. Public sympathy for the goals of the 'rebels' was always there.
The same time frame can't be used because it's a different time.
its on public record that the rebels of 1916 were mocked and spat on by the good people of Dublin as there were lead to their execution..
so what changed? and when
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 01:13:36 PM
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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 happing 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
Time
So is it that time can make something (say a bullet in the head for instance) which was say morally wrong and unjustifiable, actually become moral and justifiable? Or is it just that time makes it easier to justify to ones self the holding of grossly hypocritical views?
History doesn't justify or profess to be a moral compass. People do that. I never said it was right. It isn't so long ago since The British Empire was taught in schools as something to be proud off. Now it's a taboo. Lance Armstrong won BBC oversea sports personality of the year ten years ago. I used to like Bono.
All I'm saying is, History, and what we believe to be historical facts, are constantly being challenged and reappraised in the light of new evidence, changing social norms and of course, by the media.
(Now I remember why I don't contribute to the political discussions on here!)
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 01:36:18 PM
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: hardstation on December 05, 2013, 01:11:59 PM
How long after the events of 1916 did Ireland decide to hold dear the memory of our GPO heroes and why can we not use the same time frame, CD?
It's a myth that Irish Public Opinion was against the Rising from the start and that the subsequent treatment of the ringleaders coupled with British brutality led to a ground swell of support. Public sympathy for the goals of the 'rebels' was always there.
The same time frame can't be used because it's a different time.
its on public record that the rebels of 1916 were mocked and spat on by the good people of Dublin as there were lead to their execution..
so what changed? and when
All the people of Dublin? Or Some? There is an Ireland beyond the pale you know!
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 01:46:49 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 01:36:18 PM
its on public record that the rebels of 1916 were mocked and spat on by the good people of Dublin as there were lead to their execution..
so what changed? and when
All the people of Dublin? Or Some? There is an Ireland beyond the pale you know!
Precisely. The 'public record' to which lawnseed refers is the Irish Independent of William Martin Murphy. The rebels were attacked all right - by a rent-a-mob consisting of the families of Castle Catholics. Joe Lee actually took the time and effort - imagine that! - to check the reaction of the populace in the uncensored provincial newspapers and found them to be very sympathetic to the rebel cause, and all before the executions.
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
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on December 05, 2013, 01:54:03 PM
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...
Anyway, to answer the proposition posed by the title of thread, YES, the Irish government should have to answer claims of collusion with the RUC.
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 01:52:12 PM
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 01:46:49 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 01:36:18 PM
its on public record that the rebels of 1916 were mocked and spat on by the good people of Dublin as there were lead to their execution..
so what changed? and when
All the people of Dublin? Or Some? There is an Ireland beyond the pale you know!
Precisely. The 'public record' to which lawnseed refers is the Irish Independent of William Martin Murphy. The rebels were attacked all right - by a rent-a-mob consisting of the families of Castle Catholics. Joe Lee actually took the time and effort - imagine that! - to check the reaction of the populace in the uncensored provincial newspapers and found them to be very sympathetic to the rebel cause, and all before the executions.
'the rebel cause' emmm? forgive me but could you define the rebel cause..?
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 01:29:26 PM
It's a myth that Irish Public Opinion was against the Rising from the start and that the subsequent treatment of the ringleaders coupled with British brutality led to a ground swell of support. Public sympathy for the goals of the 'rebels' was always there.
Collins an co were described at the time of the rising as being "a minority, within a minority within a minority". Connolly's Irish Citizen Army was tiny. His political party, The Irish Socialist Republican Party, was described in a newspaper of the time as having "more syllables than members" and he himself was a failed election candidate.
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 01:57:39 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 01:52:12 PM
Precisely. The 'public record' to which lawnseed refers is the Irish Independent of William Martin Murphy. The rebels were attacked all right - by a rent-a-mob consisting of the families of Castle Catholics. Joe Lee actually took the time and effort - imagine that! - to check the reaction of the populace in the uncensored provincial newspapers and found them to be very sympathetic to the rebel cause, and all before the executions.
'the rebel cause' emmm? forgive me but could you define the rebel cause..?
Based on omission, I take it that you accept that support for the rebels was not a function of some after-the-fact conversion by the people of Ireland, a conversion that is bound to happen with respect to Provos in some twisted theory of Calvinist predestination. There was no such Pauline moment for the people of Ireland with respect to the Easter Rising and it would be nice if you factored that into your world view. But I imagine it's more likely you'll simply regurgitate it the next time the topic comes up.
Now, getting back to your question, the 'rebel cause' was for an independent Irish republic, something that hasn't been properly fulfilled and therefore the modern IRA are the legitimate descendants of the rebels and you can't approve of the Rising and not approve of the Provos. 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. This is in sharp contrast to the Provos, who throughout the Troubles couldn't even claim majority support among Nationalists in the North, let alone Nationalists throughout the island. Of course they had 'support' and I think they could claim a degree of soft support throughout the Nationalist population. But if you are going to say that 'support' of any description is enough to justify taking up arms in the cause of Irish freedom, no matter how small that support might be, then you must view Martin McGuinness as having committed an act of unspeakable treachery when he denounced the killers of Ronan Kerr as 'enemies of peace (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0404/299423-kerrr/)'. The so-called dissident Republicans are the true heirs of the rebel cause of 1916, right? No accommodation with British imperialism, right?
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 02:22:02 PM
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?
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 02:22:02 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 01:57:39 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 01:52:12 PM
Precisely. The 'public record' to which lawnseed refers is the Irish Independent of William Martin Murphy. The rebels were attacked all right - by a rent-a-mob consisting of the families of Castle Catholics. Joe Lee actually took the time and effort - imagine that! - to check the reaction of the populace in the uncensored provincial newspapers and found them to be very sympathetic to the rebel cause, and all before the executions.
'the rebel cause' emmm? forgive me but could you define the rebel cause..?
Based on omission, I take it that you accept that support for the rebels was not a function of some after-the-fact conversion by the people of Ireland, a conversion that is bound to happen with respect to Provos in some twisted theory of Calvinist predestination. There was no such Pauline moment for the people of Ireland with respect to the Easter Rising and it would be nice if you factored that into your world view. But I imagine it's more likely you'll simply regurgitate it the next time the topic comes up.
Now, getting back to your question, the 'rebel cause' was for an independent Irish republic, something that hasn't been properly fulfilled and therefore the modern IRA are the legitimate descendants of the rebels and you can't approve of the Rising and not approve of the Provos. 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. This is in sharp contrast to the Provos, who throughout the Troubles couldn't even claim majority support among Nationalists in the North, let alone Nationalists throughout the island. Of course they had 'support' and I think they could claim a degree of soft support throughout the Nationalist population. But if you are going to say that 'support' of any description is enough to justify taking up arms in the cause of Irish freedom, no matter how small that support might be, then you must view Martin McGuinness as having committed an act of unspeakable treachery when he denounced the killers of Ronan Kerr as 'enemies of peace (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0404/299423-kerrr/)'. The so-called dissident Republicans are the true heirs of the rebel cause of 1916, right? No accommodation with British imperialism, right?
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?
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 02:21:52 PM
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 01:29:26 PM
It's a myth that Irish Public Opinion was against the Rising from the start and that the subsequent treatment of the ringleaders coupled with British brutality led to a ground swell of support. Public sympathy for the goals of the 'rebels' was always there.
Collins an co were described at the time of the rising as being "a minority, within a minority within a minority". Connolly's Irish Citizen Army was tiny. His political party, The Irish Socialist Republican Party, was described in a newspaper of the time as having "more syllables than members" and he himself was a failed election candidate.
"a minority, within a minority within a minority" Who said this? The IRA's (IRB's) first and best PR man himself - Michael Collins
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.
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.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 02:22:02 PM
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
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 02:51:58 PM
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.
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 02:53:43 PM
"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.
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 02:53:43 PM
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.
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 02:53:43 PM
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.
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 02:51:58 PM
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..
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 04, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
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?...
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 05, 2013, 09:46:18 AM
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.
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 03:07:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 03:05:40 PM
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 02:53:43 PM
"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.
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 02:53:43 PM
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.
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 02:53:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 03:05:40 PM
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 02:53:43 PM
"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.
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 02:53:43 PM
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.
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 02:53:43 PM
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.. ::) ::) ;)
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 01:55:28 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on December 05, 2013, 01:54:03 PM
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.
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 02:22:02 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: AQMP on December 05, 2013, 04:39:24 PM
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
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: AQMP on December 05, 2013, 04:39:24 PM
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.
Quote from: AQMP on December 05, 2013, 04:39:24 PM
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.
QuoteHe 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?
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 05:11:59 PM
Quote from: AQMP on December 05, 2013, 04:39:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 05, 2013, 07:48:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 05:11:59 PM
Quote from: AQMP on December 05, 2013, 04:39:24 PM
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.
This is embarrassing for the guards for why for SF? If the IRA were able to cultivate an intelligence source within the guards then that's job well done from their perspective. Is it somehow less 'fair' than if they'd just shot them by luck?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 05, 2013, 07:37:27 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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 = w**kers. 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 w**kers 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. w**kers with a capital W.
And of course the good old Brits with their sense of fair play would have allowed all that to happen. ::)
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 05, 2013, 07:37:27 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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.
Quote from: fearglasmor on December 05, 2013, 09:58:13 AM
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 = w**kers. 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 w**kers 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. w**kers with a capital W.
Hmm in the 30 odd years before 1916 Home Rule party had on numerous held balance of power and even had their bill passed three times. Still it wasn't implemented. I don't know if that justified 1916 but let's not forget it surely frustrated many nationalists.
Also the UVF opposition to Home Rule and Curragh mutiny meant that partition was likely we'll on train too.
Also after the election you referred to the British government refused all overtures of negotiation from Sinn Fein. Indeed the great statesman Churchill pointed out that the government were charged with maintaining the empire not negotiating it's split.
Maybe they were all wankers but I wouldn't have too much admiration for their opponents.
/Jim.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 05, 2013, 07:37:27 PM
I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. 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 w**kers 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. w**kers with a capital W.
This has to be the most ahistorical farrago of nonsense I have ever read in my life. Who was it that brought 'machismo' into Irish politics after decades of political planning had brought Irish nationalism to the cusp of having a trumped up county council to call our own within the Empire? It was Unionism, arming itself and spitting in the face of Westminster. The punishment for their treason was to be rewarded at every step by Westminster. Before the GFA, there was only one instance - the proroguing of Stormont, something that took place because Unionism wanted a Bloody Sunday on the streets of Northern Ireland every day of the week - of the British standing up to Unionism, and yet you say that they would have given Nationalism what it wanted to be rid of them? Remember, Ireland had a disproportionate number of seats in Westminster after the Act of Union. Sinn Féin won more seats than Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1918) despite getting less than a fifth of the votes (uncontested seats would account for some of the disparity, but not that much). It would have been a simple matter to have rectified this undemocratic anomaly by merging the Irish constituencies and neutering the power of Sinn Féin to control the mother of all Parliaments. Yet in your fantasy world the reaction of a political system that elevated Andrew Bonar Law to the highest office, a man who could "imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/ulster_covenant)", would have quickly cut a deal to be rid of the bolshie Micks! You are either taking the piss or utterly clueless. Only you know which it is.
He's on a Kevin Myers(esque) solo run without the grey matter getting in the way.
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 10:35:21 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 05, 2013, 07:37:27 PM
I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. 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 w**kers 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. w**kers with a capital W.
This has to be the most ahistorical farrago of nonsense I have ever read in my life. Who was it that brought 'machismo' into Irish politics after decades of political planning had brought Irish nationalism to the cusp of having a trumped up county council to call our own within the Empire? It was Unionism, arming itself and spitting in the face of Westminster. The punishment for their treason was to be rewarded at every step by Westminster. Before the GFA, there was only one instance - the proroguing of Stormont, something that took place because Unionism wanted a Bloody Sunday on the streets of Northern Ireland every day of the week - of the British standing up to Unionism, and yet you say that they would have given Nationalism what it wanted to be rid of them? Remember, Ireland had a disproportionate number of seats in Westminster after the Act of Union. Sinn Féin won more seats than Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1918) despite getting less than a fifth of the votes (uncontested seats would account for some of the disparity, but not that much). It would have been a simple matter to have rectified this undemocratic anomaly by merging the Irish constituencies and neutering the power of Sinn Féin to control the mother of all Parliaments. Yet in your fantasy world the reaction of a political system that elevated Andrew Bonar Law to the highest office, a man who could "imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/ulster_covenant)", would have quickly cut a deal to be rid of the bolshie Micks! You are either taking the piss or utterly clueless. Only you know which it is.
+1.
couldn't have put it better myself if I tried for a year.
We didn't split our Country - the Unionists wanted it when they couldn't control the whole country any more and the Brits backed them by unleashing their Terror army on us after we voted for an Independent Republic in 1918.
If the Brits had given us our Co Council in 1912 instead of allowing the Unionist fascists to have their way..... things could have been so different.
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 05, 2013, 07:48:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 05:11:59 PM
Quote from: AQMP on December 05, 2013, 04:39:24 PM
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.
Not odd at all. The report found no evidence of collusion and the only one to be linked to passing on information at any stage was cleared of doing so; and the two RUC men, whether people like to hear it or not, made themselves the easiest of easy targets. Their failure to take basic safety precautions is a point that has been raised by countless people in the past few days, in the media and on this thread. Nobody batted an eyelid until Gerry Adams said it. Suddenly to do so became "grotesque"/"obscene"/"callous"/"insulting"/"despicable". One of Adams' biggest critics on this thread for commenting on that point was applesisapples, who early in the thread not only said the same thing as Adams (i.e. that they had been too relaxed about their own safety), but went further and said that in doing so "they also may have contributed to their own deaths". Adams had every right to comment on any part of what is contained within the report. Hypocrites will always, always find their way to heckle him one way or another anyway.
Quote from: Puckoon on December 05, 2013, 06:57:51 PM
QuoteHe 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?
lol whataboutery? Catch yourself on! Adams was talking about the contents of the Smithwick Report, not deflecting the topic to some other report.
Quote from: LeoMc on December 05, 2013, 04:30:38 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 02:22:02 PM
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?
Nobody told you?
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: Puckoon on December 05, 2013, 06:57:51 PM
QuoteHe 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?
lol whataboutery? Catch yourself on! Adams was talking about the contents of the Smithwick Report, not deflecting the topic to some other report.
I disagree. Pointing out an inconsistency in the wording of a report, focusing on a sub component of the report (i.e. The laissez faire attitude of the officers), and not addressing the actual finding of collusion is all fairly straightforward whataboutery in the context of the issue
Quote from: Puckoon on December 06, 2013, 02:24:59 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: Puckoon on December 05, 2013, 06:57:51 PM
QuoteHe 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?
lol whataboutery? Catch yourself on! Adams was talking about the contents of the Smithwick Report, not deflecting the topic to some other report.
I disagree. Pointing out an inconsistency in the wording of a report, focusing on a sub component of the report (i.e. The laissez faire attitude of the officers), and not addressing the actual finding of collusion is all fairly straightforward whataboutery in the context of the issue
So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it. Smithwick can say as much in his report but if anybody else mentions him saying this in the report, they are indulging in "whataboutery"? Wise the head!
Quote from: lawnseed on December 06, 2013, 11:29:39 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 05, 2013, 04:30:38 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 02:22:02 PM
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?
Nobody told you?
As usual you had me scratching my head there but then I realised you had jumped from 1916 to 1940.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 05:20:03 PM
So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.
Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no
direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.
You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf
And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 10:35:21 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 05, 2013, 07:37:27 PM
I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. 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 w**kers 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. w**kers with a capital W.
This has to be the most ahistorical farrago of nonsense I have ever read in my life. Who was it that brought 'machismo' into Irish politics after decades of political planning had brought Irish nationalism to the cusp of having a trumped up county council to call our own within the Empire? It was Unionism, arming itself and spitting in the face of Westminster. The punishment for their treason was to be rewarded at every step by Westminster. Before the GFA, there was only one instance - the proroguing of Stormont, something that took place because Unionism wanted a Bloody Sunday on the streets of Northern Ireland every day of the week - of the British standing up to Unionism, and yet you say that they would have given Nationalism what it wanted to be rid of them? Remember, Ireland had a disproportionate number of seats in Westminster after the Act of Union. Sinn Féin won more seats than Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1918) despite getting less than a fifth of the votes (uncontested seats would account for some of the disparity, but not that much). It would have been a simple matter to have rectified this undemocratic anomaly by merging the Irish constituencies and neutering the power of Sinn Féin to control the mother of all Parliaments. Yet in your fantasy world the reaction of a political system that elevated Andrew Bonar Law to the highest office, a man who could "imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/ulster_covenant)", would have quickly cut a deal to be rid of the bolshie Micks! You are either taking the piss or utterly clueless. Only you know which it is.
I think the IRB were ahead of the unionists, but that's not the main point of what I was saying. I agree that the British government traditionally caved in to unionist pressure, but there's no certainty that it would have continued to do so, particularly if the British were being impeded in their own parliament by the shinners. In more recent years, for example, the British have faced down unionism (e.g over the Anglo Irish Agreement) when it has been in their interests to do so. I'm not saying that Irish independence would have followed in 5 or 10 years, but I think it would have happened. Even if you're right, what would have been the worst case scenario? We would have reached the present day with Ireland still being part of the UK? So what would that have looked like? We would have had, at very least, a devolved Irish parliament in Dublin - Wales and Scotland have this, we wouldn't have been any different. So we would have been a united country, being governed from Dublin, without the bitterness that 90 years and many thousands of deaths have caused. We wouldn't have had partition, 50 years of unionist misrule, the RUC, B Specials, the Troubles. We wouldn't have had 2 separate states on the island turning their backs on each other, to the extent that many people in the south now regard 'Ireland' as something which stops at the border. We wouldn't have had all that and here we would be in 2013, with the nationalist population in the 6 counties now equal in numbers to their unionist counterparts, making any future partition of the island impossible. We could've called for a referendum, just as Scotland has done. Even in your worst case scenario, therefore, we would've been far closer to an independent, 32 county Ireland than we are now.
Quote from: LeoMc on December 06, 2013, 07:12:24 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 06, 2013, 11:29:39 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 05, 2013, 04:30:38 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 02:22:02 PM
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?
Nobody told you?
As usual you had me scratching my head there but then I realised you had jumped from 1916 to 1940.
So they sold our nordie asses twice collins and then dev
Quote from: lawnseed on December 06, 2013, 09:18:30 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 06, 2013, 07:12:24 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 06, 2013, 11:29:39 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 05, 2013, 04:30:38 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on December 05, 2013, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2013, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 02:22:02 PM
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?
Nobody told you?
As usual you had me scratching my head there but then I realised you had jumped from 1916 to 1940.
So they sold our nordie asses twice collins and then dev
I don't think McDonald and Churchill were actually handing us over, just not objecting if Dev could reach an agreement with Craig.
I've always blamed the Bishops for the first failure to get home rule.
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 06, 2013, 07:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 05:20:03 PM
So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.
Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.
You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf
And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.
So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he
didn't find evidence, but he
IS saying he didn't find evidence?
At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.
The idea that the provos in that area needed the help of a guard to spot the man who paraded the loughgall weapons on tv coming out of a garda station in dundalk shows how the police on both sides of the border underestimated how determined these men were. When you are prepared to die for your beliefs you deserve some acknowledgement of your commitment and your ability. Clearly these cops just didnt get it. As I said before on that road they were just as likely to be stopped by an IRA checkpoint as a brit checkpoint. No difference in this and the the two soldiers killed at the funerals in belfast
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 06, 2013, 08:26:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 10:35:21 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 05, 2013, 07:37:27 PM
I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. 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 w**kers 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. w**kers with a capital W.
This has to be the most ahistorical farrago of nonsense I have ever read in my life. Who was it that brought 'machismo' into Irish politics after decades of political planning had brought Irish nationalism to the cusp of having a trumped up county council to call our own within the Empire? It was Unionism, arming itself and spitting in the face of Westminster. The punishment for their treason was to be rewarded at every step by Westminster. Before the GFA, there was only one instance - the proroguing of Stormont, something that took place because Unionism wanted a Bloody Sunday on the streets of Northern Ireland every day of the week - of the British standing up to Unionism, and yet you say that they would have given Nationalism what it wanted to be rid of them? Remember, Ireland had a disproportionate number of seats in Westminster after the Act of Union. Sinn Féin won more seats than Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1918) despite getting less than a fifth of the votes (uncontested seats would account for some of the disparity, but not that much). It would have been a simple matter to have rectified this undemocratic anomaly by merging the Irish constituencies and neutering the power of Sinn Féin to control the mother of all Parliaments. Yet in your fantasy world the reaction of a political system that elevated Andrew Bonar Law to the highest office, a man who could "imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/ulster_covenant)", would have quickly cut a deal to be rid of the bolshie Micks! You are either taking the piss or utterly clueless. Only you know which it is.
I think the IRB were ahead of the unionists, but that's not the main point of what I was saying. I agree that the British government traditionally caved in to unionist pressure, but there's no certainty that it would have continued to do so, particularly if the British were being impeded in their own parliament by the shinners. In more recent years, for example, the British have faced down unionism (e.g over the Anglo Irish Agreement) when it has been in their interests to do so. I'm not saying that Irish independence would have followed in 5 or 10 years, but I think it would have happened. Even if you're right, what would have been the worst case scenario? We would have reached the present day with Ireland still being part of the UK? So what would that have looked like? We would have had, at very least, a devolved Irish parliament in Dublin - Wales and Scotland have this, we wouldn't have been any different. So we would have been a united country, being governed from Dublin, without the bitterness that 90 years and many thousands of deaths have caused. We wouldn't have had partition, 50 years of unionist misrule, the RUC, B Specials, the Troubles. We wouldn't have had 2 separate states on the island turning their backs on each other, to the extent that many people in the south now regard 'Ireland' as something which stops at the border. We wouldn't have had all that and here we would be in 2013, with the nationalist population in the 6 counties now equal in numbers to their unionist counterparts, making any future partition of the island impossible. We could've called for a referendum, just as Scotland has done. Even in your worst case scenario, therefore, we would've been far closer to an independent, 32 county Ireland than we are now.
And what factors would have swayed unionists to a parliament in Dublin. (even in a United Kingdom context?)
They armed themselves an army against Home Rule did they not? I think you are being very one-eyed in your causes of partition....
/Jim
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 07, 2013, 01:20:15 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 06, 2013, 08:26:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 10:35:21 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 05, 2013, 07:37:27 PM
I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. 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 w**kers 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. w**kers with a capital W.
This has to be the most ahistorical farrago of nonsense I have ever read in my life. Who was it that brought 'machismo' into Irish politics after decades of political planning had brought Irish nationalism to the cusp of having a trumped up county council to call our own within the Empire? It was Unionism, arming itself and spitting in the face of Westminster. The punishment for their treason was to be rewarded at every step by Westminster. Before the GFA, there was only one instance - the proroguing of Stormont, something that took place because Unionism wanted a Bloody Sunday on the streets of Northern Ireland every day of the week - of the British standing up to Unionism, and yet you say that they would have given Nationalism what it wanted to be rid of them? Remember, Ireland had a disproportionate number of seats in Westminster after the Act of Union. Sinn Féin won more seats than Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1918) despite getting less than a fifth of the votes (uncontested seats would account for some of the disparity, but not that much). It would have been a simple matter to have rectified this undemocratic anomaly by merging the Irish constituencies and neutering the power of Sinn Féin to control the mother of all Parliaments. Yet in your fantasy world the reaction of a political system that elevated Andrew Bonar Law to the highest office, a man who could "imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/ulster_covenant)", would have quickly cut a deal to be rid of the bolshie Micks! You are either taking the piss or utterly clueless. Only you know which it is.
I think the IRB were ahead of the unionists, but that's not the main point of what I was saying. I agree that the British government traditionally caved in to unionist pressure, but there's no certainty that it would have continued to do so, particularly if the British were being impeded in their own parliament by the shinners. In more recent years, for example, the British have faced down unionism (e.g over the Anglo Irish Agreement) when it has been in their interests to do so. I'm not saying that Irish independence would have followed in 5 or 10 years, but I think it would have happened. Even if you're right, what would have been the worst case scenario? We would have reached the present day with Ireland still being part of the UK? So what would that have looked like? We would have had, at very least, a devolved Irish parliament in Dublin - Wales and Scotland have this, we wouldn't have been any different. So we would have been a united country, being governed from Dublin, without the bitterness that 90 years and many thousands of deaths have caused. We wouldn't have had partition, 50 years of unionist misrule, the RUC, B Specials, the Troubles. We wouldn't have had 2 separate states on the island turning their backs on each other, to the extent that many people in the south now regard 'Ireland' as something which stops at the border. We wouldn't have had all that and here we would be in 2013, with the nationalist population in the 6 counties now equal in numbers to their unionist counterparts, making any future partition of the island impossible. We could've called for a referendum, just as Scotland has done. Even in your worst case scenario, therefore, we would've been far closer to an independent, 32 county Ireland than we are now.
And what factors would have swayed unionists to a parliament in Dublin. (even in a United Kingdom context?)
They armed themselves an army against Home Rule did they not? I think you are being very one-eyed in your causes of partition....
/Jim
They did, and it worked for them on that occasion. That's not to say the same tactic would've succeeded in a different decade. The first Ulster Workers strike in the 70s achieved its objective and made the British government look ineffective, but when the trick was tried again in subsequent years it didn't work. Unionist anger over things like the Anglo Irish Agreement, Drumcree and the 'fleg' have been faced down and shown to be, ultimately, a lot of sound and fury and little else. The British government took the decision to go down the road of devolved government: had things been different, I think Ireland would've been the first to go down this road, but even if we'd had to wait until it was road tested in Wales and Scotland, we'd have got it. We'd have been a united country with our own (limited) parliament in Dublin, without the baggage of 90 years of separation and conflict. It's a smaller step from that scenario to full independence, than it is from where we are now, when reunification and independence is, realistically, a couple of generations away at best.
Quote from: CD on December 05, 2013, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: hardstation on December 05, 2013, 01:11:59 PM
How long after the events of 1916 did Ireland decide to hold dear the memory of our GPO heroes and why can we not use the same time frame, CD?
It's a myth that Irish Public Opinion was against the Rising from the start and that the subsequent treatment of the ringleaders coupled with British brutality led to a ground swell of support. Public sympathy for the goals of the 'rebels' was always there.
The same time frame can't be used because it's a different time.
I'd say that public opinion in Ireland in 1916 was no different to what prevails in the North currently. That is a majority would perceive themselves as broadly nationalist/republican but in practice would be very accepting of the status quo.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 07, 2013, 08:53:47 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 07, 2013, 01:20:15 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 06, 2013, 08:26:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 05, 2013, 10:35:21 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 05, 2013, 07:37:27 PM
I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. 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 w**kers 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. w**kers with a capital W.
This has to be the most ahistorical farrago of nonsense I have ever read in my life. Who was it that brought 'machismo' into Irish politics after decades of political planning had brought Irish nationalism to the cusp of having a trumped up county council to call our own within the Empire? It was Unionism, arming itself and spitting in the face of Westminster. The punishment for their treason was to be rewarded at every step by Westminster. Before the GFA, there was only one instance - the proroguing of Stormont, something that took place because Unionism wanted a Bloody Sunday on the streets of Northern Ireland every day of the week - of the British standing up to Unionism, and yet you say that they would have given Nationalism what it wanted to be rid of them? Remember, Ireland had a disproportionate number of seats in Westminster after the Act of Union. Sinn Féin won more seats than Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1918) despite getting less than a fifth of the votes (uncontested seats would account for some of the disparity, but not that much). It would have been a simple matter to have rectified this undemocratic anomaly by merging the Irish constituencies and neutering the power of Sinn Féin to control the mother of all Parliaments. Yet in your fantasy world the reaction of a political system that elevated Andrew Bonar Law to the highest office, a man who could "imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/ulster_covenant)", would have quickly cut a deal to be rid of the bolshie Micks! You are either taking the piss or utterly clueless. Only you know which it is.
I think the IRB were ahead of the unionists, but that's not the main point of what I was saying. I agree that the British government traditionally caved in to unionist pressure, but there's no certainty that it would have continued to do so, particularly if the British were being impeded in their own parliament by the shinners. In more recent years, for example, the British have faced down unionism (e.g over the Anglo Irish Agreement) when it has been in their interests to do so. I'm not saying that Irish independence would have followed in 5 or 10 years, but I think it would have happened. Even if you're right, what would have been the worst case scenario? We would have reached the present day with Ireland still being part of the UK? So what would that have looked like? We would have had, at very least, a devolved Irish parliament in Dublin - Wales and Scotland have this, we wouldn't have been any different. So we would have been a united country, being governed from Dublin, without the bitterness that 90 years and many thousands of deaths have caused. We wouldn't have had partition, 50 years of unionist misrule, the RUC, B Specials, the Troubles. We wouldn't have had 2 separate states on the island turning their backs on each other, to the extent that many people in the south now regard 'Ireland' as something which stops at the border. We wouldn't have had all that and here we would be in 2013, with the nationalist population in the 6 counties now equal in numbers to their unionist counterparts, making any future partition of the island impossible. We could've called for a referendum, just as Scotland has done. Even in your worst case scenario, therefore, we would've been far closer to an independent, 32 county Ireland than we are now.
And what factors would have swayed unionists to a parliament in Dublin. (even in a United Kingdom context?)
They armed themselves an army against Home Rule did they not? I think you are being very one-eyed in your causes of partition....
/Jim
They did, and it worked for them on that occasion. That's not to say the same tactic would've succeeded in a different decade. The first Ulster Workers strike in the 70s achieved its objective and made the British government look ineffective, but when the trick was tried again in subsequent years it didn't work. Unionist anger over things like the Anglo Irish Agreement, Drumcree and the 'fleg' have been faced down and shown to be, ultimately, a lot of sound and fury and little else. The British government took the decision to go down the road of devolved government: had things been different, I think Ireland would've been the first to go down this road, but even if we'd had to wait until it was road tested in Wales and Scotland, we'd have got it. We'd have been a united country with our own (limited) parliament in Dublin, without the baggage of 90 years of separation and conflict. It's a smaller step from that scenario to full independence, than it is from where we are now, when reunification and independence is, realistically, a couple of generations away at best.
Maybe so but no British government was going to face down unionists in 1918. So imagine if there had been no rising or subsequent support for Sinn Féin. Home Rule would likely have established a Dublin parliament and unionists would have exercised their opt out clause. Ulster unionist had longed played their card before the rising.
Without acknowledging that or explanation of how it would be reversed, I fail to follow your logic that 1916 and years after caused partition.
Would this change of outlook from creating an army to resisting a limited Dublin parliament and having democratic legislation overruled, have changed gradually or overnight?
Remember too that the toleration of an overtly armed force ready to resist democratic legislation was a significant factor in the events of the following decade. However that is an unwelcome observation if one wants to lay all blame at the door of one group.
/Jim
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 11:16:08 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 06, 2013, 07:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 05:20:03 PM
So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.
Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.
You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf
And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.
So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?
At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.
I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term
direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.
Has anybody addressed the question of why were these guys were so cavalier in their attitude to self preservation.
Let's do the craziest thing ever- drive through south Armagh in 1989 with no protection. FFs who sanctioned this within the RUC. Only surpassed by the 2 corporals driving into the republican funeral in west belfast.
And before the barrage of abuse starts this is a separate question to why did the lone guard collude etc
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on December 07, 2013, 10:25:10 AM
Has anybody addressed the question of why were these guys were so cavalier in their attitude to self preservation.
Let's do the craziest thing ever- drive through south Armagh in 1989 with no protection. FFs who sanctioned this within the RUC. Only surpassed by the 2 corporals driving into the republican funeral in west belfast.
And before the barrage of abuse starts this is a separate question to why did the lone guard collude etc
What do you mean by 'has anyone addressed' it?
And as these were two senior officers, I doubt anyone higher was sanctioning it - I may be wrong.
Didn't the two soldiers drive into that funeral by accident? No real comparison if so.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on December 07, 2013, 10:25:10 AM
Has anybody addressed the question of why were these guys were so cavalier in their attitude to self preservation.
Let's do the craziest thing ever- drive through south Armagh in 1989 with no protection. FFs who sanctioned this within the RUC. Only surpassed by the 2 corporals driving into the republican funeral in west belfast.
And before the barrage of abuse starts this is a separate question to why did the lone guard collude etc
I have no doubt that on many many occasions during the conflict police / army in civilian gear have driven through republican areas and returned unscathed.
To believe that these two policemen were the only two RUC men to have ever driven through south armagh without protection would be foolish to say the least. I am sure that similarily, IRA men have driven through loyalist areas across the north many times without harm coming to them.
The IRA assassinated RUC personal. The did so regularly, with bomb and bullet, anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
What's the big revelation here, that they might have received a tip off from one source inside the Garda station?
Apart from that detail, there's nothing new, this was a clean hit, a well executed ambush from an IRA perspective.
There's not going to be any sack cloth and ashes performance from Sinn Fein over this ambush, nor would I expect any.
There's a concerted effort to indulge in a post GFA criminalisation process, aimed directly at republican military actions.
Republicanism in the last 50 years was about civil protest, militarism, prison protest, more civil protest, negotiations, truce signed and political process. In all aspects of that, enough of a mandate was sought and achieved.
That's the picture of republicanism in the modern era, violence was one part.
Unless there's going to be a process which deals with all the violence of the the whole era, it's just a blatant indulgent exercise in hypocrisy, to focus on the military actions of republicans who were pitted against a fascist type statelet who conducted a concerted campaign of coercion against the minority community, with the combined forces of thugs with guns and uniform thugs with guns, along with the full weight, resources and backing of a parliament of some 60m people.
Quote from: hardstation on December 07, 2013, 12:19:54 PM
The two corporals didn't drive into a high profile Republican funeral in the middle of Andytown by accident ffs!
If I'm not mistaken, that's what was reported. If not, why did they come to be there?
Kevin Myers, as one would expect, was found wanting in every aspect to do with credibility and integrity that should befit a journalist.
And you seemed to draw a very clear distinction last week, Mr. Myers, that while you have an opinion, and you have written your opinion and voiced your opinion, you have no evidence whatsoever to offer the Chairman to suggest that there was collusion in relation to the Breen and Buchanan murders?
A. I have no evidence that would be of any interest to any court anywhere, as we understand the word 'evidence', yes.
Q. And certainly, your understanding of what is evidence excludes your opinion being relied upon to come to any conclusion?
A. That is a reasonable assessment, yes.
And I take it, you wouldn't want your fate or your reputation or your name damnified by a columnist's opinion without any evidence?
A. That is correct."
Myers' Acceptance that his article did not tell the truth in a fair and impartial manner
"Q. And do you think your article of March 2000 told the truth in fair and impartial manner?
A. No, I don't believe it did."
Conclusions on Mr Myers
1.340 It is submitted that by reason of the foregoing, in particular Mr Myers acceptance that his article did not tell the truth in a fair or impartial manner, that no reliance can be placed on the content of his article. Unfortunately, Mr. Myers blindly followed a story he wanted to believe.
Ok.. So im the provos..
Theres that cop off the telly heading into dundalk garda station quick fone a couple of the boys.
Are you sure its him? Yeah its him and another guy with him.. Be there in 10 mins.. Thats him getting into that red caveller.. Follow them.. Fuksake where are they going.. Theyre on their own.. Cant be.. Im tellin you theres not a thing on the road.. Pass him and put her across the road ive something here for him.. Bang bang
Lets get outta here..
No need for any garda mole
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: hardstation on December 07, 2013, 12:19:54 PM
The two corporals didn't drive into a high profile Republican funeral in the middle of Andytown by accident ffs!
If I'm not mistaken, that's what was reported. If not, why did they come to be there?
+1
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: hardstation on December 07, 2013, 12:19:54 PM
The two corporals didn't drive into a high profile Republican funeral in the middle of Andytown by accident ffs!
If I'm not mistaken, that's what was reported. If not, why did they come to be there?
There was a large republican funeral on...they were armed soldiers in plain clothes in an unmarked vehicle...yeah I wonder why they were there? Didn't they take a wrong turn coming out of the barracks? :o
QuoteI have no doubt that on many many occasions during the conflict police / army in civilian gear have driven through republican areas and returned unscathed.
Not, I would have thought, in their own cars.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 07, 2013, 03:08:28 PM
QuoteI have no doubt that on many many occasions during the conflict police / army in civilian gear have driven through republican areas and returned unscathed.
Not, I would have thought, in their own cars.
Unmarked police cars/ their own cars. What difference would that make?
Provos would have recognised police cars as easily as private ones!
QuoteUnmarked police cars/ their own cars. What difference would that make?
Provos would have recognised police cars as easily as private ones!
Basic common sense tells you not to drive around in a vehicle known to those who might shoot at you.
Obviously the two cops didn't know that their motor was known to others!
Sure you could compare it to Begley who walked along the Shankill Road.
He took a chance like the cops! He however was dubbed brave by the mates. They didn't state that he thought he was immune from being caught out!!!
Quote from: Gaffer on December 07, 2013, 05:03:22 PM
Obviously the two cops didn't know that their motor was known to others!
Sure you could compare it to Begley who walked along the Shankill Road.
He took a chance like the cops! He however was dubbed brave by the mates. They didn't state that he thought he was immune from being caught out!!!
Gerry said the RUC men were brave too.
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 10:29:38 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on December 07, 2013, 10:25:10 AM
Has anybody addressed the question of why were these guys were so cavalier in their attitude to self preservation.
Let's do the craziest thing ever- drive through south Armagh in 1989 with no protection. FFs who sanctioned this within the RUC. Only surpassed by the 2 corporals driving into the republican funeral in west belfast.
And before the barrage of abuse starts this is a separate question to why did the lone guard collude etc
What do you mean by 'has anyone addressed' it?
And as these were two senior officers, I doubt anyone higher was sanctioning it - I may be wrong.
Didn't the two soldiers drive into that funeral by accident? No real comparison if so.
Within the RUC, within the families , I mean they were asking for trouble and they got it. I would doubt they could just head down there without getting clearance further up the chain. Stupid in the extreme. If it was my Father I'd be asking questions of the RUC command.
By accident ! Sweet mother of feck, if it was it makes you wonder how the Brits ever ruled the waves or anywhere else for that matter.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on December 07, 2013, 07:36:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 10:29:38 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on December 07, 2013, 10:25:10 AM
Has anybody addressed the question of why were these guys were so cavalier in their attitude to self preservation.
Let's do the craziest thing ever- drive through south Armagh in 1989 with no protection. FFs who sanctioned this within the RUC. Only surpassed by the 2 corporals driving into the republican funeral in west belfast.
And before the barrage of abuse starts this is a separate question to why did the lone guard collude etc
What do you mean by 'has anyone addressed' it?
And as these were two senior officers, I doubt anyone higher was sanctioning it - I may be wrong.
Didn't the two soldiers drive into that funeral by accident? No real comparison if so.
Within the RUC, within the families , I mean they were asking for trouble and they got it. I would doubt they could just head down there without getting clearance further up the chain. Stupid in the extreme. If it was my Father I'd be asking questions of the RUC command.
By accident ! Sweet mother of feck, if it was it makes you wonder how the Brits ever ruled the waves or anywhere else for that matter.
You could apply that logic to any of the combatants who were killed during the troubles.
Eg. When it was clear there was an informant in east Tyrone in late 80s / early 90s the IRA still continued attacks and were caught out.
Surely they were asking for trouble and getting it.
The basic point is that if we can discuss on the an Internet forum whether they had a clue, then no complex collusion was needed for the IRA to become aware of what they were doing.
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 11:16:08 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 06, 2013, 07:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 05:20:03 PM
So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.
Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.
You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf
And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.
So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?
At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.
I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.
No shit, but as with other enquiries, eg. Saville, criminal trials could follow. My point being that after eight years, Smithwick couldn't find enough to hang a coat on never mind a criminal trial. Direct evidence is still evidence. What evidence of any kind did the report find to come to the conclusion that there was collusion? Sweet fcuk all. I'm not saying such a thing to argue there was no collusion. There could well have been, and frankly, there wasn't half enough collusion with the IRA and far too much with the RUC. My point is that the report
is contradictory and
is weak in convincing anybody that there was collusion. And as for criticism of Adams for not having read the whole report; do you think any TD who has commented on it, has read it all yet? Why single him out? Just because you don't like what he has to say?
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 10:29:38 AM
Didn't the two soldiers drive into that funeral by accident? No real comparison if so.
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: hardstation on December 07, 2013, 12:19:54 PM
The two corporals didn't drive into a high profile Republican funeral in the middle of Andytown by accident ffs!
If I'm not mistaken, that's what was reported. If not, why did they come to be there?
It was reported by Widgery that the Bloody Sunday murderers were shot at first. It was reported that the British Army victims of an IRA ambush in Cappagh were really killed in a traffic accident in Germany
("when you're shot up in Cappagh, it puzzles me, how you end up in a car crash in Germany"). It was reported that Aidan McAnespie was shot by accident. FFS I honestly never knew it was possible to be so gullible. Any wonder you back the stoops. You think the only way undercover british forces would be at an IRA funeral would be if they just took a wrong turn?! I suppose the MRF didn't really exist either? Probably just undercover british soldiers who just kept taking wrong turns and accidentally shooting dead unarmed civilians in West Belfast? Sure "why else did they come to be there" after all? ::)
What the fck is the argument here, I've missed it.
The IRA claim full responsibility for executing these RUC men. That's what the IRA did, they killed RUC members. Sinn Fein are quite aware and supportive of all what the IRA have admitted to. The IRA would regard this ambush with pride. A lot of work went into it and infinitely a more professional operation than Dan Breen managed to stumble across all those years ago, but ideologically stands side by side.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 07, 2013, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 11:16:08 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 06, 2013, 07:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 05:20:03 PM
So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.
Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.
You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf
And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.
So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?
At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.
I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.
No shit, but as with other enquiries, eg. Saville, criminal trials could follow. My point being that after eight years, Smithwick couldn't find enough to hang a coat on never mind a criminal trial. Direct evidence is still evidence. What evidence of any kind did the report find to come to the conclusion that there was collusion? Sweet fcuk all. I'm not saying such a thing to argue there was no collusion. There could well have been, and frankly, there wasn't half enough collusion with the IRA and far too much with the RUC. My point is that the report is contradictory and is weak in convincing anybody that there was collusion. And as for criticism of Adams for not having read the whole report; do you think any TD who has commented on it, has read it all yet? Why single him out? Just because you don't like what he has to say?
Adams is singled out because he
disagreed with the report despite not having read it. Smithwick spent eight years on the tribunal and report, yet Adams was able to disagree with it despite not having read it.
And the report may be 'weak' in terms of the burden of proof - you may even disagree that it points to collusion on the 'balance of probabilities - but it is
not contradictory. Again, I suggest you read the report to understand the distinction made between direct evidence and the basis for Smithwick's conclusion.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 07, 2013, 11:08:02 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 10:29:38 AM
Didn't the two soldiers drive into that funeral by accident? No real comparison if so.
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: hardstation on December 07, 2013, 12:19:54 PM
The two corporals didn't drive into a high profile Republican funeral in the middle of Andytown by accident ffs!
If I'm not mistaken, that's what was reported. If not, why did they come to be there?
It was reported by Widgery that the Bloody Sunday murderers were shot at first. It was reported that the British Army victims of an IRA ambush in Cappagh were really killed in a traffic accident in Germany ("when you're shot up in Cappagh, it puzzles me, how you end up in a car crash in Germany"). It was reported that Aidan McAnespie was shot by accident. FFS I honestly never knew it was possible to be so gullible. Any wonder you back the stoops. You think the only way undercover british forces would be at an IRA funeral would be if they just took a wrong turn?! I suppose the MRF didn't really exist either? Probably just undercover british soldiers who just kept taking wrong turns and accidentally shooting dead unarmed civilians in West Belfast? Sure "why else did they come to be there" after all? ::)
My recollection of that event was the car driving towards the funeral cortege and then trying to reverse out. If my understanding of it is incorrect, then fair enough.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 07, 2013, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 11:16:08 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 06, 2013, 07:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 05:20:03 PM
So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.
Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.
You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf
And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.
So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?
At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.
I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.
No shit, but as with other enquiries, eg. Saville, criminal trials could follow. My point being that after eight years, Smithwick couldn't find enough to hang a coat on never mind a criminal trial. Direct evidence is still evidence. What evidence of any kind did the report find to come to the conclusion that there was collusion? Sweet fcuk all. I'm not saying such a thing to argue there was no collusion. There could well have been, and frankly, there wasn't half enough collusion with the IRA and far too much with the RUC. My point is that the report is contradictory and is weak in convincing anybody that there was collusion. And as for criticism of Adams for not having read the whole report; do you think any TD who has commented on it, has read it all yet? Why single him out? Just because you don't like what he has to say?
The IRA unit which carried out the murders took over a disused house 10 minutes after the police officers arrived at Dundalk police station. According to the IRA's version of what happened, therefore, this was enough time for the guy watching the police station to phone the through the news, and for someone else at the other end to organise the death squad and get them out to the location. That's quick work. A more realistic scenario is that preparations started when the police officers arranged the meeting by phone that morning, when both the guards suspected of being republican informers were on duty.
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 08, 2013, 10:27:22 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 07, 2013, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 11:16:08 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 06, 2013, 07:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 05:20:03 PM
So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.
Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.
You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf
And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.
So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?
At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.
I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.
No shit, but as with other enquiries, eg. Saville, criminal trials could follow. My point being that after eight years, Smithwick couldn't find enough to hang a coat on never mind a criminal trial. Direct evidence is still evidence. What evidence of any kind did the report find to come to the conclusion that there was collusion? Sweet fcuk all. I'm not saying such a thing to argue there was no collusion. There could well have been, and frankly, there wasn't half enough collusion with the IRA and far too much with the RUC. My point is that the report is contradictory and is weak in convincing anybody that there was collusion. And as for criticism of Adams for not having read the whole report; do you think any TD who has commented on it, has read it all yet? Why single him out? Just because you don't like what he has to say?
Adams is singled out because he disagreed with the report despite not having read it. Smithwick spent eight years on the tribunal and report, yet Adams was able to disagree with it despite not having read it.
And the report may be 'weak' in terms of the burden of proof - you may even disagree that it points to collusion on the 'balance of probabilities - but it is not contradictory. Again, I suggest you read the report to understand the distinction made between direct evidence and the basis for Smithwick's conclusion.
You've read it yourself, Maguire?
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 08, 2013, 08:00:05 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 08, 2013, 10:27:22 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 07, 2013, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2013, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 11:16:08 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 06, 2013, 07:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 06, 2013, 05:20:03 PM
So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.
Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.
You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf
And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.
So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?
At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.
I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.
No shit, but as with other enquiries, eg. Saville, criminal trials could follow. My point being that after eight years, Smithwick couldn't find enough to hang a coat on never mind a criminal trial. Direct evidence is still evidence. What evidence of any kind did the report find to come to the conclusion that there was collusion? Sweet fcuk all. I'm not saying such a thing to argue there was no collusion. There could well have been, and frankly, there wasn't half enough collusion with the IRA and far too much with the RUC. My point is that the report is contradictory and is weak in convincing anybody that there was collusion. And as for criticism of Adams for not having read the whole report; do you think any TD who has commented on it, has read it all yet? Why single him out? Just because you don't like what he has to say?
Adams is singled out because he disagreed with the report despite not having read it. Smithwick spent eight years on the tribunal and report, yet Adams was able to disagree with it despite not having read it.
And the report may be 'weak' in terms of the burden of proof - you may even disagree that it points to collusion on the 'balance of probabilities - but it is not contradictory. Again, I suggest you read the report to understand the distinction made between direct evidence and the basis for Smithwick's conclusion.
You've read it yourself, Maguire?
No, just a quick read at the conclusion.