Is this letter not libellous?

[lynchbhoy]

No problem? At all?

Right through Enniskillen?
Omagh?
Jean McConville?
The corporals killings?

The list is endless.

Fenianism and Republicanism are one thing - terrorism is another altogether - and if you can see "honour" in any of the above, it is a sad indication.

Membership of an organisation which has planned and carried out, and then protected people who committed acts like this should most certainly be a matter of disrepute.

I dont think anyone on the side of republicanism would say that the whole campaign was without fault.
your examples above generally are just that. mistakes. Though I dont think you can make the usual unionist/loyalist mistake of lamping in omagh as a mistake by the IRA. That wasnt their operation.
This is an example of how people spin things alright though.

Yes, but considering the conversation seems to have moved on to the 'republican' campaign in general (rather than just the Gerry Adams letter), and given the quote from MS below, there's no reason why Omagh shouldn't be added to that list.

nope - omagh was not the IRA

[lynchbhoy]

by the way - Tony, to answer your original post

while this is libel - no court in the world would find in favour of adams because of the poliitcal situation and prejudicial accusations/comments etc thats out there about him etc

also I dont think that Adams would or could spend the time , money  to be bothered defending himself from this and a myriad of other similar daft snipes.
Esp as he is now in the middle of a family crisis.
Anyhow I saw the pepers at the weekend spouting that his position as SF president/leader is untenable.
I'd agree - but for the reasons that he is not a politically astute politician in the mould of modern day economics driven politics.
A fantastic politician in the bad old six counties who helped destroy the apartheid system in situ, his day - like that apartheid - is over.

[Hardy]

Hardy is correct in his observations

What observations? I didn't know I'd made any.

[orangeman]

Did the end justify the means ?


Well that's an entrirely different question.



The answer - again it depends on what side of the fence you're on and whose side you're on now.


Speaking to senior republicans, they would argue that of course the end justified the means. That all the killings, the maimings, the bombings, the mayhem, the mistakes etc had to happen in order to bring the Brits to a position where they had to negotiate with SF.


But then speak to people who were caught in the front line, who lost a family member under usually horrendous circumstances and ask them was it worth it, consdiering where we are at now and considering where the republican movement were back in the day, there's a chance they'll say no, that the end didn't justify the means.

Speak to other people who are disillusioed, you might get a no as well.



It was a dirty war - all wars are inherently dirty, nasty affairs.This one was no different with the dirt being dished by everybody.

[lynchbhoy]

Hardy is correct in his observations

What observations? I didn't know I'd made any.

ok -
comments

which are no doubt as a result of your long time 'observations' !

[Maguire01]

No problem? At all?

Right through Enniskillen?
Omagh?
Jean McConville?
The corporals killings?

The list is endless.

Fenianism and Republicanism are one thing - terrorism is another altogether - and if you can see "honour" in any of the above, it is a sad indication.

Membership of an organisation which has planned and carried out, and then protected people who committed acts like this should most certainly be a matter of disrepute.

I dont think anyone on the side of republicanism would say that the whole campaign was without fault.
your examples above generally are just that. mistakes. Though I dont think you can make the usual unionist/loyalist mistake of lamping in omagh as a mistake by the IRA. That wasnt their operation.
This is an example of how people spin things alright though.

Yes, but considering the conversation seems to have moved on to the 'republican' campaign in general (rather than just the Gerry Adams letter), and given the quote from MS below, there's no reason why Omagh shouldn't be added to that list.

nope - omagh was not the IRA

Nice editing. Why did you cut the rest out? Did I say Omagh was the IRA?
Just to reinsert my quote:

I certainly have no problem with the honourable tradition of Fenianism and Republicanism, right through to the recent times.

Now, when did the "recent times" of the honourable tradition of Republicanism end? What was the last honourable event?

[Hardy]

Hardy is correct in his observations

What observations? I didn't know I'd made any.

ok -
comments

which are no doubt as a result of your long time 'observations' !

I didn't make any comments either! I just asked a question.

[Main Street]

I struggle to comprehend that last reply in the slightest.

Why not just infer?

[Main Street]

No problem? At all?

Right through Enniskillen?
Omagh?
Jean McConville?
The corporals killings?

The list is endless.

Fenianism and Republicanism are one thing - terrorism is another altogether - and if you can see "honour" in any of the above, it is a sad indication.

Membership of an organisation which has planned and carried out, and then protected people who committed acts like this should most certainly be a matter of disrepute.

I dont think anyone on the side of republicanism would say that the whole campaign was without fault.
your examples above generally are just that. mistakes. Though I dont think you can make the usual unionist/loyalist mistake of lamping in omagh as a mistake by the IRA. That wasnt their operation.
This is an example of how people spin things alright though.

Yes, but considering the conversation seems to have moved on to the 'republican' campaign in general (rather than just the Gerry Adams letter), and given the quote from MS below, there's no reason why Omagh shouldn't be added to that list.

I certainly have no problem with the honourable tradition of Fenianism and Republicanism, right through to the recent times.

Also, as for the examples (and there are plenty more i'm sure) being mistakes, were they worth it? Has the end justified the means?

The starting point is to have some understanding of the tradition of Republicanism as it has gone through the various shapes and form, say since the time of the Fenians and if you understand or accept the term 'honourable' in the Republican tradition.
No amount of dishonourable/badly planned operations/actions by idiots, that have happened take away from the honour in the tradition.
Some people have either a particularly blinkered/romantic view of how the 1916 rising was conducted /how the War of Independence was conducted or just don't agree with the republicanism ideal.

It appears that every splinter republican group wants to claim to be the pure inheritors of the Republican ideal. But the evidence is that the ideal has evolved with every passing decade. Even in the 3 decades of the last conflict, it evolved and to the point of suing for a peace agreement, which after 10 years by most observations they have been proved sincere to the terms of the agreement (arguably more sincere).

For my interpretation of the Republican tradition, one that I am proud of, there was enough republican honour at the core of the latest campaign as evidenced for example by the jailed republicans on the Hunger Strikes. That sense of honourable republicanism was at the core of the campaign.

If Gerry Adams was all people say he was, then as I stated, he would have been the modern equivalent of Michael Collins.
He has nothing to apologise for being a republican, it is a proud and noble tradition.

[lynchbhoy]

No problem? At all?

Right through Enniskillen?
Omagh?
Jean McConville?
The corporals killings?

The list is endless.

Fenianism and Republicanism are one thing - terrorism is another altogether - and if you can see "honour" in any of the above, it is a sad indication.

Membership of an organisation which has planned and carried out, and then protected people who committed acts like this should most certainly be a matter of disrepute.

I dont think anyone on the side of republicanism would say that the whole campaign was without fault.
your examples above generally are just that. mistakes. Though I dont think you can make the usual unionist/loyalist mistake of lamping in omagh as a mistake by the IRA. That wasnt their operation.
This is an example of how people spin things alright though.

Yes, but considering the conversation seems to have moved on to the 'republican' campaign in general (rather than just the Gerry Adams letter), and given the quote from MS below, there's no reason why Omagh shouldn't be added to that list.

nope - omagh was not the IRA

Nice editing. Why did you cut the rest out? Did I say Omagh was the IRA?
Just to reinsert my quote:

I certainly have no problem with the honourable tradition of Fenianism and Republicanism, right through to the recent times.

Now, when did the "recent times" of the honourable tradition of Republicanism end? What was the last honourable event?

your 'last comment'  is nothing to do with the IRA - also for omagh - which is what was being inferred/implied etc.
so both are somewhat irrelevent- though it still stands as a terrible and atrocious event.

[lynchbhoy]

Hardy is correct in his observations

What observations? I didn't know I'd made any.

ok -
comments

which are no doubt as a result of your long time 'observations' !

I didn't make any comments either! I just asked a question.

Pints - in what way was Eniskillen or Omagh "fighting back"?"?

a question disguising a comment given the past conversations on the board Hardy...ok yer being pedantic so fine ...
a question is what it is.
but I think no answer can be given without looking at the entire picture- causes and retaliation.
No event of violence or killing from either side - the initial attacks or the retaliation were in any way a good thing.

I dont think anyone would have applauded enniskillen as a positive thing for the IRA or republicanism.
Omagh- as I have pointed out was not an IRA undertaking.
Neither were helpful to furthering the republican cause. Also sickening is the fact that both could have been easily stopped by crown forces given their prior knowledge of them. However both are still the responsibility of the IRA then the dissidents that carried them out.

But - these are the couple of high profile events that are a small part of decades of abuse, oppresion, systematic apartheid and violence that made up the fantastic six counties recent history.
Lest we forget- but are just delighted this is now all over with.

[Maguire01]

No problem? At all?

Right through Enniskillen?
Omagh?
Jean McConville?
The corporals killings?

The list is endless.

Fenianism and Republicanism are one thing - terrorism is another altogether - and if you can see "honour" in any of the above, it is a sad indication.

Membership of an organisation which has planned and carried out, and then protected people who committed acts like this should most certainly be a matter of disrepute.

I dont think anyone on the side of republicanism would say that the whole campaign was without fault.
your examples above generally are just that. mistakes. Though I dont think you can make the usual unionist/loyalist mistake of lamping in omagh as a mistake by the IRA. That wasnt their operation.
This is an example of how people spin things alright though.

Yes, but considering the conversation seems to have moved on to the 'republican' campaign in general (rather than just the Gerry Adams letter), and given the quote from MS below, there's no reason why Omagh shouldn't be added to that list.

nope - omagh was not the IRA

Nice editing. Why did you cut the rest out? Did I say Omagh was the IRA?
Just to reinsert my quote:

I certainly have no problem with the honourable tradition of Fenianism and Republicanism, right through to the recent times.

Now, when did the "recent times" of the honourable tradition of Republicanism end? What was the last honourable event?

your 'last comment'  is nothing to do with the IRA - also for omagh - which is what was being inferred/implied etc.
so both are somewhat irrelevent- though it still stands as a terrible and atrocious event.

How has my last comment got nothing to do with the IRA? I was asking MS what the last honourable Republican event was; which PIRA event, if you'd prefer.
Omagh might not have been the PIRA, but it was carried out by Republicans - MS was talking about the honourable tradition of Republicanism, not just the PIRA.

[Puckoon]

Main Street - If Gerry Adams is responsible for all that is suggested, then he is responsible for some serious atrocities.

Lynchboy - the people who bombed omagh are being protected by the IRA. Thats IRA involvement and is neither honourable nor respectable.

[pintsofguinness]

Main Street - If Gerry Adams is responsible for all that is suggested, then he is responsible for some serious atrocities.

Lynchboy - the people who bombed omagh are being protected by the IRA. Thats IRA involvement and is neither honourable nor respectable.

There's really no talking to someone who comes out with a statement like that.  That's actually funny.  I suppose your source is the Sunday World?


What I don't understand is that some of you boys would criticise and condem the IRA but you think Connolly, Pearce, Brugha, Collins, Tom Breen, Mandela and his crew etc etc were great men that never killed or targeted civilians, never killed informers or shot unarmed men in front of their family. 

Some of you need to come down out of the ivory towers and have a think, maybe cut out the hateful Irish trait of self loathing and yous might see what hypocrites you are.

[Puckoon]

Main Street - If Gerry Adams is responsible for all that is suggested, then he is responsible for some serious atrocities.

Lynchboy - the people who bombed omagh are being protected by the IRA. Thats IRA involvement and is neither honourable nor respectable.

There's really no talking to someone who comes out with a statement like that.  That's actually funny.  I suppose your source is the Sunday World?


What I don't understand is that some of you boys would criticise and condem the IRA but you think Connolly, Pearce, Brugha, Collins, Tom Breen, Mandela and his crew etc etc were great men that never killed or targeted civilians, never killed informers or shot unarmed men in front of their family. 

Some of you need to come down out of the ivory towers and have a think, maybe cut out the hateful Irish trait of self loathing and yous might see what hypocrites you are.

Thats downright laughable in itself. Good man pints.

You think the head boys who were in the IRA dont know who bombed omagh?

Anyone who knows anything about who planted that bomb should have reported it. All the name calling and insulting from you wont change my opinion on that.

No self loathing here, just a loathing for violence and all who supported it. How does that make me a hypocrite? Never much raised the issue of any of those men you mentioned being great men either - so understand that before you go throwing labels around.