Gerry Adams on The Dunphy Show

Capt'n Midnight

Two words spring to mind - Empty Retoric
or the art of "speaking without promising anything definite"

Of the other parties only Alan Dukes would get close when it comes to worming out of questions.

Two other words "Proxy bomb"

A lot depends on your view and the reality of the links and influences between politians and "the men of violence" (on both sides) Can the politicians get any more concessions from them or is that only a rouse to get support on the basis they are trying...

PS. Dunphy is a "hack for hire" and got off a life time driving ban due to a technicallity, so I have no respect for his integrity or moral.

sorrento

Originally posted by hallelujajordan
Have you any idea whats going on, on the streets of Belfast . . .

That sounds like the starting line of a melodramatic U2 "troubles" song.

Lighten up...

Villain

Originally posted by hallelujajordan

. . .Does Gerry Adams think it is acceptable for elected SF TD's to have a group photo taken with the murderers of Garda McCabe ?

. . .Does Gerry Adams have any comments on the Colombia Three . . . why were they there, what were they doing ?

. . .Does Gerry Adams have any comments on the IRA's inability to identify the location where Columba McVeigh was buried ?

. . .Will Gerry Adams condemn the daily punishment beatings that are going on in NI . .

Firstly I don't think Gerry has all those answers, secondly I don't think anwering the ones he does know would solve anything. Infact it may create issues.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by irish1
Firstly I don't think Gerry has all those answers, secondly I don't think anwering the ones he does know would solve anything. Infact it may create issues.

Well, I hope it would create "issues". It might even solve even solve some "issues" as well.

Interviewer: Did you order the murder of Jean McConville?
G.A.: Firstly I don't think I have all the answers. Secondly I don't think anwering would solve anything. In fact, it may create issues.
Interviewer: Well, okay then, that sounds good enough to me, I won't bother you any more about the torture and murder of Jean McConville, mother of ten children.

sorrento

This makes about as much sense as the above...


Interviewer: Did you order the murder of Jean McConville?

Gerry Adams.: Ach sure, no, I did not. It was that wee fecker Reefbreak who did, I tried to stop him but he overpowered me with his amazing powers of logic and reasoning...

qwertyphobia

Originally posted by Cork
I think SF spokepeople usually offer quiet similar responses. I think that SF/IRA needs to dis-arm. There is certainly no room for private armies in this country.

He also needed to be asked on locating bodys of the disappeared. I think the media need to focus in on SF and start asking more than soft focus questions.

Gerry adams and SF at this time can only go sofar in what they can/can't say, like no other party they have a huge weight of history bearing down on them.

The hard question have been asked and answered as much as they will be untill the next big move forward in the northern situation.

This is an intergral part of the peace process. we could have got an agreement 20 years ago between the moderates and it would have been worth nothing. Peace process only work if you have the guys who did the bombs and the killings and the dissappeared in the heart of the process.

So ask yourself whats more important a final end to this conflict or hearing certain words from gerry adams lips?

One thing that i think does come across in interviews with gerry adams is his genuine wish to resolve the situation in Northern Ireland (but it is niave to think all he has to do is say the word, he is dragging along the provos behind him with every step he takes)

when i see the likes of trimble or really any of the UUP or DUP being interviewed I get the sense off them that they would preferr to sit in this stalemate forever rather then give an inch

Villain

Originally posted by sorrento
This makes about as much sense as the above...


Interviewer: Did you order the murder of Jean McConville?

Gerry Adams.: Ach sure, no, I did not. It was that wee fecker Reefbreak who did, I tried to stop him but he overpowered me with his amazing powers of logic and reasoning...

LOL

Joke as you will I stick by post

Originally posted by Irish1

Firstly I don't think Gerry has all those answers, secondly I don't think anwering the ones he does know would solve anything. Infact it may create issues.

mike65

I just mention this en passant but the only journalist/presenter I've heard interview Adams in a clear concise robust fashion
is er.....Pat Kenny.

Mike.

gurramok

Have you any idea whats going on, on the streets of Belfast . . . do you really think that a TD driving over the limit and knocking someone down is comparable ? ? ?

Most violence that happens up there is loyalist orchestrated.

Anyway, Belfast issues do not figure highly on daily lives of dubliners, they are more likely to be mugged or knifed or hit by drink driving TD's than getting hit by ira.

Jake303

I think for Gerry Adams and indeed all Shinners its a case of damned if you do damned if you dont at the moment!

If it wasnt for Adams/McGuinness there would be no piece process, simple as that, but Il be damned if youll ever hear about the lives that have been saved by the Good Friday Agreement!
Indeed they still spend much of their time keeping the hardliners within the IRA who are still very sceptical about the whole process but are just about staying onside from switching to the Real IRA or Continuity which would be a disaster!

To "own up" to past deeds now would be the end of the piece process as the rejectionist unionists, which by the way are now the vast majority within unionism, would bring the whole process to a complete halt and god knows where that would end.

As much as Gerry Adams grandstands people on this forum seem to do the same!

The Beer Baron

Jake- first and foremost- learn the difference between peace and piece.

Indeed they still spend much of their time keeping the hardliners within the IRA who are still very sceptical about the whole process but are just about staying onside from switching to the Real IRA or Continuity which would be a disaster!

I find myself wondering if he has any clout with them at all, certainly not with splinter factions, does he even have any with the (old skool) IRA?

I also wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of "decommissioned" munitions weren't just moved across the border and buried in the fields of sympathetic farmers.

As much as Gerry Adams grandstands people on this forum seem to do the same!

hehe- of course we do.
I mean, it does say politics right at the top now doesn't it?

monument

Originally posted by Cork
I think SF spokepeople usually offer quiet similar responses. I think that SF/IRA needs to dis-arm. There is certainly no room for private armies in this country.

The IRA was doing so vie an independent disarming body. But others were not.

Your statement is very one sided they are other private armies in the north. Did you forget about them or even know about them to start with?

monument

I’m really concerned about view of some of the posters. It’s sad to see some people not really care about what happens a few hours away. This attitude can be somewhat compared to people in the U.S. not caring about what happens around the world. Only considering what effects the here and now is a large part of what is wrong with politics, business and society in general.

In my view SF might not be the ideal party to be in power, however they are the one of the least corrupt and I’d think that the streets of Dublin would be a lot safer if they were.

NI is a big issue for any Irish government, the only really difference is that SF would care and highlight it more, however to even point at the possibility of them neglecting the south is unfounded and silly.

And just to make things clear – I’m not a ranting fool who thinks the north should become apart of the Irish Republic over night or even with in a year or two from now (it’d cause more problems then it would resolve). (</START RANT>However in the long run, even to say 20 - 50 years plus (with a lot of work) having “a united Ireland” could be good for both sides, but maybe it is not the way to go? <END RANT\>)

At the end of the day what is needed in the north is an end to hostilities on all sides, for the NI government to be re-established and (even thought how hard this will be) for the past to be left where it belongs.

The Beer Baron

Your statement is very one sided they are other private armies in the north. Did you forget about them or even know about them to start with?

It's one sided because we're discussing Adams, Sinn Féin and I was questioning his influence on the IRA and other Republican armies. Regarding the issue of disarming, I realise that the Loyalist side have been less than cooperative.

So if by other "private armies" you mean Loyalist Paramilitaries then it's hardly worth mentioning them considering both the nature of my post and the discussion is about Dunphy & Adams.

I'm not an expert on Northern Ireland of course but then again I never claimed to be. However when you try to paint someone else with the ignorance brush, you'll destroy any credibility you might have. None the less I'm certain you feel quite smart and empowered after that little outburst.

Time to settle down.

monument

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
It's one sided because we're discussing Adams, Sinn Féin and I was questioning his influence on the IRA and other Republican armies. Regarding the issue of disarming, I realise that the Loyalist side have been less than cooperative.

So if by other "private armies" you mean Loyalist Paramilitaries then it's hardly worth mentioning them considering both the nature of my post and the discussion is about Dunphy & Adams.

I'm not an expert on Northern Ireland of course but then again I never claimed to be. However when you try to paint someone else with the ignorance brush, you'll destroy any credibility you might have. None the less I'm certain you feel quite smart and empowered after that little outburst.

Time to settle down.

"then it's hardly worth mentioning"

There is no point talking about one side if you are not going to talk about the other. Doing so is unfair, biased and one-sided.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d think that would be common sense.

Also I don't recall any outburst on my part.

EDIT: Maybe the way I wrote my reply to Cork’s post could be interpreted as an outburst. I apologise if it came out that way, I was only trying to point out it is not just a simple case of the IRA disarming.

The Beer Baron

never mind sorry

bonkey

Originally posted by monument
There is no point talking about one side if you are not going to talk about the other. Doing so is unfair, biased and one-sided.

So, what you're saynig is that it would be unfair of Dunphy to have asked Adams questions that pertained to Sinn Fein and the IRA, without also asking him to comment on other political groups and paramilitary organisations which is in no way connected to?

What, exactly, would be the "common sense" of this? Do terrorists become less terroristic in nature when they can say "but the other side are doing it too" or something?

jc

monument

Originally posted by bonkey
So, what you're saynig is that it would be unfair of Dunphy to have asked Adams questions that pertained to Sinn Fein and the IRA, without also asking him to comment on other political groups and paramilitary organisations which is in no way connected to?

No it would not be unfair to ask such. But it is unfair to as such with out somewhat pointing out that there is another side. But then that would be unfair because their would be nobody from the other side to give their view. So in the context of the interview I think Dunphy was right not asking such questions.

Originally posted by bonkey
What, exactly, would be the "common sense" of this? Do terrorists become less terroristic in nature when they can say "but the other side are doing it too" or something?

I was trying to say that it would be common sense to not only point at any one side.

Also on the subject of terrorist, I would never condone any act of violence against any human or animal (unless in defence of your self or others) by a state, “private army”, group or just an individual.

bonkey

Originally posted by monument
So in the context of the interview I think Dunphy was right not asking such questions.

OK, but you're criticising someone here for not bringing up the same issues when discussing the interview. If it was ok for the interview to avoid such issues as not being pertinent, why is it not ok for us to do likewise here?

Indeed, why is it "unfair, biased and one-sided" for us to discuss things - as you perceive it - one-sidedly, but "right" for Dunphy? Surely, as a national broadcaster, he should be more wrong than us, not less so?

I was trying to say that it would be common sense to not only point at any one side.

So, Dunphy was right, but lacking in common sense?

And why is it common sense?

People are aware that there is another side. I think it is actually somewhat insulting to reader's intelligence to suggest that no in-any-way-focussed topic should be discussed if it is only discussing one side as it might mislead people to think it was a one-sided issue.

So, for example, your logic would say that if we wanted to discuss the demographics of those killed by the IRA, common sense would dictate that we would have to also discuss the demographics of those killed by all other groups. Why? relevance do they have to the subject?demographics of who the IRA killed?

Similarly, if we are discussing Gerry Adams and his appearance on the Eamonn Dunpohy show, what possible relevance do other organisations have to that?

As a matter of interest, if someone was slating the loyalist organisations here, would you be insisting they tar the equivalent republican movements with the same brush as well?

jc

Hobart

Firstly Adams was on the Show to promote his book. Not to talk about the Past/Present or Future of the struggle in the North. Secondly most of the educated viewing public are bored to **** lintening to what SFs' views on the Past/Present and Future of this country should be, imo.

Dunphy was obviously briefed before hand on what the prime subject matter should be, and he stuck to it. IMHO it was a boring interview, hardly worthy of comment, but as always when SF are mentioned we get the usual silly reactionary comments like "what about the 800 innonicent civilians" and "They should have condemmed this" et-al.

The fact of the matter is that everytime we open a topic on the US we don't find it necessary to talk about the illegal murder and slaughter they conducted under the auspices of "freedom" or for that matter thier co-horts in the UK. Why o why does any discussion on Sinn Fein always deteriorate into a complete nonsense of mis-informed and inaccurate statements such as "Yeah Gerry Adams can talk the talk, and if talk doesnt suffice to get his way then hell call the boys back off cease fire until youre ready to talk again" and "Adams and Co., never get asked hard questions, and yet the media are out to get all the FF TD's" I mean FFS.

Can somebody tell me of what benefit it would be to the family of any murdered person if Gerry Adams came out and condemmed the atrocity? Seriously? He's dammed if he does and he's dammed if he does not. This idea of condemnation is a complete mis-nomer and is actually laughable if one thinks about it clearly.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobart

Originally posted by daveirl
What do you think the book is about? Fashion in 1970s UlsterIt's about the North so I'd imagine questions related to the North were pretty much on topic. It would be like interviewing Roy Keane about his book and saying Saipan was off-topic!?

Well you have obviously read it. So you tell me. Actually having watched the interview I was under the (mis)guided impression it was about the Peace Process. Not about the NI. Try to remember that the peace process was instigated through Dublin and London and not the "North" as you call it.

Originally posted by daveirl
Shows full commitment to the democratic process.

How? What has it got to do with the democratic process?

Shows regret for the incident.

Did you not read what I said? I did not ask what it would mean. I asked what good would it do for the victims?

Shows that the IRA/SF are willing to accept murder is wrong.

Really? All because they say they regret an incident. Lol.

Do you want me to go on.

No, i would just like you to answer the original question and not some made up question in your head.

There are many many benefits,

To whom? And what are they, if there are so many of them?

the only bad thing that can come out of it is that grassroots IRA get pissed off with Adams, which frankly I don't care about.

And you know this beacuse.....?

The victims are more important to me.

Now you are flamming. As I have said re-read what I actually said

Adams looks for condemnation of Catholic murders does he not?

Do we not all?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobart

Originally posted by daveirl
And the peace process occured and concerned what area of Ireland?

All of it. Now why don't you get back on the Subject and answer the questions I originally posted and stop avoiding the issue.

gurramok

You might be right though, if Martin Ferris was in charge crime probably would go down, since he has a good knowledge of vigilante justice, he could replace the Gardaí with one of his gangs of Thugs from Kerry

I wouldn't mind some of those thugs as you call it sort out the scumbags that live near me, gardai hardly exist here. Thats how desperate the crime situation is. What happens down here in Dublin/ROI is of more concern than what has happened in Belfast as of priority.

The victims are more important to me. Adams looks for condemnation of Catholic murders does he not?

Funnily enough, condemnation of murders by catholics was not forthcoming from the big majority of unionist politicans nor UK gov. until the start of the 90's.
Part of the reason i read before as to why Adams dont condemn certain incidents is because there has been no condemnation by the 'other side' of killings by security forces.

monument

Originally posted by bonkey
OK, but you're criticising someone here for not bringing up the same issues when discussing the interview. If it was ok for the interview to avoid such issues as not being pertinent, why is it not ok for us to do likewise here?

Indeed, why is it "unfair, biased and one-sided" for us to discuss things - as you perceive it - one-sidedly, but "right" for Dunphy? Surely, as a national broadcaster, he should be more wrong than us, not less so?

Sorry about that – when I said “such questions” I intended to say questions about decommissioning arms. As in it is wrong to bring up decommissioning without bring up both sides.

Originally posted by bonkey
And why is it common sense?

Again my deepest apologies - I was a bit native when I thought it would be common sense. It’s more of a journalistic sense then a common one. You cannot presume that everyone knows both sides of any story.

That’s why I pointed the other side out.

Originally posted by bonkey
People are aware that there is another side. I think it is actually somewhat insulting to reader's intelligence to suggest that no in-any-way-focussed topic should be discussed if it is only discussing one side as it might mislead people to think it was a one-sided issue.

Answered above ^^

Originally posted by bonkey
So, for example, your logic would say that if we wanted to discuss the demographics of those killed by the IRA, common sense would dictate that we would have to also discuss the demographics of those killed by all other groups. Why? relevance do they have to the subject?demographics of who the IRA killed?

So, say if we were taking about how many people side A killed, we do not talk about how many B killed?

Originally posted by bonkey
Similarly, if we are discussing Gerry Adams and his appearance on the Eamonn Dunpohy show, what possible relevance do other organisations have to that?

The interview was about his book - My reply about “other sides” was to a post on decommissioning which in my view (as I have said above) brings in other organisations.

Originally posted by bonkey
As a matter of interest, if someone was slating the loyalist organisations here, would you be insisting they tar the equivalent republican movements with the same brush as well?

To be very honest about three years ago (maybe even less) I would have replied with a load of bs. However, I have grown up a bit since then and have developed my own views on the matter…

So if each were doing the same thing yes very much so. If not it should be still pointed out what wrong any side are doing in any conflict. In other words both sides of a story; this is what I was trying to do when I replied to Cork’s post.

Originally posted by daveirl
That's way off. I'd much prefer corruption in the way of FF than in the SF way of smuggling, gun running, punishment shootings, drug dealing. Jesus FF don't compare. Both are crooks but I don't think you can nail too many murders on FF. Get a grip on reality. You might be right though, if Martin Ferris was in charge crime probably would go down, since he has a good knowledge of vigilante justice, he could replace the Gardaí with one of his gangs of Thugs from Kerry.

I currently wouldn’t like see them in power in the south. Maybe more power then they currently have but not the kind of power FF/PD have. Nobody should (As things going wrong and corruption comes easily within a government system with little accountable or visibility – but that’s really another subject).

Changing one type of thug to another? My comments on that paragraph of that post (as well as the last line) were more me been cheeky then anything [sorry ].

Originally posted by daveirl
Shows full commitment to the democratic process. Shows regret for the incident. Shows that the IRA/SF are willing to accept murder is wrong. Do you want me to go on. There are many many benefits, the only bad thing that can come out of it is that grassroots IRA get pissed off with Adams, which frankly I don't care about. The victims are more important to me. Adams looks for condemnation of Catholic murders does he not?

Dam right, I totally agree.


Edited: fixed the end of the quote code from "[/B][/QUOTE" to "[/B][/QUOTE]".

Hobart

Originally posted by daveirl
That's way off. I'd much prefer corruption in the way of FF than in the SF way of smuggling, gun running, punishment shootings, drug dealing. Jesus FF don't compare. Both are crooks but I don't think you can nail too many murders on FF. Get a grip on reality. You might be right though, if Martin Ferris was in charge crime probably would go down, since he has a good knowledge of vigilante justice, he could replace the Gardaí with one of his gangs of Thugs from Kerry.

And BTW brush up on your recent history FF and Gun Running run arm in arm. Ever hear of Charlie Haughey??

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl
That's way off. I'd much prefer corruption in the way of FF than in the SF way of smuggling, gun running, punishment shootings, drug dealing. Jesus FF don't compare. Both are crooks but I don't think you can nail too many murders on FF. Get a grip on reality. You might be right though, if Martin Ferris was in charge crime probably would go down, since he has a good knowledge of vigilante justice, he could replace the Gardaí with one of his gangs of Thugs from Kerry.

That is complete unfounded bullshi't, can you provide evidence of the of "smuggling, gun running, punishment shootings, drug dealing" that Sinn Fein are involved in.

Your obviosly liven way in the past, or haven't got an educated clue about Sinn Fein.

:rolleyes:

I mean people are entitled to there opinion but not when it makes accusations without any proof

:rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
Shows full commitment to the democratic process. Shows regret for the incident. Shows that the IRA/SF are willing to accept murder is wrong. Do you want me to go on.

well, if you could go on and exlpain how his words will magically have weight now, when they've been dismissed as meaningless and worthless for a couple of decades now, it would be helpful

Gerry Adams, for most (if not all) of his political career, has had everything he's said dismissde by his critics with "actions speak louder than words" or "typical two-faced answer" or "says that now, but what about tomorrow" type of comments.

Lets not also forget that when it suits the media, Adams and Sinn Fein are the lords and masters of the IRA - whatever they say will go. When it suits otherwise, then Sinn Fein merely have influence of a questionable degree over the IRA. So anything that Adams says has absolutely no accurate reflection on the comittment of the IRA to what he's saying in the media's eyes....but somehow not saying it is seen as a lack of comittment on the IRA's part.

Whenever he doesn't do something, he's criticised for not doing it. When he does do it, he's criticised for either being insincere, or simply for not being credible enough to believe, or for playing to public sympathies in the name of a larger agenda.

Should he offer the condemnations? Well, personally, I think he should offer them, and he should also expect to have them dismissed utterly by the same critics who lambast the man for not making them in the first place.

I do not believe that he should be holding these condemnations as some sort of political "I will if you will" card, but then again, I recognise that many of the people he's dealing with are equally as uncompromising, and that there does come a point where playing everything you have because its right to do so is not the best thing to do in order to make progress.

Adams is by no means the only one, I should point out, who is treated this way, but he is who we are discussing here.

Getting more back on topic....should Dunphy have asked him about this? No - he shouldn't - not if the interview was supposed to be about something else. I have seen too many interviews where the interviewer has started a question with something like "I know this isn't what we're supposed to be discussing, but.....", or "I know we agreed that this interview was dependant on not discussing X, but......". There is more than one side to these people and these issues, and we don't need to have the same tired agenda dug out time and time and time again just because its there, regardless of whether or not it is relevant.

jc

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by bonkey
I have seen too many interviews where the interviewer has started a question with something like "I know this isn't what we're supposed to be discussing, but.....", or "I know we agreed that this interview was dependant on not discussing X, but......". jc

Jesus I'd love to see an interview like that where the interviewer actually has the b**** to upset the interviewee and ask the tough questions.