Bertie and Gerry, is it all over now? (sniff!)

Villain

Originally posted by STaN
Sinn Féin faces fresh challenge

Nice link, you got any opinion on the issue??

I like this quote

. Bertie Ahern, for his part, has yet to provide a credible explanation as to why it is acceptable for Sinn Féin to be part of the North's government, but not to hold office south of the border.

Typedef

Originally posted by ReefBreak
We've already proven Gerry Adams was in the IRA - see the reference to Peter Taylor's book above.

"Rightly or wrongly, I am an IRA volunteer..." etc, etc.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0226/ahernb.html

Funny that just ... yes five days ago Gerry Adams denied being a member of the IRA.

I suppose 'proof' is a very subjective thing in a Kangaroo court.

Villain

Originally posted by Typedef
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0226/ahernb.html

Funny that just ... yes five days ago Gerry Adams denied being a member of the IRA.

I suppose 'proof' is a very subjective thing in a Kangaroo court.

Typedef, they have been going on and on about this in this thread but have failed to prove it as a fact, now ReefBreak says Mr Taylor said so, but he still hasn't offered any factual evidence.

There was a member recently banned for saying something was fact without proving it, but for some reason people here are getting away with trolling??

Typedef

The way I look at is is, Gerry Adams is most certainly a staunch Republican.

He probably actually isn't a member of the IRA, nor need he be, since as such a high profile Republican, when he speaks, virtually everybody in the British Isles of political significance listens.

The real question is, did Gerry Adams support the IRA's 25 year Guerilla campaign against Britian ?

Probably, but, maybe not. The main point is that as a high profile Republican, Gerry Adams saying he isn't a member of the IRA, puts, 'enough' distance between him and the physical force movement to either a) send a message to all Republicans that the war is over b) send the same message to Unionists or c) put a veneer onto what the Unionists dub the 'political wing of the IRA'.

You use whatever illusion you choose to there, since I believe all permutations of options a, b & c hold truth.

monument

Originally posted by irish1
Here we go again, good auld FF and PD's aren't they just doing such a good job:rolleyes:
Ballymun Project to be delayed for 4 years!

All is fair in love and war etc… I for one, I can’t blame the PD/FF for an asbestos problem. But maybe the cost is – like ever cost in Ireland – too high?

...any more repeated speculation on the thread’s topic?

Villain

Originally posted by monument
All is fair in love and war etc… I for one, I can’t blame the PD/FF for an asbestos problem. But maybe the cost is – like ever cost in Ireland – too high?

I'm not bliaming them for it being there, I'm saying you would think they would have been aware of the problem and would have been able to budget time and money for it.

No research, bad management!

bonkey

Originally posted by irish1
Typedef, they have been going on and on about this in this thread but have failed to prove it as a fact, now ReefBreak says Mr Taylor said so, but he still hasn't offered any factual evidence.

Nor has anyone else. You are all offering second-hand statements of equal merit until someone posts a video-link of Adams making a statement, rather than someone else reporting what Adams has said (which is exactly what Mr. Taylor also did). Not only that, but there is no reason to believe that Mr. Adams himself is not above uttering falsehoods.

If I say "I'm the King of the World", does someone reporting this prove that I am, in fact, King of the World? 'Course not.

There was a member recently banned for saying something was fact without proving it, but for some reason people here are getting away with trolling??

Incorrect. There was a member banned for saying that something was a fact and then being unwilling to either retract or defend the statement with references when requested.

Reef has offered his grounds for believing Adams is/was a member, including a verifiable source.

Type has offered his grounds for the opposite to the same extent.

Given that both are instances of someone else reporting what Adams has said, and they are in conflict with each other, neither side is incontrovertible proof, but it is still fulfilling the requirements our rules request.

So no-one has proven anything, but there is reason to choose either side.

Personally, I don't see what the issue is.

If the IRA has forsaken violence, then making pariahs out of their representatives for a rason like this is the best way to encourage a return to violence....because you're sending the message that "even if you have forsworn violence, we're still not willing to deal with you".

Conversely, if the IRA has not forsaken violence, then Adam's being a member or not is secondary to the fact that there is no reason to deal with the political arm/affiliates/whatever of a terrorist group unless the terrorists forsake violence.

Personally, I see the whole issue of whether or not Mr. Adam's was or was not a member as being yet another well-sold delaying/diversion tactic. Its got no strict relevance to anything in the peace-process, but makes a great way to either hold things up or get your name in the papers as being a "hard man".

If were discussing whether or not Adams is a member, I might have a slightly different opinion, but seriously.....who does the asking of this question benefit, given that the answer is virtually impossible to prove either way???

jc

Originally posted by irish1

I like this quote
Bertie Ahern, for his part, has yet to provide a credible explanation as to why it is acceptable for Sinn Féin to be part of the North's government, but not to hold office south of the border.

Actually I'd agree with you there, sauce for the goose, being sauce for the gander and all that.

However if he feels that way about them, then he slipped up in his tactics big time.

You see, the peace process had to involve Sinn Féin in the government in NI for the IRA to stop the bombing.
Different kettle of fish in the south,unless the IRA of course stated that, they were going to continue bombing untill they got a cabinet place in the South.

That approach would of course spell disaster for them electorally in the 26 counties.

So tell me,, did the IRA ever state publically ( p.o'niell style)that they wanted Sinn Féin in Government?
Why would they not plump for Fianna Fáil in an NI govt instead or indeed a new party entirely, that they could have set up, say called lets see The IRA Party ?

just curious;)

Villain

Originally posted by bonkey
Incorrect. There was a member banned for saying that something was a fact and then being unwilling to either retract or defend the statement with references when requested.

Reef has offered his grounds for believing Adams is/was a member, including a verifiable source.

Well yes, but people are still not proving a fact, I take you point do that they are trying to.

Originally posted by bonkey

If were discussing whether or not Adams is a member, I might have a slightly different opinion, but seriously.....who does the asking of this question benefit, given that the answer is virtually impossible to prove either way???

jc

Bertie, he's trying to stir **** before the elections, but I don't think it will affect SF's vote

Cork

Originally posted by irish1
Well yes, but people are still not proving a fact, I take you point do that they are trying to.



Bertie, he's trying to stir **** before the elections, but I don't think it will affect SF's vote

I think that Gerrys Adams associations with an illegal army is a legitimate question.

Is a vote for SF - a vote for the IRA?

SF has got to make up its maind - Is it the political wing of an illegal organisation?

I think, all we are getting from Gerry Adams is flat deniels.

Is is about time SF stopped blaming all & sundry in Northern Ireland & started to build trust with the Unionists. Holding on to illegal arms & an illegal army won't get the Peace Process back on track.

Does FF,FG,Lab,PDs etc have links to illegal armys?

Villain

Originally posted by Cork
I think that Gerrys Adams associations with an illegal army is a legitimate question.

That is not the question, we all know he has associations with the IRA, no-one here is debating that, I suggest you read a threads content before posting.

Originally posted by Cork

Is a vote for SF - a vote for the IRA?

Ignorant question, showing your lack of knowledge of the situation.

Originally posted by Cork

Does FF,FG,Lab,PDs etc have links to illegal armys?

Not to my knowledge, but the main party of the day,FF, has ties with gun running and corruption!

swiss

Originally posted by bonkey

Personally, I don't see what the issue is.

On the surface, the issue hardly seems important. Membership of the IRA doesn't carry a stigma for Sinn Féin politicians, as perhaps it once did, and regardless of whether or not Gerry Adams was in the IRA, the issues of the day regarding the situation in the north remain unchanged. However, what piques my curiositity is the vehemence with which Gerry Adams denied the claims made by Bertie Ahern. True, it could just be a stalling tactic, but Bertie could simply mention that he doesn't like chips and Gerry Adams could comment that he is "flabbergasted" that anyone could dislike chips, and say that he is engaged in an anti-chip agenda. The point is if this is a stalling tactic, why did Gerry Adams pick this one in particular. It's not like there is a shortage of diversions from the main issues in hand(as parties in the north have consistently proved time and again).

I therefore return to my original assumption, that Gerry is making a big deal out of this to deflect criticism from his party due to IRA activities in time honoured fashion - by blaming someone else. I believe you are correct insofar as you cannot prove Gerry Adams was in the IRA or not, unless some pretty categorical evidence emerges. Therefore the point is moot, and why Gerry does not seem to realise this is somewhat beyond me.

Originally posted by bonkey

If the IRA has forsaken violence, then making pariahs out of their representatives for a rason like this is the best way to encourage a return to violence....because you're sending the message that "even if you have forsworn violence, we're still not willing to deal with you".

Unfortunately, evidence has shown us that the IRA has not renounced it's violent ways. Yes, it is on a verifiable ceasefire. Yes, it has decommissioned an indeterminate number of weapons. However, it's members are still engaged in violent activities, as exemplified by recent events in the north. Therefore I cannot see this message being that even if Sinn Féin forswear violence, the 'mainstream parties' will not deal with them. In fact their position is arguably worse, since criminal activities in time of supposed 'peace' negates the presumption held by some that the IRA are acting in the ultimate interests of their community. Hence the moral plateau that IRA members and affiliates might have had is becoming increasingly shaky.

Villain

Originally posted by swiss
I therefore return to my original assumption, that Gerry is making a big deal out of this to deflect criticism from his party due to IRA activities in time honoured fashion - by blaming someone else

I don't think Gerry Adams has made a big deal out of this, Bertie has done that.

swiss

Originally posted by irish1:

That is not the question, we all know he has associations with the IRA, no-one here is debating that, I suggest you read a threads content before posting.

I would suggest that you read what Cork said before you reply. The nature of Gerry Adams associations are exactly what we are debating. Granted, he might have worded his statement a little more clearly, but instead of jumping at him in this manner, why not try asking him to clarify his statement?

Ignorant question, showing your lack of knowledge of the situation.

How so? Given that the IRA are inextricably linked with Sinn Féin (in fact I believe the term is interchangeable), I believe that a vote for Sinn Féin is indeed a vote for the IRA. One is a political wing and the other is a paramilitary wing. Essentially however, I believe they are the same organisation. So on what basis do you deem it "ignorant". That you don't agree with the assessment?

This thread is starting to fill with bickering and points scoring. A little civility wouldn't go astray. That comment is not directed solely at irish1. Some other members are equally culpable.

Villain

Originally posted by swiss
I would suggest that you read what Cork said before you reply. The nature of Gerry Adams associations are exactly what we are debating. Granted, he might have worded his statement a little more clearly, but instead of jumping at him in this manner, why not try asking him to clarify his statement?

Well I think he could have said it a lot better, he appeared to be stating the obvious.

Originally posted by swiss

How so? Given that the IRA are inextricably linked with Sinn Féin (in fact I believe the term is interchangeable), I believe that a vote for Sinn Féin is indeed a vote for the IRA. One is a political wing and the other is a paramilitary wing. Essentially however, I believe they are the same organisation. So on what basis do you deem it "ignorant". That you don't agree with the assessment?

.

Because Sinn Fein is democratic political party, the IRA are group of terrorists. Yes Sinn Fein have close ties but to say a vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for the IRA is dramatic and untrue. I meant ignorant in it's purest state, i.e. lack of intellegence of the subject. Only Someone that doesn't know how Sinn Fein works would make a statement like that, anyone that knows the party well would disagree.

gandalf

Originally posted by irish1
Because Sinn Fein is democratic political party, the IRA are group of terrorists. Yes Sinn Fein have close ties but to say a vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for the IRA is dramatic and untrue. I meant ignorant in it's purest state, i.e. lack of intellegence of the subject. Only Someone that doesn't know how Sinn Fein works would make a statement like that, anyone that knows the party well would disagree.

Well from the point of view of someone looking in from the outside most of Sinn Fein's leading lights are ex IRA (some maybe still IRA!) so until the IRA disbands I would agree that a vote for Sinn Fein is effectively a vote for the Provisonal IRA.

I respect you think otherwise and I wouldn't call you ignorant because of your view, I would call you misguided.

Gandalf.

Villain

Originally posted by gandalf
Well from the point of view of someone looking in from the outside most of Sinn Fein's leading lights are ex IRA (some maybe still IRA!) so until the IRA disbands I would agree that a vote for Sinn Fein is effectively a vote for the Provisonal IRA.

I respect you think otherwise and I wouldn't call you ignorant because of your view, I would call you misguided.

Gandalf.

I would call you misunderstood!

Only joking Gandalf. I can see why people say that, but seriously if you saw the party at grass root levels here in the Republic I think your view would change.

We may just agree to disagree, but I think a lot of people are mis informed on this issue.

gandalf

Originally posted by irish1
I would call you misunderstood!

You cheeky git 10 year banning for you, naw only joking !!!

Only joking Gandalf. I can see why people say that, but seriously if you saw the party at grass root levels here in the Republic I think your view would change.

I'm sure there great people doing wonderful things at grassroots level. Unfortunately they are being held back by the black shadow that a paramilitary organisation which is affiliated to Sinn Fein casts over them. Until that organisation is disbanded, no more, an ex-organisation then Sinn Fein should not be let near government. I was going to make a comparision but realised I would automatically loose the arguement because of Godwins law

We may just agree to disagree, but I think a lot of people are mis informed on this issue.

I looks like we will have to disagree. But I am right and Gerry is a Chuckie !!!

Gandalf.

swiss

Yes Sinn Fein have close ties but to say a vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for the IRA is dramatic and untrue.

You see, I have to disagree with you here. As everyone here has pointed out, Sinn Féin have ties to the IRA. These ties are so close that at least one senior member of Sinn Féin was also a senior member of the IRA. Therefore, by voting for that person you are also implying that you endorse all of the politically related actions. Of course this isn't always the case. Bertie Ahern takes actions that are unpopular all of the time, but the justification he uses (rightly so IMO) is that people voted for him, thus giving him a certain level of confidence.

Using this analogy, if you vote for a member of Sinn Féin, you are also by proxy endorsing the IRA, since their activities almost uniqely define Sinn Féin. Thus on some levels, I believe that a vote for Sinn Féin is indeed a vote for the IRA, or at very least a tacit endorsal of their actions. Of course you may disagree but I certainly don't think that this makes the opposing viewpoint either "dramatic" or "untrue".

Only Someone that doesn't know how Sinn Fein works would make a statement like that, anyone that knows the party well would disagree.

Actually Cork didn't make a statement, he asked a question. I'm going to assume that you just made a simple mistake and that by "statement" you mean "question". Normally I wouldn't make a big deal about this but since you criticised Cork for not making himself clear I think the age old reference to pots and kettles should be invoked.
[edit] I've just realised that you could also have been making a reference to my statement, and not Corks. Apologies if this is the case, but the original point remains about making oneself clear [/edit]

I don't think Gerry Adams has made a big deal out of this, Bertie has done that.

Again, I have to disagree. Bertie was repeatedly asked a question about his thoughts/opinions as to Gerry Adams involvement in the IRA. He eventually gave a straight enough answer. Although this is unusual in itself, he said so in a matter of fact way, and didn't couch it in the anti Sinn Féin rhetoric of which he was accused.

Gerry Adams, on the other hand pounced on this. We know this through the type of language he used to refute the claims, and the subsequent accusations that he levelled at Bertie. I believe this qualifies as "making a big deal" out of something which I had thought was a relatively trivial affair.

sceptre

Originally posted by irish1
Only joking Gandalf. I can see why people say that, but seriously if you saw the party at grass root levels here in the Republic I think your view would change.

See here's the problem as I see it with reference to another party, assuming that "at grass roots levels" you're perfectly correct:

Fianna Fail have a recent history of rampant corruption. Based partly on evidence and partly on hearsay and my own suspicions I don't think that corruption has gone away and I think that corruption runs all the way up to the current leadership. I know some very good people who are members of Fianna Fail, I even know some very hardworking and genuine councillors who are members of Fianna Fail. In my view they're tainted by their membership of a party that is as rotten as ten-year old fruit and I couldn't countenance voting for them in good faith. Bad for me, bad for my conscience and bad for the well-being of the country as a whole.

For me and for many other voters who actually take their vote seriously, Sinn Fein candidates, hard-working or not will fall into the same boat as long as there's any connection whatever to murder. To a certain extent I tend to see significant corruption (as a breach of trust of a great number of people) as a crime as bad as murder. Nevertheless with the tainted nature of Sinn Fein candidates and representatives I couldn't countenance voting for them in good faith. Bad for me, bad for my conscience and bad for the country as a whole.

I'm sure that you're sincere in your belief that your local SF representative is hard-working, honest and an asset to the community. I'm just speaking for myself obviously but hard work, commitment and economic policies don't even need to be examined as long as there's a tangiable link to a group that justifies organised murder. Cut the link completely, regardless of how you have to do it and more people might be willing to even listen and engage.

edit: fixed typos. Not that Bertie Ahern was likely to sue for my saying that his party has had a history of rampant cossuption

mike65

Originally posted by sceptre
Fianna Fail have a recent history of rampant corruption. Based partly on evidence and partly on hearsay and my own suspicions I don't think that corruption has gone away and I think that corruption runs all the way up to the current leadership.

edit: fixed typos. Not that Bertie Ahern was likely to sue for my saying that his party has had a history of rampant cossuption

Oops! Still thats what i'd call fair comment.















Your Honour. :ninja:

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

monument

mainly because of what I've said - and quoted my self saying - before...

Originally posted by monument
I have...

Originally posted by monument
Comparing the IRA to Al Qaeda is just stupid; it’s like comparing the US army with their kill-kill attitude to Ireland’s Defence Forces with their restrained attitude (at least on paper).

Al Qaeda want to kill all Americans or westerners, while the IRA haven’t such crazy goals, in fact they don’t even want to kill all Loyalist.

I don't think Al Queda would straight out want to kill all westerners, they'd give you a choice-convert... or...

Whereas the IRA possibly had the same logic when applied to British soldiers "sniper at work" etc...

Scale is one difference there alright, another being that they were picky in who is/was a target , membership of the security forces or linkage to them being one of the tests for death.

Another similarity is marked though, in that the environment in which the IRA grew was discrimination against nationalists/republicans and for that matter anything or one associated with catholicism.

Similar greenhouse, similar plants, similar growing conditions,and similar poisonous taste but different scale.
The big difference though is, Al Queda's aims are and always have been a lot less realisable than those of the IRA.
And the aims of the IRA were and always were realisable eventually without one drop of bloodshed.

Mind you if you are in South Armagh or somewhere similar and constantly harassed by the security forces ( through I s'pose the 60's 70's and 80's and early 90's ) because you are a catholic, its not difficult to see how you would succumb to tollerating the IRA's way of dealing with your harassers.
It's gonna take time.

Mighty_Mouse

Not even going to debate why the Al Queda and the IRA are different. Because to make such an allegation your view of republicanism must be twisted beyond repair at this stage!

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Not even going to debate why the Al Queda and the IRA are different. Because to make such an allegation...

...makes pro-IRA people very uncomfortable - especially when Sinn Féin/IRA try to hoodwink, er produce propaganda for, sorry, lie to the lucrative Irish-American support-base.

But to recap:
IRA are terrorists.
Al Qaeda are terrorists.
IRA have intentionally murdered innocent civilians as a means of adavancing a "cause".
AL Qaeda have intentionally murdered innocent civilians as a means of adavancing a "cause".

QED.

ishmael whale

Of course, one thing they have in common is neither organisation is linked in any way to Sinn Fein.

Mighty_Mouse

Above: Example of twisted view number 1

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Above: Example of twisted view number 1

Why? You can say it's twisted, deranged, mad, whatever, all you like but until you give me at least one valid reason why they are different (apart from scale and religion), then your argument is useless.

Villain

Originally posted by ReefBreak
[B
But to recap:
IRA are terrorists.
Al Qaeda are terrorists.
IRA have intentionally murdered innocent civilians as a means of adavancing a "cause".
AL Qaeda have intentionally murdered innocent civilians as a means of adavancing a "cause".

QED. [/B]

Scale, reason ????

Your trying to simplfy something that is very complicated!