IRA insists Jean McConville was a tout

Malone

There is a few posters on this board saying there is no mandate to use force against British Rule in Ireland.The 1919 second Dail declaration should clear a few things up.

http://www.ria.ie/projects/difp/downloads/section1.doc

murphaph

Erm, even if McConville was an informer, what right did the PIRA have to murder her and bury her body on a remote beach?

I honestly wouldn't expect any better from SFIRA, so don't hold your breath waiting for an apology to the McConville family or anything like it. Yet people still vote for them :rolleyes:

Malone

People also vote for Fine Gael and Fianna Fail who think the IRA was right to kill infomers in the 1920s.

Malone

Malone wrote:

People also vote for Fine Gael and Fianna Fail who think the IRA was right to kill infomers in the 1920s.

You havent been reading all the thread have you??

FF and FG or whatever they were called then believed in a lot of things back then.You cannot apply the tautology of the 1920's or the 1820's to today.
Theres no comparison... unless of course you are willing to accept all the morals and givens of that period along with it.

Now where was I... ah 1920 would you like to have the local parish priest outside your "dance hall" [read: Club] swishing his black thorn stick at you if you glance at a girl furtively?

RedPlanet

Earthman wrote:

You havent been reading all the thread have you??

FF and FG or whatever they were called then believed in a lot of things back then.You cannot apply the tautology of the 1920's or the 1820's to today.
Theres no comparison... unless of course you are willing to accept all the morals and givens of that period along with it.

Now where was I... ah 1920 would you like to have the local parish priest outside your "dance hall" [read: Club] swishing his black thorn stick at you if you glance at a girl furtively?

Can you tell me where the line is drawn Earthman?
Just for clarification you see.
Apparently 1970 is within the same "tautology" as today, despite the fact that we are in a new century today and people describe things as "Post 911".
So please clarify where this handy line is drawn.
Thankyou.

Malone

Earthman you have missed my point completely.I was not talking about what Fine Gael and Fine Fail believed in the 1920s,I was talking about what they believe in today which was that it was right to kill informers in the 1920s.

Diogenes

Malone wrote:

Earthman you have missed my point completely.I was not talking about what Fine Gael and Fine Fail believed in the 1920s,I was talking about what they believe in today which was that it was right to kill informers in the 1920s.

Care to show any evidence that is a popular belief among FG/FF voters?

redplanet wrote:

Can you tell me where the line is drawn Earthman?
Just for clarification you see.
Apparently 1970 is within the same "tautology" as today, despite the fact that we are in a new century today and people describe things as "Post 911".
So please clarify where this handy line is drawn.
Thankyou.

I do find it interesting, that a party who makes a tidy sum, fetishising our history, are quick to ask us to draw a line over this particular chapter of said history.

Sinn Fein have a line of "men that shook the barley" merchandise going at the moment, and yet when this chapter is exposed, we're told to hush up it's all in the past.

Redplanet you've ducked and weaved every point every poster made on this issue, after claiming Mc Conville was getting unfair media attention, or that perhaps she was a tout and what make you of the british army using her this way, and even used the plain old "this is pure SF bashing" and I think its fair to say giving the different tactics and varied arguments that your interest in this point is more than just "let the past be the past".

SF want to bury the story of Jean Mc Conville, next to the unmarked grave their paramilitary wing threw her into. Why? because it does not suit their idealised mythology of what happened in the north. Because in SF eye the IRA fought a noble and just campaign for the freedom of the people of Ireland, why even Mc Conville's death was the Brit's fault! They made her a tout, forcing the IRA to murder her, those bast*rd brits!

The truth is a little more unpleasant, Mc Conville comforted a dying soldier, and for that unforgivable act she had to die. So the unelected men of the IRA killed her like cowards, like they killed so many of their own community, that they claimed they protected. SF's electability is based on that lie. And every time Mc Conville is mentioned and every justification that Mary Lou gives exposes what a vote for SF really is for.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

Can you tell me where the line is drawn Earthman?
Just for clarification you see.

I dunno,you tell me-when did the PIRA have the authority of the Irish people to bomb warrington and Enniskillen?Blow up pubs in Birmingham/London?
Did the tit for tat of any organisation have the authority of the Irish people to do any of it? to go killing and maiming?
What did people think of those activities in general?
It's a no brainer.The vast majority abhorred it.

So please clarify where this handy line is drawn.

Rofl

It's easy to see,you dont like the reality of the abhorance of the vast majority of the people of Ireland towards PIRA's activities pointed out to you.

joebhoy1916

First of all I would like to know something why is everyone talking about Sinn Fein you all make them out to be bad bastards for what reason!

Secondly maybe ye should be thinking about the fact that the IRA told where her body was buried if they did not ye would not even be talking about her not only that but the republican movement have been trying to locate all the bodys of the people who were killed its not like go to this area you will find all the bodys.

The IRA went into Jean Mc Conville's house! They found her with a radio informing the British Army where they were and what was going (which lead to Republicans getting killed). The fact she had 10 children and she was a Catholic saved her life she was told not to do it again or she would be killed she refused. The second time they went into her house she wasnt so lucky. You might argue what's wrong with that but the fact is if you are an informer you end up dead.

Alot of people here seem to hate the IRA maybe with good reason but do all of ye forget the fact the Irish goverment has always helped the IRA either radio equitment, guns, money for guns all of this was done by the Irish goverment.

Malone

Its easy for people who have never had to live under foreign rule to condem people who had to take up arms.

murphaph

joebhoy1916 wrote:

First of all I would like to know something why is everyone talking about Sinn Fein you all make them out to be bad bastards for what reason!

Murdering people maybe?

joebhoy1916 wrote:

the IRA told where her body was buried

No they didn't. They told the priest mediator the body was on beach x, it was searched and nothing found. Some time later, a member of the public found the body on beach y while out walking their dog.

joebhoy1916 wrote:

The IRA went into Jean Mc Conville's house! They found her with a radio informing the British Army where they were and what was going (which lead to Republicans getting killed). The fact she had 10 children and she was a Catholic saved her life she was told not to do it again or she would be killed she refused. The second time they went into her house she wasnt so lucky. You might argue what's wrong with that but the fact is if you are an informer you end up dead.

I don't recall any of this being recorded by any court stenographer, have you got a link to this information? :rolleyes:

As em says, this McConville business is all very inconvenient and awkward for SFIRA. Adams is visibly squirming when asked about it. It hits a raw nerve.

Diogenes

joebhoy1916 wrote:

First of all I would like to know something why is everyone talking about Sinn Fein you all make them out to be bad bastards for what reason!

For the ones listed above?

not only that but the republican movement have been trying to locate all the bodys of the people who were killed its not like go to this area you will find all the bodys.

Ah so many bodies, difficult to find out which tout is buried where?

The IRA went into Jean Mc Conville's house! They found her with a radio informing the British Army where they were and what was going (which lead to Republicans getting killed). The fact she had 10 children and she was a Catholic saved her life she was told not to do it again or she would be killed she refused. You might argue what's wrong with that but the fact is if you are an informer you end up dead.

Do you have any evidence to support this fairy tale that you heard down the Widow Scanlans?

The icing on the cake is that she could have saved her life but refused, so the IRA were regrettably forced to kill her? "Jaysus, the poor lads who had to do that, sure she should have thought of the childlers!".

I mean that gem just makes the story special.

C'mere did you hear if you rub Gerry's beard three times, it clears up gout? And Martin Mc Guinness once scored in both the Ulster hurling and gaelic final?

joebhoy1916

Sinn Fein kill people really??

Oh yeah let me guess Gerry Adams and Martin are on the IRA army council and Mary Lou is head of intelligence.

murphaph

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Sinn Fein kill people really??

SFIRA. Whatever distance people like to put between SF and the PIRA today, it is nigh on impossible to separate the two in the early 70's! Can I ask you a question though joebhoy, if SF and the PIRA were in fact exactly the same organisation and this was known, would you vote for them?

joebhoy1916

Sinn Fein IRA :rolleyes: that sounds like a broken record at his stage.

When I hear that why is it reminds me of someone

sceptre

Reminds me of Sand.

Or some allegorical Greek tale of a creature with two heads. Or a one-headed creature with two bodies. Or a creature with broken teeth staring at the mirror and mumbling something about a day to come while standing on a pile of dead bodies including many from the community they declared they were protecting from a bigger monster. Or a, ah, well my drift is there.

So where's this radio then? You'd think they'd have made a point of burying it with the body. Leaving aside the pretty simple argument of whether the killing was justified or not I'm a little dismayed that people who appear to have the capacity to type are just going to accept the unsubstantiated word of the IRA that a radio actually existed. This does appear to be the central justification for the "proof" that the offence existed leading to the legitimacy of bumping someone off and burying them in an unmarked grave.

RedPlanet

Earthman wrote:

I dunno,you tell me-when did the PIRA have the authority of the Irish people to bomb warrington and Enniskillen?Blow up pubs in Birmingham/London?
Did the tit for tat of any organisation have the authority of the Irish people to do any of it? to go killing and maiming?
What did people think of those activities in general?
It's a no brainer.The vast majority abhorred it.
Rofl
It's easy to see,you dont like the reality of the abhorance of the vast majority of the people of Ireland towards PIRA's activities pointed out to you.

Earthman, it is regrettable to see such post from you.
I don't know why you seek to change the subject.
That subject being: attempts at portending events (or beliefs) from 1920 have no relevence today.

FF and FG or whatever they were called then believed in a lot of things back then.You cannot apply the tautology of the 1920's or the 1820's to today.
Theres no comparison

When in fact it is easy to make such comparisons, not only of the guerilla tactics involved but also the question of consent and the law.
Furthermore, i recall listening to the Labour party conference and Pat Rabbite being long winded about the party of James Connelly.
I also remember some FGer talking about Michael Collins during their party conference.
The point being, that there exist party members in both those parties that appear to believe in the same things their respective leaders did.
Which of course, takes us right back to 1916 and the 20's.

RedPlanet

sceptre wrote:

So where's this radio then? You'd think they'd have made a point of burying it with the body. Leaving aside the pretty simple argument of whether the killing was justified or not I'm a little dismayed that people who appear to have the capacity to type are just going to accept the unsubstantiated word of the IRA that a radio actually existed. This does appear to be the central justification for the "proof" that the offence existed leading to the legitimacy of bumping someone off and burying them in an unmarked grave.

Actually, it's not quite like that.
Rather, it's about "dogs in the street" an all that.
You know, what folks in the neighborhood know.
And i don't here them rallying around the McConvilles.

dam099

Just saw a new brief in the Indo that says

"The Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams, has said the way the IRA dealt with the bodies of the disappeared was a human rights abuse."

FFS, the way they dealt with the bodies was a human rights abuse? While that is grotesque what about the fact that the IRA tried, convicted and executed this poor woman for no good reason, that was the real human rights abuse the treatment of the bodies just compounded the cruelty.

joebhoy1916

The point being, that there exist party members in both those parties that appear to believe in the same things their respective leaders did.
Which of course, takes us right back to 1916 and the 20's.[/QUOTE]

There is a big difference from then to now.

One thing the Irish goverment and the people as seen here dont really give a sh!t about the people in the north. Be honest nobody really gives a fcuk do ye. Everyone thinks it ok for the british to burn thousands of catholics out of there homes and the irish goverment having to setup refugee camps. Human rights were abused for years but yet the truth is nobody gives a **** dont ye not.

sceptre

RedPlanet wrote:

Actually, it's not quite like that.
Rather, it's about "dogs in the street" an all that.
You know, what folks in the neighborhood know.
And i don't here them rallying around the McConvilles.

I can well understand them not rallying around, they've seen what happens to people who help the weak and undesired in that particular neighbourhood. Part of the reason we've got verifiable evidence in the legitimate world is that when one dog in the street talks to another dog in the street who talks to another dog in the street the "evidence" (also known as "hearsay") can well get mangled along the way.

What the dogs in the street know or don't know (especially bearing in mind that none of them seem to be talking much about it either way) doesn't carry that much weight in places where secret organisations don't kill people, bury bodies and deny involvement for two decades. That's even me being generous and assuming that the dogs in the street actually think they know anything. Which they don't appear to want to talk about for some reason.

sceptre

joebhoy1916 wrote:

One thing the Irish goverment and the people as seen here dont really give a sh!t about the people in the north. Be honest nobody really gives a fcuk do ye. Everyone thinks it ok for the british to burn thousands of catholics out of there homes and the irish goverment having to setup refugee camps. Human rights were abused for years but yet the truth is nobody gives a **** dont ye not.

Oh I care. The difference between, say, Mitchell McLaughlin and me, is that I'm not going to split hairs about the difference between a "wrong" and a "crime" as he did on Q&A in January of last year, I believe in verifiable public evidence, don't believe in the death penalty, particularly in the absence of verifiable public evidence, I don't see a thirty-year campaign of terror as merely regrettable and I've concern for the weaker members of both sides of the divide, not just a particular section of one side of the divide who take orders and shut up when told. Some of these differences may well apply to the difference between you and me too but I couldn't possibly comment. You did though, see below.

Your warble about everyone on this forum thinking it's OK for people to be burned out of their homes is complete irrelevant exaggeration and bollocks. I didn't need to mention that as it's patently obvious but I thought it was worth highlighting lest anyone else accuse anyone else of hopping off the point for no particular reason. Ditto the human rights sentence. Irrelevant. Bollocks. Exaggeration. Three things in one.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

Earthman, it is regrettable to see such post from you.
I don't know why you seek to change the subject.
That subject being: attempts at portending events (or beliefs) from 1920 have no relevence today.

where have I changed the subject?You have singularally failed to address the point I've made regarding the fallacy of comparing events in the 1920's with today.

When in fact it is easy to make such comparisons, not only of the guerilla tactics involved but also the question of consent and the law.
Furthermore, i recall listening to the Labour party conference and Pat Rabbite being long winded about the party of James Connelly.
I also remember some FGer talking about Michael Collins during their party conference.
The point being, that there exist party members in both those parties that appear to believe in the same things their respective leaders did.

Thats an entirely different point.
When those party members have a policy today,they dont advocate shooting a few people to have it implimented,they use the Dáil.
I dont recall any FF or FG TD during the 80's and 90's advocating violence-what were SF advocating then?They were apologists right left and centre for the warringtons and the Enniskillens of the day and meanwhile the tit for tat mahem continued.

Which of course, takes us right back to 1916 and the 20's.

No it doesnt.Try as you might to equate that time with the here and now,you've not shown one iota that it does and of course ignored how it patently obviously doesnt.

BuffyBot

The IRA went into Jean Mc Conville's house! They found her with a radio informing the British Army where they were and what was going (which lead to Republicans getting killed). The fact she had 10 children and she was a Catholic saved her life she was told not to do it again or she would be killed she refused. You might argue what's wrong with that but the fact is if you are an informer you end up dead.

Nice bit of a yarn..but where is the proof? And as for "you end up dead", I must have missed the enactment of the law that made them judge, jury and executioner..

Diogenes

RedPlanet wrote:

Actually, it's not quite like that.
Rather, it's about "dogs in the street" an all that.
You know, what folks in the neighborhood know.
And i don't here them rallying around the McConvilles.

Hmmm maybe thats because the "dogs" on Jean Mc Conville's street, saw what happened if you didn't toe the party line.

joeyboy wrote:

Oh yeah let me guess Gerry Adams and Martin are on the IRA army council and Mary Lou is head of intelligence.

Way to dodge the point there joey boy. You've yet to offer any evidence of your claims that McConville was a spy.

I mean how much of a IRA fanboy do you have to be to think that not only was Mc Conville turned into a british agent with a radio in her house, and then the IRA found the radio, offered her leninacy because of her children, and her status of a catholic, but she refused forcing the IRA into a situation where she left them with no choice but to shoot her?

As for the comments that this is just "another example of SF bashing" I'm sorry if this is just the febble best people can come up with justifying the criminal behaviour of SF's paramilitary wing, this is nothing than genuine justified outrage at the apologists for thugish murderers.

joebhoy1916

Diogenes wrote:

Way to dodge the point there joey boy. You've yet to offer any evidence of your claims that McConville was a spy.
As for the comments that this is just "another example of SF bashing" I'm sorry if this is just the febble best people can come up with justifying the criminal behaviour of SF's paramilitary wing, this is nothing than genuine justified outrage at the apologists for thugish murderers.

I dont justify killing anybody. I was saying if your an informer you get killed. Its a crime no doubt.

But do people honestly believe the IRA killed a mother of 10 for what because she was trying to help a dying solider on her step?


http://www.irelandsown.net/mcconville.html

Diogenes

For those wondering if these events have any relevancy to today need only to look as a previous poster, who mentioned a statement by Mitchell McLaughlin, who tried to differentiate the murder of Jean Mc Conville between a "wrong" and a "crime".

The Tautology of such a statement is clear. Most party out of power will quickly attempt to portray a "whiter than white" approach to crime and corruption, SF meanwhile are trying to add some grey area between "cold bloodied killing of a woman" and "murder". It does beg the question, once SF has power, what will they do with it? Seeing as they have such a casual attitude towards the most heinous act in society one begs the question how will they behave in a position of powe and authority and how will they react when accused of corruption or mismanagement?


Reporter: "SF's coalition has squandered billions of taxpayer money on a health service that is now criminal in its neglect , and worse than ever before"

Mc Laughlin "You may call it criminal, we consider it, "not bad" and so are satisfied with its results incidently I adore my new lamborguini."

---

Apologises for the off topicness........

Diogenes

joebhoy1916 wrote:

I dont justify killing anybody. I was saying if your an informer you get killed. Its a crime no doubt.

But do people honestly believe the IRA killed a mother of 10 for what because she was trying to help a dying solider on her step?


http://www.irelandsown.net/mcconville.html

The same IRA who commited the kingsmill masscre?

The same IRA who planted the Enniskillen bomb?

The same IRA who planted bombs in civilian establishments like bars?

The same IRA who killed more catholics than any side in the conflict?

Yes. Yes I do.

Also Moloney never reveals his sources in this, and adds;

Inexplicably McConville went back to spying on the IRA

Why? Even he admits this is bizaree, What evidence does Moloney have aside from IRA "sources"?

joebhoy1916

Here we go more B/S stay on the fcuking topic.

Well if you read it you might know why.

Diogenes

I am reminded of Bernie McPhelimy, hounded out of her community in belfast by the IRA for being a catholic working class woman for wanting to see peace on the streets. She was luck Jean Mc Conville was not