Adams BBC One

Notorious97

Are you honestly trying to tell mee that the British government joined forces with terrorists? Pull the other one.


Just because it was wrong doesn't mean it was illegal. Tell me then, which law did it break?[/QUOTE]


Pull what other one, they colluded with loyalists, get over it. Do you think the British Government and Army are perfect in all of this? Do you not think that if they had not gunned down so many on Bloody Sunday that the IRA would have enjoyed the support it did? i respect your opinion and view on all of this, and have no problem talking about it, but at the end of the day my opninion is totally differnet, i dont see how you can hate all nationalists, i dont agree with british influences in any part of ireland, but i dont come out saying i hate british people or all loyalists. I see exactly where loyalists are coming from, i just dont agree with Britain in the north.

im sure some catholics had opportunites also, but alot were treated unfairly and as 2nd class citizens. The 'state' of northern ireland was a sectarian one, until the war broke out again and thankfully now we have peace. As i said in my original post in this thread, i am all for a united ireland, an equal one, with both religions, and both sides of the argument and community fully represented.

Im sure since you keep asking me for a law Britain broke you assume the invasion of foreign lands, removing the native people from the land, and basically treating them like sh*t over centuries is a moral thing to do? Fact is the British Empire was so powerful who could stop them doing whatever they liked? This whole thing has got way off topic anyway, my points are above, i repsect yours and anybody else on here that differs from my view.

Eliot Rosewater

Notorious97 wrote: »

Yes the IRA killed innocent people, but the British government / loyalists / RUC / b Specials all colluded against innocent catholics, if you want to call the IRA terrorists, the British government are terrorists also.

But you see, Iwasfrozen would probably equally criticise the British Government's actions vis à vis Bloody Sunday etc. It's a common Republican response to criticism of their cause to claim the criticiser is a West Brit or a British sympathiser. When you're looking at the situation from a completely biased perspective, those who don't take a side are often perceived to be biased in the opposite direction when, in fact, they're just being objective.

Notorious97 wrote: »

The plantations werent illegal?

You may claim it was wrong, but I don't see how you can claim it was illegal. The onus is on you to show which laws the plantations broke.

Notorious97 wrote: »

Irish people were thrown off their lands and robbed blind during all of this.

Irish people, really? During the Confederate Wars many of the Catholic soldiers fighting against the new Protestant Ascendency (formed in Ireland as a result of the plantations) pledged alliance to the King. Claiming that it was "Irish People" versus "English People" is clearly reading history backwards.

lugha

Notorious97 wrote: »

The plantations werent illegal? Why not, because a soverign state decided to take over a foreign land? It was the thing to do? Just because it was done often back then does not mean it is right! Irish people were thrown off their lands and robbed blind during all of this.

I think you will find that virtually every national boundary anywhere in the world has been moved repeated throughout history, usually by way of physical force, and hence illegally according to your viewpoint. Any pragmatic person realizes that trying to undo all the wrongs of history is all but impossible and instead we look forward and consider how to proceed from where we currently are. And the democratically endorsed Good Friday agreement outlines exactly how we should proceed.

And speaking of democracy, that brings me to the OP and one G. Adams . I don’t imagine history will see him very differently from the rest of the republicans of his era. I think their actions from the earlier days of the 60s and 70s will be viewed reasonably favourably. But I think they will always bear the stain of their assertion of they being the lawful government of Ireland, despite they been clearly and repeatedly told that they were not, an outrageous and undemocratic viewpoint still (worryingly) defended by republicans.

Grumpypants

Big Mouth wrote: »

Anyone see this? Great to see the high regard Gerry Adams is held in across the world. A great man who will I think will go down in History as a visionary Irish man and a real Mandela like character.

I'm sure their will plenty on here who will knock him and disagree with my comments but certainly the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton would not.

Will Morgan Freeman play him in the movie too ??

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Gerrymandering, and often only if they owned property which is why councils discriminated.

I'm sure there were protestants in council houses.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Plenty DIDNT and the discriminatory reasons behind that (such as Catholics being run out of Harland and Wolf.)

Again, plenty of protestants weren't employed either. Northern Ireland was a poor area. And having paramilitaries running around the place certainly didn't help things.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It is when catholics were discriminated against on account of their religion.

They were poor that's why they had poor housing conditions. But again not all Catholcis did have poor housing conditions. Only the poor ones.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The fact is that in many cases when similarly qualified Protestants and Catholics went for a job the Catholic would lose out on account of his religion.

You can't back that up.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes they did. Dublin, Monaghan, collusion.

The Civil rights movement didn't just happen because of nothing. Do you deny that Catholics were treated as second class citizens?

I believe they were, however not as bad as Republicans here claim and it certainly wasn't worth one human life. Never mind the scores of people who did die.

Notorious97

I get that it was common practice back in the day to invade lands etc, but it doesnt make it right, thats the point im trying to make. This whole thing is getting out of control.

Im sure IwasFrozen would be against their actions also, but im just dealing with the nationalist side at the moment. i do believe in a united ireland, but i also make sure i look at both sides of it instead of rushing in with a typical 'fu*k britain and british people' response which i see alot of people do in life in general when topics like this come up.

Eliot Rosewater

In fairness Iwasfrozen, I do think you've got it wrong. The situation in the 70s was pretty terrible. Consider, for example, that Derry, a majority catholic city, had a majority protestant council due to gerrymandering. The situation with housing was as the others have described it. There are lots of examples of this: in one case a catholic man actually chained himself to a house in protest.

People were right to protest. It got out of hand though, in my opinion.

Iwasfrozen

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In fairness Iwasfrozen, I do think you've got it wrong. The situation in the 70s was pretty terrible. Consider, for example, that Derry, a majority catholic city, had a majority protestant council due to gerrymandering. The situation with housing was as the others have described it. There are lots of examples of this: in one case a catholic man actually chained himself to a house in protest.

People were right to protest. It got out of hand though, in my opinion.

I admit that it was bad and that people had a right to protest but I truely believe that however bad it was it wasn't worth one human life.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm sure there were protestants in council houses.

Yes and they were often top of the list! COUNCIL housing often allocated by gerrymandered councils. The issue is who got the houses(the best ones often) and why! Protestants were often put on the top of the list.

Again, plenty of protestants weren't employed either. Northern Ireland was a poor area. And having paramilitaries running around the place certainly didn't help things.

Yes but a "no catholics need apply" policy was effectively in operation. Why were protestants unemployed? CERTAINLY not on account of their denomination.

They were poor that's why they had poor housing conditions. But again not all Catholcis did have poor housing conditions. Only the poor ones.

For gods sake man...... The worst houses were kept for Catholics. To vote in elections one needed PROPERTY, council or otherwise. Hence large catholic families were kept in the one house were they would only have one vote. Ulster did not adopt "One man one vote" for a long time, for this very reason.

You can't back that up.

This is just ridiculous. I just gave you the example of Harland and Wolf. To say that there was no discrimination in jobs is simply burying your head in the sand.

I believe they were, however not as bad as Republicans here claim and it certainly wasn't worth one human life.

Its a shame it had to come to that. It should never have had to come to that.

Winty

Can we get back to Adams

Did his neice appear in the interview

Notorious97

Winty wrote: »

Can we get back to Adams

Did his neice appear in the interview

I only seen second half of it and it touched on it, not sure on the first half though

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said it was a good thing. But regardless:

• Catholics had a vote.
• Not all Catholics had poor housing conditions and plenty were employed.
• Those that had poor housing conditions were there most likely because they were poor. The state is not responsible for that.
• Most Catholics also weren't that well educated. But you wouldn't consider that a obstacle to employment would you?

So you're saying that the civil rights movement should never have taken place?

Winty wrote:

Can we get back to Adams

Did his neice appear in the interview ?

Like clockwork.

Has his niece criticised him? If so, please provide a link to the article.

Winty

Nodin wrote: »

Has his niece criticised him? If so, please provide a link to the article.

Put Gerry Adams Niece into Google.

1st Result

A Row erupted between Gerry Adams and his niece after she claimed he did not do enough to stop his brother working with children.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8478237.stm

Winty

Nodin wrote: »

Has his niece criticised him? If so, please provide a link to the article.

Adams' niece slams both Sinn Féin and PSNI as her uncle calls for party leader to resign


http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2010/jan/24/aine-tyrell-gerry-adams-is-still-lying-about-abuse/

Nodin

And your point in seeing her interviewed would be to go over this again?

Winty

Nodin wrote: »

And your point in seeing her interviewed would be to go over this again?

So we should bury the past, like Bloody Sunday.

Dont be hypocritical, Adams should have done more to stop his brother and as a member of a political party his life is open to the public.

He does not have a great record on honesty

Winty

Nodin wrote: »

And your point in seeing her interviewed would be to go over this again?

Looks like I hit a sore point, Nodin does not like it when Mr Adams is questioned

Nodin

Winty wrote: »

So we should bury the past, like Bloody Sunday.

Dont be hypocritical, Adams should have done more to stop his brother and as a member of a political party his life is open to the public.

He does not have a great record on honesty

I never said she shouldn't be interviewed. What I'm trying to get at is whether you're trying to make a valid point or indulge in more SF bashing for the sake of it.

Wolfe Tone

Winty wrote: »

Looks like I hit a sore point, Nodin does not like it when Mr Adams is questioned

Its easy now to look back on Gerry's actions, or lack thereof and condemn them. However I agree that he should have done more, but at least he did something. But we don't have all the facts.

This doesn't take away from the great work that he has done, in my mind anyways. People are a lot more willing to discuss these things since the abuses in the RCC have come to light.

Winty

Nodin wrote: »

I never said she shouldn't be interviewed. What I'm trying to get at is whether you're trying to make a valid point or indulge in more SF bashing for the sake of it.

No Bashing

Mr Adams as the leader of what is now the largest Party in the North has not got a perfect track record and I think I am allowed to question him.

Can we trust his honesty

Wolfe Tone

Can you trust ANY politicians honesty? I think he is more honest than most.

Winty

Nodin wrote: »

I never said she shouldn't be interviewed.

I never said that you said that she should not be interviewed

Winty

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Can you trust ANY politicians honesty?

I cant disagee with that

Nodin

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Can you trust ANY politicians honesty? I think he is more honest than most.

Indeed. Personally I think he handled it badly and should have (if he hasn't) made plans to go.

FTA69

Handled it badly? He sent her a copy of his book in which he thanks the man who raped her, "Our Liam."

Put simply Gerry Adams and the truth are mutually exclusive concepts, although nowadays he's revelling in "pipe and slippers" interviews on inane chat-shows.

POINTBREAK

Notorious97 wrote: »

How are they not illegally occupying Northern Ireland? I dont have a problem with religions or anything, i think the people of the north should be free from London influence, which is finally looking the case. .

Big problem there. If Britain pulled out of NI tomorrow we would all starve. The subvention from London is currently around £7 billion pounds and over 65% of all employment is created by the government. The total GDP is only £20 billion ish..... NI just wouldn't survive without London.

Notorious97

POINTBREAK wrote: »

Big problem there. If Britain pulled out of NI tomorrow we would all starve. The subvention from London is currently around £7 billion pounds and over 65% of all employment is created by the government. The total GDP is only £20 billion ish..... NI just wouldn't survive without London.

Sure they can join our shambles of a republic we can all be broke and hungry together lol

Nah i get what you are saying though, huge mess of a situation! alot of workto be done there i guess.

dlofnep

I thought the documentary was really good. An honest piece of work from the BBC.

Wolfe Tone

Anywhere where one can see it now?

dlofnep

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Anywhere where one can see it now?

You can see it on BBC Player. But they block it in Ireland You can use a firefox plugin to get around it.

dlofnep

It's not on iplayer just yet btw, but it will be ina few days.

Wolfe Tone

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not on iplayer just yet btw, but it will be ina few days.

Ah that explains why I cant find it! Never used it before so there is plenty to keep me occupied.

Denerick

steelcityblues wrote: »

Turned it off after 10 mins

Self congratulating, third-party platitudes galore, type of rubbish!

+1

This.

I was hoping for a probing documentary that explored the transition from Adams the revolutionary to Adams the peacemaker. A CRITICAL documentary. What it was was a hagiography, a blinkered perception of what the 'New Northern Ireland' is all about.

Not that this isn't interesting or useful in itself, but from an intellectual perspective its utterly vacuous. I personally like Gerry Adams, I think he risked a lot for peace, but I don't like his politics and I don't like his party. I would have liked a deeper analysis of the political strategies, not some mildly disinteresting bloviating from self congratulatory peacemakers from all camps.

By the way, was I the only one with my face in my palms while listening to Barbara Streisand speak? Honestly, lets leave this pathetic cult of personality at the door. I'm glad Adams acknowledged that she is just an ordinary person.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

............ I'm glad Adams acknowledged that she is just an ordinary person.

After seeing 5 minutes of Yentl, I would have put her alongside Robert Mugabe, but perhaps we should extend the hand etc........

Denerick

Nodin wrote: »

After seeing 5 minutes of Yentl, I would have put her alongside Robert Mugabe, but perhaps we should extend the hand etc........

LOL! I sat through that whole film one time in a mild state of inebriation. A crime against humanity indeed!

danbohan

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

EDIT: For whatever reason, "others like him" was grossly misinterpreted by some people; see post 10 below for clarification.

perhaps if you lived in northern ireland and faced the discrimation that nationlist faced you might understand why men like adams etc existed

Denerick

danbohan wrote: »

perhaps if you lived in northern ireland and faced the discrimation that nationlist faced you might understand why men like adams etc existed

Perhaps if you lived in northern Ireland and faced the discrimination that nationalists faced you might understand why men like Hume existed.

danbohan

Denerick wrote: »

Perhaps if you lived in northern Ireland and faced the discrimination that nationalists faced you might understand why men like Hume existed.

men like hume existed right throughtout the history of northern ireland , they were ignored as was john hume , the only thing that brought change in northern ireland and unionist attidude was a war unfortunatley

danbohan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I admit that it was bad and that people had a right to protest but I truely believe that however bad it was it wasn't worth one human life.

did you live in northern ireland at that time ?, did you visit at that time ? were you even alive at that time ? , if not you know nothing about it .

danbohan

Winty wrote: »

Can we get back to Adams

Did his neice appear in the interview

no , but next week they are going let dr no talk all about kincora , why dont you grow up winty , your peddling that line bs on several threads

oscarBravo

danbohan wrote: »

did you live in northern ireland at that time ?, did you visit at that time ? were you even alive at that time ? , if not you know nothing about it .

OK, so it was worth at least one human life. How many had to die before it wouldn't have been worth it any more?

Wolfe Tone

I think Omagh was the end of the "armed struggle" so to speak. There was never any need to kill civilians.

danbohan

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so it was worth at least one human life. How many had to die before it wouldn't have been worth it any more?

depends on what freedom means to you i suppose ,neither you or i are from northern ireland , we did not face the discrimanation and despair that nationlist faced pre 1969 , perhaps if we did then we might understand what price had to be paid

Iwasfrozen

danbohan wrote: »

did you live in northern ireland at that time ?, did you visit at that time ? were you even alive at that time ? , if not you know nothing about it .

No to the first two questions, yes to the third. Also your logic doesn't add up it is quite possible to be an expert on Northern politics without actually being born at the time. There are many experts on Roman politics who were not alive at the time of the empire.

Iwasfrozen

danbohan wrote: »

depends on what freedom means to you i suppose ,neither you or i are from northern ireland , we did not face the discrimanation and despair that nationlist faced pre 1969 , perhaps if we did then we might understand what price had to be paid

No matter how much discrimination republicans faced in the North. The IRA had no right to kill any innocent people.

oscarBravo

danbohan wrote: »

depends on what freedom means to you i suppose...

I can't think of any aspect of freedom that I would consider worth murdering children for. I'm aware that not everyone shares that view.

...neither you or i are from northern ireland , we did not face the discrimanation and despair that nationlist faced pre 1969 , perhaps if we did then we might understand what price had to be paid

I'd like to think that, faced with discrimination and despair, I would respond with dignity and honour. I can't imagine any degree of discrimination, or any depth of despair, that would make me think it was OK to murder children.

Maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part, but I hope not.

danbohan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No matter how much discrimination republicans faced in the North. The IRA had no right to kill any innocent people.

name me war in history where innocent civilians were not killed

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't think of any aspect of freedom that I would consider worth murdering children for. I'm aware that not everyone shares that view. I'd like to think that, faced with discrimination and despair, I would respond with dignity and honour. I can't imagine any degree of discrimination, or any depth of despair, that would make me think it was OK to murder children.

Maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part, but I hope not.

"Murdering children" is a very narrow minded way to view the troubles. Atrocities happened on both sides remember, although I believe that IRA should never have targeted civilians.

danbohan

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't think of any aspect of freedom that I would consider worth murdering children for. I'm aware that not everyone shares that view. I'd like to think that, faced with discrimination and despair, I would respond with dignity and honour. I can't imagine any degree of discrimination, or any depth of despair, that would make me think it was OK to murder children.

Maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part, but I hope not.

what about british armys murder of children ? , that ok with you ?

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

"Murdering children" is a very narrow minded way to view the troubles. Atrocities happened on both sides remember, although I believe that IRA should never have targeted civilians.

I believe the IRA should never have done anything that could possibly have resulted in the deaths of children.

danbohan wrote: »

what about british armys murder of children ? , that ok with you ?

No, but I guess it makes the IRA's murder of children OK, right?