Gerry Adams to run for President ?

tayto lover

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

While I would like to debate the justifications of armed campaign, unfortunatly its not entirely clear whether or not that is permitted in this forum (inevitably you would ask about individual incidents) and seen as I was banned a while back for comments arguing justification, I imagine I am on thin ice... Don't want to be banned again.

Sceptre seen as you are here, whats the deal with the proposed NI forum? That going ahead?

Well now wasn't that very timely.
Saved by the bell W.T.

Wolfe Tone

tayto lover wrote: »

Well now wasn't that very timely.
Saved by the bell W.T.

I think anyone who is familiar with my posts will tell you I have no problem whatsoever in arguing my position.

end a eknny

angelfire9 wrote: »

Pray tell what on earth you were doing to have the UDR put a gun to your head?
I funnily enough never witnessed any of the type of thing you are talking about and I spent quite alot of time in the north when I was in my teens at the height of the "troubles"

You refer to the British Army as terrorists but seem to see the IRA terrorism as heroism

Let me repeat what I have stated in my last comment as you seem to not understand my point

There is NOTHING HEROIC in the killing of innocent men, women & children by large scale bomb attacks such as those the IRA carried out in Enniskillen and Warrington (2 name just 2 locations)

I listened to a muppet from Republican Sinn Fein on Clare FM this morning who said that Ronan Kerr's murder was justified because he "worked for Crown forces" :mad:
This type of lunatic republicanism almost ruined our country once

Gerry Adams was interred and lived on the run because he was a CRIMINAL
and a TERRORIST and an orchestrator of violence and murder in both Northern Ireland and the UK mainland as well as in the Republic

He doesn't deny that
Why do you?

you are not short on waffle but a bit short on facts.for one gerry adams has continually denied being a meber of the ira. as for what i done to have a brave member of the british security forces put a gun to my head i was guilty of being in a soutern reg car. as for all the times you have been in the north and seen nothing, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see. adn if the british security forces want to ignore bomb warnings to maximise casulities to improve their cause then the victims should take that up with them. fact is people will get killed in a war take the reason for the war away and people wont die.

Cdub

I'm with the pro Adams guys and gals, think he'd be an interesting choice.

Corsendonk

end a eknny wrote: »

you are not short on waffle but a bit short on facts.for one gerry adams has continually denied being a meber of the ira. as for what i done to have a brave member of the british security forces put a gun to my head i was guilty of being in a soutern reg car. as for all the times you have been in the north and seen nothing, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see. adn if the british security forces want to ignore bomb warnings to maximise casulities to improve their cause then the victims should take that up with them. fact is people will get killed in a war take the reason for the war away and people wont die.

While you Sir are short on capital letters and spell check in your posts. Try using them, they might help you get your argument over better.

tayto lover

end a eknny wrote: »

you are not short on waffle but a bit short on facts.for one gerry adams has continually denied being a meber of the ira. as for what i done to have a brave member of the british security forces put a gun to my head i was guilty of being in a soutern reg car. as for all the times you have been in the north and seen nothing, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see. adn if the british security forces want to ignore bomb warnings to maximise casulities to improve their cause then the victims should take that up with them. fact is people will get killed in a war take the reason for the war away and people wont die.

If Gerry Adams was not a member of the I.R.A. as he claims then i again ask the question why not ? It does not ring true.
I lived in border area for years and know what the U.D.R. and old R.U.C. were like. Members of my family marched in the Civil Rights protests (Burntollet too) so we knew well what it was like. However my questions in my last post spell out how i feel about murderers who can leave bombs in town and under cars and make it back to the safety of the pub before they explode, remain unanswered.

Liam Byrne

end a eknny wrote: »

you are not short on waffle but a bit short on facts.for one gerry adams has continually denied being a meber of the ira. as for what i done to have a brave member of the british security forces put a gun to my head i was guilty of being in a soutern reg car. as for all the times you have been in the north and seen nothing, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see. adn if the british security forces want to ignore bomb warnings to maximise casulities to improve their cause then the victims should take that up with them. fact is people will get killed in a war take the reason for the war away and people wont die.

Oh boy! Where to start!

Firstly (and on-thread) Gerry Adams has no credibility

Secondly, security forces ignoring warnings doesn't "maximise casualties" - putting a friggin' bomb in a street does

Thirdly, if people didn't put bombs in streets then the security forces wouldn't need to stop people and have guns on them when they do

Fourthly, if you have the above mindset re blaming the wrong people and excusing the thugs involved, it would also add to the chances of you being stopped

Finally, why is "people will get killed in a war" an OK defence of bombing, and yet you fail to see that "people will get stopped by armed soldiers in a war"

It was either a war (with war rules on both sides) or it wasn't! People who use the "war" card seem to forget that it works both ways and that security forces have to act differently in a "war".

HavingCrack

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Finally, why is "people will get killed in a war" an OK defence of bombing, and yet you fail to see that "people will get stopped by armed soldiers in a war"

It was either a war (with war rules on both sides) or it wasn't! People who use the "war" card seem to forget that it works both ways and that security forces have to act differently in a "war".

This always bothered me actually. Apparently it was perfectly ok for the PIRA to kill unarmed British soliders but when the SAS killed several PIRA members in an ambush rather than ask them to surrender there was uproar. It's either a war (with all its violence and dirty tricks) or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

maccored

i think you might find that the IRA never had a problem calling it a war, whereas the british government constantly denied it was a war.

therefore when the british army contradicts what the british government states, there of course is uproar as its double standards.

tayto lover

HavingCrack wrote: »

This always bothered me actually. Apparently it was perfectly ok for the PIRA to kill unarmed British soliders but when the SAS killed several PIRA members in an ambush rather than ask them to surrender there was uproar. It's either a war (with all its violence and dirty tricks) or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Like the boy in school when asked "what caused the fight"? He answered "the fight started when he hit me back".

end a eknny

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh boy! Where to start!

Firstly (and on-thread) Gerry Adams has no credibility

Secondly, security forces ignoring warnings doesn't "maximise casualties" - putting a friggin' bomb in a street does

Thirdly, if people didn't put bombs in streets then the security forces wouldn't need to stop people and have guns on them when they do

Fourthly, if you have the above mindset re blaming the wrong people and excusing the thugs involved, it would also add to the chances of you being stopped

Finally, why is "people will get killed in a war" an OK defence of bombing, and yet you fail to see that "people will get stopped by armed soldiers in a war"

It was either a war (with war rules on both sides) or it wasn't! People who use the "war" card seem to forget that it works both ways and that security forces have to act differently in a "war".

there was a war but one side had goverment backing and no britsh soliders ever went to jail for assault, murder or intimitadion yet republicans where sent to jail without trial. killed while unarmed without trial. but most of all the british had no legitimate right to be in ireland.

end a eknny

tayto lover wrote: »

Like the boy in school when asked "what caused the fight"? He answered "the fight started when he hit me back".

and thats what the oppressed irish where trying to do just to fight back, its hard when you have spent so many years with the full weight of the british empire standing on your throat. but a time has to come when the people have to say enough is enough and fight back. this fight back was probably caused by the death of 13 unarmed civilians in derry. but maybe yous are right maybe the nationalists should have made orderly lines and queued up to be shot

tayto lover

end a eknny wrote: »

and thats what the oppressed irish where trying to do just to fight back, its hard when you have spent so many years with the full weight of the british empire standing on your throat. but a time has to come when the people have to say enough is enough and fight back. this fight back was probably caused by the death of 13 unarmed civilians in derry. but maybe yous are right maybe the nationalists should have made orderly lines and queued up to be shot

Pathetic.

Wolfe Tone

HavingCrack wrote: »

This always bothered me actually. Apparently it was perfectly ok for the PIRA to kill unarmed British soliders but when the SAS killed several PIRA members in an ambush rather than ask them to surrender there was uproar. It's either a war (with all its violence and dirty tricks) or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Its said they executed them after the volunteers surrendered.

end a eknny

tayto lover wrote: »

Pathetic.

some people dont like the facts you can belive want you want but i will stick to the truth

Happyman42

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its said they executed them after the volunteers surrendered.

The Loughgall attackers where all shot in exactly the same place under the cheek with the bullet exiting at the back of the head as well as a multitude of other injuries. Some have suggested that it is a known SAS finishing technique.

tayto lover

end a eknny wrote: »

some people dont like the facts you can belive want you want but i will stick to the truth

You can't handle the truth.

HavingCrack

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its said they executed them after the volunteers surrendered.

Loughgall does seem to be very murky all around, I doubt we'll ever know what really happened. But anyway my point is that war is always dirty and violent. Executing people who surrender regularly occurs in warzones desptie the Geneva conventions. The PIRA had no problem killing off duty and unarmed British soliders either. I just find it odd that they found it unacceptable when the British army/SAS/RUC played dirty but had no problem with doing it themselves. As I said, you can't have it both ways.

end a eknny

HavingCrack wrote: »

Loughgall does seem to be very murky all around, I doubt we'll ever know what really happened. But anyway my point is that war is always dirty and violent. Executing people who surrender regularly occurs in warzones desptie the Geneva conventions. The PIRA had no problem killing off duty and unarmed British soliders either. I just find it odd that they found it unacceptable when the British army/SAS/RUC played dirty but had no problem with doing it themselves. As I said, you can't have it both ways.

tell us the names of the british soliders who went to jail for murdering innocent civilians i can list hundreds of ira volunteers who went to jail and also innocent men and women who wernt even in the ira thei

tayto lover

end a eknny wrote: »

tell us the names of the british soliders who went to jail for murdering innocent civilians i can list hundreds of ira volunteers who went to jail and also innocent men and women who wernt even in the ira thei

Ha ha of course you can.

HavingCrack

end a eknny wrote: »

tell us the names of the british soliders who went to jail for murdering innocent civilians i can list hundreds of ira volunteers who went to jail and also innocent men and women who wernt even in the ira thei

What's that got to do with anything??? It's utterly irrelevant to my post.

jimmycrackcorm

I'd vote for neither Adams nor Norris - they both need elocution lessons as goes for anyone from Caaark.

Deedsie

Hi sorry for reviving such an old thread, but i was thinking about this today. Michael D will be 77 at the next election. Will anyway stand against him or will he just continue into a second term unopposed?

Will a 70 year old Gerry Adams consider a run at the Áras? Time for Mary Lou or Doherty to take over the Sinn Féin presidency?

Podgerz

Deedsie wrote: »

Hi sorry for reviving such an old thread, but i was thinking about this today. Michael D will be 77 at the next election. Will anyway stand against him or will he just continue into a second term unopposed?

Will a 70 year old Gerry Adams consider a run at the Áras? Time for Mary Lou or Doherty to take over the Sinn Féin presidency?

And if at the time in 2016 SF support is as strong as now, along with that the North being allowed a vote in presidential elections; any shinner would stand a great chance.

And it being 2016 anniversary would be glorifying the rising and armed rebellion wouldnt hurt Gerrys status. Good shout

Tramps Like Us

Deedsie wrote: »

Hi sorry for reviving such an old thread, but i was thinking about this today. Michael D will be 77 at the next election. Will anyway stand against him or will he just continue into a second term unopposed?

Will a 70 year old Gerry Adams consider a run at the Áras? Time for Mary Lou or Doherty to take over the Sinn Féin presidency?

I think Higgins said he only wanted one term. I reckon MMG might run again, especially if people in the north east of the country can vote

Iwasfrozen

Podgerz wrote: »

along with that the North being allowed a vote in presidential elections;

Scoff!

Annasopra

Deedsie wrote: »

Hi sorry for reviving such an old thread, but i was thinking about this today. Michael D will be 77 at the next election. Will anyway stand against him or will he just continue into a second term unopposed?

Will a 70 year old Gerry Adams consider a run at the Áras? Time for Mary Lou or Doherty to take over the Sinn Féin presidency?

Higgins only said he would serve one term

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Scoff!

???????

Manassas61

If Northern Ireland is allowed to vote, then the Unionist community need to have a candidate for them to vote for.

Crooked Jack

Manassas61 wrote: »

If Northern Ireland is allowed to vote, then the Unionist community need to have a candidate for them to vote for.

All the better.