Allegation McGuinness ordered RUC assassinations

snafuk35

KeithAFC wrote: »

A guy involved in the PIRA ordering the killing of good RUC men shocker. I can't say this is surprising at all and I imagine it shocks no one. It has been done and nothing can be done now. I feel sorry for the families but life has to move on.

McGuinness claims he left the IRA in 1974. He denies any involvement with its violent activities ever since so obviously he hasn't moved on. He's still lying. Never mind that Gerry Adams claims he was never even a member of the IRA!

Happyman42

snafuk35 wrote: »

Never mind that Gerry Adams claims he was never even a member of the IRA!

Don't you think if they could've proved he was a member that they would have locked him up? The only way it could work was to separate the 2 organisations. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. Simple and smart political expediency.

COYW

This individual was presidential material in these of a sizeable section of the electorate. I really despair for this country.

Crooked Jack

This individual wasn't Presidential material in the eyes of the majority of the electorate. I really despair for this country.

Happyman42

COYW wrote: »

This individual was presidential material in these of a sizeable section of the electorate. I really despair for this country.

Yeh, we need to get back to the old days, Dev and the boys!
Maybe if he'd quoted bad poetry at the oppressors he would be more fit to be pres?:rolleyes:

Fenian Army

If Marty didnt leave in '74 he is hardly gonna say otherwise and get himself locked up is he?

BFDCH.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

It's appropriate that our resident sectarian bigot Keith should blunder in so heedlessly and Dubhlinner should get on his/her high horse about "the myth" of RUC collusion. Appropriate for us, unfortunate for them.

Let's look at the sworn affidavit of RUC Officer John Weir concerning RUC-Loyalist collusion throughout the Armagh in the 70s.

http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html

If Harry Breen were alive today he'd be sitting safe from prosecution, enjoying an enormous Patten pension, like hundreds of other former senior RUC officers.

The Smithwick Tribunal - which has so far uncovered not one single piece of evidence of Gardai collusion in the ambush of RUC Officers Breen and Buchanan - set out the following in it's opening term of reference.

http://www.smithwicktribunal.ie/smithwick/OPENING%20STATEMENT.htm

By Judge Smithwick's own terms, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen - and the entire leadership of the RUC from the 70s and 80s are guilty of gross collusion.

great post, goes a long way to dispelling the idea that these men were innocent, law abiding policemen doing the job they were employed to do.

snafuk35

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't you think if they could've proved he was a member that they would have locked him up? The only way it could work was to separate the 2 organisations. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. Simple and smart political expediency.

So until the armed struggle was over all that Gerry was doing was mixing their drinks and hanging their jackets up? Sure.

Happyman42

snafuk35 wrote: »

So until the armed struggle was over all that Gerry was doing was mixing their drinks and hanging their jackets up? Sure.

Until you can prove it, yeh, that's what he was doing.

I could make loads of allegations about TD's who are on the take, but I can't name them because I can't prove it. I would be swiftly banned.
Why are you allowed to make this allegation without producing proof?
And the word of a journalist is NOT proof (to save you scurrying off to google.)

snafuk35

Happyman42 wrote: »

Until you can prove it, yeh, that's what he was doing.

I could make loads of allegations about TD's who are on the take, but I can't name them because I can't prove it. I would be swiftly banned.
Why are you allowed to make this allegation without producing proof?
And the word of a journalist is NOT proof (to save you scurrying off to google.)

Brendan "Darkie" Hughes said he was in the IRA and that Adams ordered the murder of Jean McConville. This has been corroborated by no less than Dolours Price who admitted to having driven the woman to where she was murdered. The IRA unit that killed McConville answered to Adams. Those statements have weight not only because you are talking about two veteran republicans who were totems of the armed struggle but because they were taken by historical researchers at Boston College on condition that they would not be released until after their deaths. Boston College was forced to release the information years later after their motion to quash a subpoena was unsuccessful. Adams comically claimed that Hughes who has since died had an agenda from beyond the grave! Nobody believes a thing Adams says.

Happyman42

snafuk35 wrote: »

Brendan "Darkie" Hughes said he was in the IRA and that Adams ordered the murder of Jean McConville. This has been corroborated by no less than Dolours Price who admitted to having driven the woman to where she was murdered. The IRA unit that killed McConville answered to Adams. Those statements have weight not only because you are talking about two veteran republicans who were totems of the armed struggle but because they were taken by historical researchers at Boston College on condition that they would not be released until after their deaths. Boston College was forced to release the information years later after their motion to quash a subpoena was unsuccessful. Adams comically claimed that Hughes who has since died had an agenda from beyond the grave! Nobody believes a thing Adams says.

Allegations by people with a vested interest?????????? :rolleyes:
Isn't that what people are horrified by in the case of Jean McConville. Absurd and hypocrital post alert!

fryup

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it isn't made up. It's documented fact - well established by a multitude of statistics, from raids to killings - all heavily against the Catholic/Nationalist community.

well thats because most of the violent activity/aggression was coming from the catholic/nationalist side

the IRA killed more people than anyone else during the troubles and that is a fact

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

great post, goes a long way to dispelling the idea that these men were innocent, law abiding policemen doing the job they were employed to do.

What myth?

These officers aren't on trial here.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What myth?

These officers aren't on trial here.

The reason they were targets is relevant to an tribunal surely?

Crooked Jack

fryup wrote: »

well thats because most of the violent activity/aggression was coming from the catholic/nationalist side

the IRA killed more people than anyone else during the troubles and that is a fact

If you care to direct your attention towards post 24 you'll see a list of catholic civilians killed by the RUC in 1969, before the PIRA even existed, yet loyalists had begun a fresh murder campaign as early as '66. The pogroms of 1969 against the nationalist community are also well documented while no similar attacks on the loyalist community can be pointed to. How then can you state that most of the violence was coming from the nationalist/republican side. RUC violence against nationalists predates the most recent phase of the conflict as well with murders stretching back to the very beginning of the state, yet despite a few flurries of activity the IRA in the north was largely inert since the Civil War, particularly in the years following the end of the Border campaign in '62 (although it had pretty much petered out by '59/'60.)
Indeed many historians point out that by 1969 the nationalist community had little or no appetite for another fight with the state and support for republicanism fell as more and more people integrated themselves into the state. It was the violence of loyalism, often in the guise of the B SPecials and the RUC that ignited the Troubles so quite contrary to what you're saying, IRA violence was a response to RUC/State violence and not the other way around.

Happyman42

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If you care to direct your attention towards post 24 you'll see a list of catholic civilians killed by the RUC in 1969, before the PIRA even existed, yet loyalists had begun a fresh murder campaign as early as '66. The pogroms of 1969 against the nationalist community are also well documented while no similar attacks on the loyalist community can be pointed to. How then can you state that most of the violence was coming from the nationalist/republican side. RUC violence against nationalists predates the most recent phase of the conflict as well with murders stretching back to the very beginning of the state, yet despite a few flurries of activity the IRA in the north was largely inert since the Civil War, particularly in the years following the end of the Border campaign in '62 (although it had pretty much petered out by '59/'60.)
Indeed many historians point out that by 1969 the nationalist community had little or no appetite for another fight with the state and support for republicanism fell as more and more people integrated themselves into the state. It was the violence of loyalism, often in the guise of the B SPecials and the RUC that ignited the Troubles so quite contrary to what you're saying, IRA violence was a response to RUC/State violence and not the other way around.

That is what is called 'a spanner in the partitionist mantra' Jack.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

The reason they were targets is relevant to an tribunal surely?

No, its not.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If you care to direct your attention towards post 24 you'll see a list of catholic civilians killed by the RUC in 1969, before the PIRA even existed, yet loyalists had begun a fresh murder campaign as early as '66. The pogroms of 1969 against the nationalist community are also well documented while no similar attacks on the loyalist community can be pointed to. How then can you state that most of the violence was coming from the nationalist/republican side. RUC violence against nationalists predates the most recent phase of the conflict as well with murders stretching back to the very beginning of the state, yet despite a few flurries of activity the IRA in the north was largely inert since the Civil War, particularly in the years following the end of the Border campaign in '62 (although it had pretty much petered out by '59/'60.)
Indeed many historians point out that by 1969 the nationalist community had little or no appetite for another fight with the state and support for republicanism fell as more and more people integrated themselves into the state. It was the violence of loyalism, often in the guise of the B SPecials and the RUC that ignited the Troubles so quite contrary to what you're saying, IRA violence was a response to RUC/State violence and not the other way around.

But it wasn't an act carried out in the name of civil rights. It was an act of murder.

If you are trying to tell me that the two officers were actively engaged in an act of violence against innocent people then please provide some evidence.

This was a simple act of premeditated murder against two policemen who were just doing their job.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, its not.

Then why is the tribunal interested in the specific role (border Superintendents) these 2 officers had?:rolleyes:

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But it wasn't an act carried out in the name of civil rights. It was an act of murder.

If you are trying to tell me that the two officers were actively engaged in an act of violence against innocent people then please provide some evidence.

This was a simple act of premeditated murder against two policemen who were just doing their job.

the evidence is in the post that I replied to earlier and that you quoted me on.

These were not two ordinary policemen, these were people who had been involved with(at the very least turning a blind eye) loyalist terrorists in the border area. They myth that they were just policemen is the myth I referred to earlier.

K-9

BFDCH. wrote: »

the evidence is in the post that I replied to earlier and that you quoted me on.

These were not two ordinary policemen, these were people who had been involved with(at the very least turning a blind eye) loyalist terrorists in the border area. They myth that they were just policemen is the myth I referred to earlier.

I see nothing in that report that these 2 men were involved in collusion.

Can you quote where it says that?

BFDCH.

K-9 wrote: »

I see nothing in that report that these 2 men were involved in collusion.

Can you quote where it says that?

Have another read, you must have missed the bit...it was the whole bit.

This is the definition of collusion from the tribunal.

‘However, I can say at this stage that the issue of collusion will be examined in the broadest sense of the word. While it generally means the commission of an act, I am of the view that it should also be considered in terms of an omission or failure to act. In the active sense, collusion has amongst its meanings to conspire, connive or collaborate. In addition, I intend to examine whether anybody deliberately ignored a matter, or turned a blind eye to it, or to have pretended ignorance or unawareness of something one ought morally, legally or officially to oppose.’


Harry Breen was present during discussions about connections with Loyalists in Down, BMCB admitted to being a member, breen did nothing, he produced a gun, breen did nothing, brought in two home made sub machine guns and discussed plans to make more for terrorist purposes, breen did nothing. He was also witness to loyalist arms trafficking and did nothing.

On another occasion he helped transport and test the machine guns manufactured by loyalists, do i need to go through the whole thing for you?
‘I think it is important to make it clear that this collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries such as Robin Jackson and my RUC colleagues and me was taking place with the full knowledge of my superiors’
When you see a statement like that made by an RUC officer, you can see the nature of the collusion between the RUC from the highest level right down to the rank and file and loyalist terrorists.

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

Have another read, you must have missed the bit...it was the whole bit.

This is the definition of collusion from the tribunal.

‘However, I can say at this stage that the issue of collusion will be examined in the broadest sense of the word. While it generally means the commission of an act, I am of the view that it should also be considered in terms of an omission or failure to act. In the active sense, collusion has amongst its meanings to conspire, connive or collaborate. In addition, I intend to examine whether anybody deliberately ignored a matter, or turned a blind eye to it, or to have pretended ignorance or unawareness of something one ought morally, legally or officially to oppose.’


Harry Breen was present during discussions about connections with Loyalists in Down, BMCB admitted to being a member, breen did nothing, he produced a gun, breen did nothing, brought in two home made sub machine guns and discussed plans to make more for terrorist purposes, breen did nothing. He was also witness to loyalist arms trafficking and did nothing.

On another occasion he helped transport and test the machine guns manufactured by loyalists, do i need to go through the whole thing for you?
‘I think it is important to make it clear that this collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries such as Robin Jackson and my RUC colleagues and me was taking place with the full knowledge of my superiors’
When you see a statement like that made by an RUC officer, you can see the nature of the collusion between the RUC from the highest level right down to the rank and file and loyalist terrorists.

So what you are saying then, is that as there was collusion going on in Dundalk and senior members of the Gardai were turning a blind eye to it, every copper in ireland is a justifiable target for Loyalist paramilitaries?

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what you are saying then, is that as there was collusion going on in Dundalk and senior members of the Gardai were turning a blind eye to it, every copper in ireland is a justifiable target for Loyalist paramilitaries?

No. Can you not understand the Queen's English. I was clearly talking about the RUC and Breen in particular.

Comparing the actions of one Garda(that hasn't been proven) with a 'police service' that was rotten to the core is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen.

K-9

BFDCH. wrote: »

Have another read, you must have missed the bit...it was the whole bit.

This is the definition of collusion from the tribunal.

‘However, I can say at this stage that the issue of collusion will be examined in the broadest sense of the word. While it generally means the commission of an act, I am of the view that it should also be considered in terms of an omission or failure to act. In the active sense, collusion has amongst its meanings to conspire, connive or collaborate. In addition, I intend to examine whether anybody deliberately ignored a matter, or turned a blind eye to it, or to have pretended ignorance or unawareness of something one ought morally, legally or officially to oppose.’


Harry Breen was present during discussions about connections with Loyalists in Down, BMCB admitted to being a member, breen did nothing, he produced a gun, breen did nothing, brought in two home made sub machine guns and discussed plans to make more for terrorist purposes, breen did nothing. He was also witness to loyalist arms trafficking and did nothing.

On another occasion he helped transport and test the machine guns manufactured by loyalists, do i need to go through the whole thing for you?
‘I think it is important to make it clear that this collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries such as Robin Jackson and my RUC colleagues and me was taking place with the full knowledge of my superiors’
When you see a statement like that made by an RUC officer, you can see the nature of the collusion between the RUC from the highest level right down to the rank and file and loyalist terrorists.

What was the affidavit for? I notice it is dated 1999. I don't know how creditable that siite is, the home page doesn't seem to work.

Okay, we appear to have one mans evidence that Breen was involved. Unfortunately, going on previous comments on this thread, that isn't sufficient, especially if somebody might have had a grudge.

BFDCH.

K-9 wrote: »

What was the affidavit for? I notice it is dated 1999. I don't know how creditable that siite is, the home page doesn't seem to work.

Okay, we appear to have one mans evidence that Breen was involved. Unfortunately, going on previous comments on this thread, that isn't sufficient, especially if somebody might have had a grudge.

An Irish Judge says otherwise...rather than a thread :-)


Weir's affidavit was published in the 2003 Barron Report which was the findings of an official investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings commissioned by Irish Supreme Court Justice Henry Barron. The Barron Inquiry interviewed Weir in February 2001; Mr Justice Barron concluded that "Weir's evidence overall is credible".

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

An Irish Judge says otherwise...rather than a thread :-)


Weir's affidavit was published in the 2003 Barron Report which was the findings of an official investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings commissioned by Irish Supreme Court Justice Henry Barron. The Barron Inquiry interviewed Weir in February 2001; Mr Justice Barron concluded that "Weir's evidence overall is credible".

and none of which would have been known to Martin McGuinness when he gave the order to murder the two officers.

The IRA killed them because they could and because they wanted to protect the "Good Republican" Slab Murphy. The fact that ONE of the officers is accused of collusion (By an RUC officer who was convicted of murder) is pretty irrelevant to the tribunal or the allegations.

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and none of which would have been known to Martin McGuinness when he gave the order to murder the two officers.

The IRA killed them because they could and because they wanted to protect the "Good Republican" Slab Murphy. The fact that ONE of the officers is accused of collusion (By an RUC officer who was convicted of murder) is pretty irrelevant to the tribunal or the allegations.

How do you know it wasn't known? How do you know McG gave the order, do you have proof? get yourself a long to the tribunal, the country needs geniuses like you.
Why would killing these officers protect slab Murphy?
The fact that they were involved in collusion is irrelevant to this tribunal, but it is relevant to the thread given that a lot of posters are trying to imply these police officers should be seen in the same light as the Guards, who by and large did the job they were supposed to do.

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

How do you know it wasn't known? How do you know McG gave the order, do you have proof? get yourself a long to the tribunal, the country needs geniuses like you.
Why would killing these officers protect slab Murphy?
The fact that they were involved in collusion is irrelevant to this tribunal, but it is relevant to the thread given that a lot of posters are trying to imply these police officers should be seen in the same light as the Guards, who by and large did the job they were supposed to do.

they were sent to Dundalk to discuss the smuggling activities of Slab Murphy. The collusion accusations also relate to the murder, by the IRA, of a farmer in the area who offered to give the Gards information on his smuggling activities.

Hoe do I know our Marty was involved? I'm reading the accusations made at the tribunal. And f he did know they were involved in collusion, then he should have reported it.

but, as I say, the reason the IRA killed these officers was because they could.

Exile 1798

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and none of which would have been known to Martin McGuinness when he gave the order to murder the two officers.

"Allegedly"

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA killed them because they could and because they wanted to protect the "Good Republican" Slab Murphy. The fact that ONE of the officers is accused of collusion (By an RUC officer who was convicted of murder) is pretty irrelevant to the tribunal or the allegations.

I agree with this. (except for the gratuitous Slab comment)

It is irrelevant to the tribunal. It was brought up in response to the "collusion barely existed at all / RUC sectarianism a Nationalist myth" line being promulgated pompously by a few posters, who very obviously chose the wrong thread to get on their soapbox.

The serious allegations surrounding Harry Breen, and given that even minus those specific allegations the mere fact that he was a senior RUC officer in Armagh throughout the murder triangle era when local Loyalists and elements of the RUC worked hand in glove - by Smithwick's own very general reference terms, would be enough to consider him involved in collusion. It's called being hoisted on your own petard. The point is political, not legal. Then again, Smithwick and the coverage surrounding it is 99% politics, and so is this thread.

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

they were sent to Dundalk to discuss the smuggling activities of Slab Murphy. The collusion accusations also relate to the murder, by the IRA, of a farmer in the area who offered to give the Gards information on his smuggling activities.

Hoe do I know our Marty was involved? I'm reading the accusations made at the tribunal. And f he did know they were involved in collusion, then he should have reported it.

but, as I say, the reason the IRA killed these officers was because they could.

hahahaha. reported it to who? The RUC? 'RUC, you are colluding with Loyalist terrorists, I would like you to arrest yourselves'

If I were to accuse you of being a clown and an idiot.
Would that make you a clown and an idiot? I would've just made it up and accused you of it, should it then be taken as fact?
Or should we rely on proper evidence like your own posts to condemn you as a clown or an idiot?
I think we should wait until the verdict and facts/evidence are confirmed before making allegations that you have no proof to back them up with.

For example, the Barron report proving that there was a huge amount of RUC collusion, in all senses of the word, with Loyalist terrorists and that they were involved in the sectarian murder of civilians and IRA members alike; that Breen, who was killed in this instance, was involved in that collusion is supported by Judge Barrons conclusion that Weirs evidence was credible (he had been an upstanding member of the RUC after all)

K-9

BFDCH. wrote: »

An Irish Judge says otherwise...rather than a thread :-)


Weir's affidavit was published in the 2003 Barron Report which was the findings of an official investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings commissioned by Irish Supreme Court Justice Henry Barron. The Barron Inquiry interviewed Weir in February 2001; Mr Justice Barron concluded that "Weir's evidence overall is credible".

Fair enough. I would take note of "evidence overall is credible".

Exile 1798 wrote:

It is irrelevant to the tribunal. It was brought up in response to the "collusion barely existed at all / RUC sectarianism a Nationalist myth" line being promulgated pompously by a few posters, who very obviously chose the wrong thread to get on their soapbox.

The serious allegations surrounding Harry Breen, and given that even minus those specific allegations the mere fact that he was a senior RUC officer in Armagh throughout the murder triangle era when local Loyalists and elements of the RUC worked hand in glove - by Smithwick's own very general reference terms, would be enough to consider him involved in collusion. It's called being hoisted on your own petard. The point is political, not legal. Then again, Smithwick and the coverage surrounding it is 99% politics, and so is this thread.

I accept there was collusion, it was a dirty war after all. What I don't accept is different standards applied in say the Jean McConville case that was mentioned.

Obviously the authorities are held to higher standards, tribunals etc. but dismissing sources as vested interests is a bit too convenient. Who wasn't in some way or another!

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

hahahaha. reported it to who? The RUC? 'RUC, you are colluding with Loyalist terrorists, I would like you to arrest yourselves'

If I were to accuse you of being a clown and an idiot.
Would that make you a clown and an idiot? I would've just made it up and accused you of it, should it then be taken as fact?
Or should we rely on proper evidence like your own posts to condemn you as a clown or an idiot?
I think we should wait until the verdict and facts/evidence are confirmed before making allegations that you have no proof to back them up with.

For example, the Barron report proving that there was a huge amount of RUC collusion, in all senses of the word, with Loyalist terrorists and that they were involved in the sectarian murder of civilians and IRA members alike; that Breen, who was killed in this instance, was involved in that collusion is supported by Judge Barrons conclusion that Weirs evidence was credible (he had been an upstanding member of the RUC after all)

if I was a clown and an idiot then I would resort to personal abuse when I am struggling to engage in a rational arguement.

There is a very clear allegation that Martin McGuinness ordered the murder of these two officers. Their relatives deserve to know the truth, yes or no?

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if I was a clown and an idiot then I would resort to personal abuse when I am struggling to engage in a rational arguement.

There is a very clear allegation that Martin McGuinness ordered the murder of these two officers. Their relatives deserve to know the truth, yes or no?

you've struggled with rational arguement the whole way through this thread, let me be clear I was trying to show you how an allegation is different from something that can be taken as fact based on evidence as you seem to have trouble grasping that. I was not calling you a clown or an idiot, i said if i did would it be taken as fact that you were with out an evidence to back it up...the answer is no it shouldn't be.

I agree that their relatives deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, including their own actions which may or may not have had a bearing on their death.

edit- also, you kind of did resort to personal abuse in that you resorted to the 'i know you are but what am i' retort when you thought i was calling you a clown and an idiot.

walshb

dlofnep wrote: »

The RUC colluded with loyalist terrorists, and routinely attacked and harassed the nationalist community. It was a corrupt organisation. Please don't make false assessments of the RUC as being 'good'.

So true. A horribly bent and corrupt and devious force. Used on this island to oppress one people and to promote another.

walshb

K-9 wrote: »

There's a danger of mixing up the RUC, the organisation, and good, professional coppers.

No, there is no danger. The RUC was never anything but what I described above. Never!

fasttalkerchat

walshb wrote: »

No, there is no danger. The RUC was never anything but what I described above. Never!

There might have been a good one among them but they all followed bad orders. The PSNI has many former RUC members but they don't behave the same way 99% of the time.

Happyman42

walshb wrote: »

So true. A horribly bent and corrupt and devious force. Used on this island to oppress one people and to promote another.

And it's extraordinary to see how many 'Irish' people will reject that this was daily life for their fellow citizens in NI. Denial is a cursed thing.

walshb

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

There might have been a good one among them but they all followed bad orders. The PSNI has many former RUC members but they don't behave the same way 99% of the time.

Yes, but that's maybe because now they just can't get away with it. Bad apples with no scope to rot!

Border-Rat

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

There might have been a good one among them but they all followed bad orders. The PSNI has many former RUC members but they don't behave the same way 99% of the time.

Is this the voice of experience?

fasttalkerchat

Border-Rat wrote: »

Is this the voice of experience?

I've been stopped at checkpoints by the PSNI about 10 times and never had a sectarian or racist remark made. 20 years ago I could have been pulled out, called a dirty fenian and taken to the nearest holding centre just for having an Irish name. So yes, ex-RUC behave different when in the PSNI.

I'm not saying that they have changed enough but that is a massive difference.

snafuk35

Happyman42 wrote: »

Allegations by people with a vested interest?????????? :rolleyes:
Isn't that what people are horrified by in the case of Jean McConville. Absurd and hypocrital post alert!

Why do you think they had a vested interest? Gerry Adams denied he was a member of the IRA and they knew intimately - having killed on his orders - that he was in the IRA. BUT they did not speak publically - they spoke to historical researchers on condition that their statements would not be released until they were dead.

Happyman42

snafuk35 wrote: »

Why do you think they had a vested interest? Gerry Adams denied he was a member of the IRA and they knew intimately - having killed on his orders - that he was in the IRA. BUT they did not speak publically - they spoke to historical researchers on condition that their statements would not be released until they were dead.

Add them to the list of those who claimed to have shot Michael Collins, the millions that where inside the GPO in 1916. :rolleyes:

If their claims have not been prosecuted in a court of law then it is suspect and unverifiable.
Not that it matters much in the scheme of things.

Border-Rat

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I've been stopped at checkpoints by the PSNI about 10 times and never had a sectarian or racist remark made. 20 years ago I could have been pulled out, called a dirty fenian and taken to the nearest holding centre just for having an Irish name. So yes, ex-RUC behave different when in the PSNI.

I'm not saying that they have changed enough but that is a massive difference.

Oh, a whole ten times. You obviously don't live here then. Gotta love this particular type of lecture.

Hannibal

snafuk35 wrote: »

Why do you think they had a vested interest? Gerry Adams denied he was a member of the IRA and they knew intimately - having killed on his orders - that he was in the IRA. BUT they did not speak publically - they spoke to historical researchers on condition that their statements would not be released until they were dead.

Both Hughes and Price have been severely critical of the Sinn Féin leadership since the early 90's when their work towards the peace process resulted in the IRA ceasefire, they were both unhappy with the direction of the republican movement. People are happy to accept the word of Hughes and Price on anything they have to say yet they won't accept the word of Adams or McGuinness who have led the republican movement and most of the IRA away from violence and into a ceasefire, GFA and onto decomissioning.

They both spoke to researchers as they will never be answerable to what they said, Dolours Price has been in and out of psychiatric hospitals suffering from Post traumatic stress. Their "vested interest" is that they both along with the lunatics in the RIRA never wanted to see a political solution they wanted a war until the end.

When you study Gerry Adams you will see he has been one of the best politicians in the country over the last 100 years in how he along with the SF leadership engineered around 95% of militant republicans over a period of 15/20 years to follow a political path and the result is the situation we have today.

Adams has been in the public eye as a member of SF for over 30 years but there is not one shred of proof to connect him to IRA membership except a few allegations from people that wanted war or a few twisted journalists who don't understand the basics of what the conflict was even all about. In the last elections in Belfast he won over 70% of first preference votes and all by the people who know him best.

Border-Rat

Yes, Adams is an exceptional politician. This isn't something you notice straight away, you need to understand the system first. Dissidents don't, worse don't want to.

K-9

Border-Rat wrote: »

Yes, Adams is an exceptional politician..

Indeed he is, a consummate politician, with Teflon characteristics.

Hannibal

Border-Rat wrote: »

Yes, Adams is an exceptional politician. This isn't something you notice straight away, you need to understand the system first. Dissidents don't, worse don't want to.

I don't think some of the dissidents have the brains to understand. I don't know about up north but any of them in Dublin that I know think they're Tony Soprano it's almost comical, and the less said about the 32CSM and Eirigi the better because I don't honestly think they know what day or year it is.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed he is, a consummate politician, with Teflon characteristics.

Teflon doesn't stop bullets, which is what he managed to avoid from those within and without, who would have had no compunction to do it. His skills at leadership are beyond doubt.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Teflon doesn't stop bullets,

Indeed

which is what he managed to avoid from those within and without

Oh, indeed.

who would have had no compunction to do it. His skills at leadership are beyond doubt.

As were Bertie's, hence the reference.