Dessie Ellis - The Sinn Fein TD who is linked to 50 murders

Stheno

GRMA wrote: »

So? Everyone knew he was a former IRA member when they voted for him, he never pretended otherwise and is very open about being in the IRA

Really? I never heard of him until today. And I live in the constituency beside his

Did his election manifesto proclaim his past as a convicted explosives handler, and his time in the IRA?

spikethedog

Stheno wrote: »

Really? I never heard of him until today. And I live in the constituency beside him

Did his election manifesto proclaim his past as a convicted explosives handler, and his time in the IRA?

Ever heard of google.
Surely you researched the candidates in your area before you voted?

GRMA

Sully wrote: »

Not everyone.

A casual google of his name or a listen to any of the people who have ever ran against him would inform you. If you made even the slightest effort to find anything about him you'd know he was in the IRA. He often addresses public meetings, SF cumanns have invited him in for public events were he talked about his past in the IRA.


For gods sake a high profile campaign was run about him during the early nineties, he was on hungerstrike, it was major news.

Stheno

spikethedog wrote: »

Ever heard of google.
Surely you researched the candidates in your area before you voted?

Ever learned to read? I said he is not in my constituency?

I researched my candidates thoroughly before I voted, which is why I only voted for two.

Tell me, would you vote for Shane O'Doherty if he ran as a TD?

oscarBravo

...Sinn Fein described the charges he faced in the UK as "trumped up".

"This is not the first time such unsubstantiated allegations have been made and Dessie Ellis rejects them as he has repeatedly done," a party spokesman said. "Dessie Ellis has made no secret of his involvement in the Republican struggle over many decades, including within the ranks of the IRA."

It's almost funny. He makes no secret of his involvement as a manufacturer of bombs for a terrorist organisation that used bombs to murder innocent civilians - but is mortally offended at the mere suggestion that he was ever in any way involved in anyone's death.

I guess he only ever made the sort of terrorist bombs that don't kill people.

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's almost funny. He makes no secret of his involvement as a manufacturer of bombs for a terrorist organisation that used bombs to murder innocent civilians - but is mortally offended at the mere suggestion that he was ever in any way involved in anyone's death.

I guess he only ever made the sort of terrorist bombs that don't kill people.

Bombs don't kill people, people kill people, I guess is his doublethink, I mean, logic.

gaffer91

Obviously it's no surprise to that a SF member was a thuggish terrorist hood, but linked to 50 murders is really astounding. Would have no doubt there's a few civilians in there as well.

Hope the people of Dublin North-West remember he has blood on his hands come the next election.

UDP

Rascasse wrote: »

Comparing IRA/SF leadership to Mandela/MK/ANC is a popular comparison, but one that doesn't add up. Mandela was locked up after a couple of years of taking up arms and was largely incommunicado. A better comparison with MK would be people like Chris Hani, Joe Slovo and Robert McBride. Also the scale of the attacks committed by MK are nothing compared to the Troubles. In all MK were responsible for a bit over 200 deaths in 30 years. When they found they were killing civilians they would try to change tactics and not plow on regardless .

The reason many look up to Mandela as one of the greatest statesmen is the way he conducted himself on release. In interviews on the day after he was released he spoke to the white population to reassure them and backed it with his actions in the years following. There's been peace in the north now for what, 15 years? And all have (from both sides) is childish arguing and finger pointing, as exemplified by Ellis' response to the Indo's questions. I'm not suggesting he needed to admit anything, but he could have used words a little more sympathetic or contrite than "I don't want to comment on anything said by the Brits. I wouldn't be bothered.".

Ok so Mandela founds, leads, helps fund and train a terrorist group who murders and injures hundreds of civilians over a thirty period but that's okay because he conducted himself well when released from prison?
They were both terrorists responsible for the death of many innocent civilians. They both have blood on their hands.
I guess it is right to forget Mandela's past for the good of peace but it is not the same for those who put their neck on the line in the pursuit of peace in northern Ireland?
Cognitive dissonance.

It is this failure to move on from the past that is the problem up the north.

The hypocrisy from the Republic whereby we ask the unionists to work with sinn fein despite some of their member's history but politicians down here are unwilling to work with the same sinn fein politicians. How can we expect the people of northern Ireland to move on if we won't in the Republic?

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

E

Tell me, would you vote for Shane O'Doherty if he ran as a TD?

Spike dog would you answer my question?

Do you even know who I am talking about without hitting google?

Chips Lovell

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's almost funny. He makes no secret of his involvement as a manufacturer of bombs for a terrorist organisation that used bombs to murder innocent civilians - but is mortally offended at the mere suggestion that he was ever in any way involved in anyone's death.

I guess he only ever made the sort of terrorist bombs that don't kill people.

There's a question to ask him on the doorsteps. "So if your bombs didn't kill anyone, does that mean you were kind of a crap bomb maker?"

Good loser

gaffer91 wrote: »

Obviously it's no surprise to that a SF member was a thuggish terrorist hood, but linked to 50 murders is really astounding. Would have no doubt there's a few civilians in there as well.

Hope the people of Dublin North-West remember he has blood on his hands come the next election.

Yeah 50's big, very big! Impressive even.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

He makes no secret of his involvement as a manufacturer of bombs for a terrorist organisation that used bombs to murder innocent civilians

You say that as if the only thing the IRA used bombs for was to target 'innocent civilians' which is evidence of either your ignorance of the subject or your anti-Republican feelings (or a mixture of the two).

The primary function of IRA bombs that didn't target the British/Unionist security apparatus was economic. Blowing up civilians only ever hurt the cause of Republicans rather than advance it.

maccored

really, the only thing this 30 year old expose proves, is that certain Irish political parties are starting to crap themselves about an opposition party that has moved from a war situation to politics and seems to be doing a much better job at it than the career politicians. Its not political debate moreso than frantic mudslinging. The one question that hasnt been answered is if Dessie Ellis is guilty as is put forward, then why hasnt he been taken to court over it. Unless of course, their 'understanding' of the forensic evidence wouldnt hold up in court. Which - obviously - it wouldnt, otherwise they would have.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The primary function of IRA bombs that didn't target the British/Unionist security apparatus was economic. Blowing up civilians only ever hurt the cause of Republicans rather than advance it.

The primary function of IRA bombs was terrorism. Any terrorist bomb that's capable of targetting a "security apparatus" or doing "economic damage" is also capable of killing innocent civilians.

The whole "whoops, we're so sorry our bomb killed several children, but we didn't means for it to do that so we're still the good guys" schtick might wash with people whose confirmation bias allows them to believe it makes any sense, but people who genuinely don't want to blow up innocent civilians can usually achieve that goal by the simple expedient of not making and planting bombs.

If you want to convince yourself that Dessie Ellis is a model human being who would never have contemplated the possibility of one of his bombs being used to kill someone, go ahead: he's obviously convinced enough people of that already to get elected. Just don't bother trying to sell any of that snake oil to me.

Good loser

maccored wrote: »

really, the only thing this 30 year old expose proves, is that certain Irish political parties are starting to crap themselves about an opposition party that has moved from a war situation to politics and seems to be doing a much better job at it than the career politicians. Its not political debate moreso than frantic mudslinging. The one question that hasnt been answered is if Dessie Ellis is guilty as is put forward, then why hasnt he been taken to court over it. Unless of course, their 'understanding' of the forensic evidence wouldnt hold up in court. Which - obviously - it wouldnt, otherwise they would have.

I'm relaxed about Sinn Fein's murky past.

It's their infantile 'economic policies' that bother me.

Chips Lovell

It's actually quite disturbing that people are still willing to defend this kind of savagery.

maccored

Good loser wrote: »

I'm relaxed about Sinn Fein's murky past.

It's their infantile 'economic policies' that bother me.

the kind of policies like not paying promissory notes or taxing the more wealthy such as are being bounded around recently by other parties?

GRMA

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's actually quite disturbing that people are still willing to defend this kind of savagery.

What, like fighting a war?


Nasty as it is, sometimes fighting is necessary

maccored

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's actually quite disturbing that people are still willing to defend this kind of savagery.

considering you'll rarely find in the history of any country a lack of situations with much the same kind of violence (civil wars are a classic example), then I find it disturbing some people seem to have different values depending on who they are talking about.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

The primary function of IRA bombs was terrorism.

Ah yes. I guess the IRA just decided to use bombs to terrorise people because... um... terrorism terrorism terrorism.

Any terrorist bomb

Terrorist bomb as opposed to 'good guy bombs' is it? Freedom, democracy, and the rule of law bombs?

that's capable of targetting a "security apparatus" or doing "economic damage" is also capable of killing innocent civilians.

No shit?

The whole "whoops, we're so sorry our bomb killed several children, but we didn't means for it to do that so we're still the good guys" schtick might wash with people whose confirmation bias allows them to believe it makes any sense

So what you're suggesting here is that the IRA deliberately planted bombs to kill children? So one of the most sophisticated paramilitary organisations of the 20th Century (according to the British) decided that blowing up children was a good way of garnering support and achieving their aims? Really?

And you suggest I'm affected by confirmation bias?

If you want to convince yourself that Dessie Ellis is a model human being

Yes. I would like my nephew to grow up to be a bomb maker because that's what makes the model human being. Ridiculous.

who would never have contemplated the possibility of one of his bombs being used to kill someone, go ahead:

I'm sure anyone who makes any type of weapon is aware that they can be used to cause harm to innocent people. Ellis was in the manufacturing end of the bombs not the planting and execution. Do you think he wrote the destination of the bombs on them?

he's obviously convinced enough people of that already to get elected.

That's democracy for ya. Pity there wasn't a little more respect for democracy in 1960's NI and we may well not have had the IRA.

Rascasse

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So what you're suggesting here is that the IRA deliberately planted bombs to kill children? So one of the most sophisticated paramilitary organisations of the 20th Century (according to the British) decided that blowing up children was a good way of garnering support and achieving their aims? Really?

If it were the case that the IRA's bombs were solely for economic effect then why did they bomb Manchester and Warrington on Saturday's around midday? I mean, you'd get largely the same economic benefit at 3am on Monday morning with only 10 people to evacuate rather than during the day on the busiest shopping day of the week.

Of course if you screw up you can just blame the Brits for not heeding the warnings (a la Warrington).

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ellis was in the manufacturing end of the bombs not the planting and execution. Do you think he wrote the destination of the bombs on them?

Did he not admit he was towards the top of the IRA? He should, therefore, have some idea what his handiwork is going to be used for.

GRMA

As I understand it Dessie became a big mover while he was in jail

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ah yes. I guess the IRA just decided to use bombs to terrorise people because... um... terrorism terrorism terrorism.

The IRA decided to use bombs to terrorise people because they believed that terrorism was a potentially effective way to achieve their aims. The moral rights and wrongs of terrorism don't appear to have figured too strongly in their calculations.

It's a depressing fact of the Irish republican psyche that it still doesn't appear to figure too strongly. Time and again I see republicans in these threads state that they don't support the dissidents, because a campaign of violence at this time is seen as "ineffective" or "counter-productive" - rarely because it's morally repugnant, or just plain out-and-out wrong.

Terrorist bomb as opposed to 'good guy bombs' is it? Freedom, democracy, and the rule of law bombs?

No; "terrorist bomb" as a phrase that's perfectly capable of standing on its own without having to be contrasted with anything, except by someone who wants to divert attention from the fact that a convicted terrorist has been elected to our national parliament.

No shit?

None. Does it come as a surprise to you? Do you think it came as a surprise to Dessie Ellis?

So what you're suggesting here is that the IRA deliberately planted bombs to kill children? So one of the most sophisticated paramilitary organisations of the 20th Century (according to the British) decided that blowing up children was a good way of garnering support and achieving their aims? Really?

And you suggest I'm affected by confirmation bias?

That's what's known in the discussion business as a "straw man". You read what I wrote, decide I mean something by it that's easier to argue against than what I actually said, and go off on a tangent that allows you to avoid the actual point.

The actual point, for the avoidance of doubt, is that when a terrorist organisation plants a bomb for the purpose of attacking a security force (and that's glossing over the whole it's-OK-to-murder-policemen argument) or an economic target (which usually means destroying private property), that terrorist organisation has decided that the risk of murdering innocent civilians is an acceptable price to pay.

Yes. I would like my nephew to grow up to be a bomb maker because that's what makes the model human being. Ridiculous.

It is pretty ridiculous when you put it like that. Based on that fairly simple logic, my conclusion is that Dessie Ellis isn't someone that I would trust with running a lemonade stand, never mind a country, and as such I will never vote for him, or anyone who thinks it's OK to be in the same political party as a convicted terrorist.

Now, there's a different form of logic that says that someone who manufactured bombs in the knowledge that they were very likely going to be used to deliberately murder his fellow human beings is an acceptable public representative, because fixing potholes or sorting out passports is a bigger deal than making bombs for terrorists. It's not a form of logic that I subscribe to, personally.

I'm sure anyone who makes any type of weapon is aware that they can be used to cause harm to innocent people. Ellis was in the manufacturing end of the bombs not the planting and execution. Do you think he wrote the destination of the bombs on them?

He made bombs for a terrorist organisation that killed people with bombs. Just how stupid are you trying to claim he was, that he couldn't make the connection? Or are you claiming that it's OK to make bombs for a terrorist organisation that kills people with bombs, as long as you don't know which people are killed by which bombs?

Maybe that's why he's so anxious not to give any credence to the reports that have been published: if he found out that actual people had actually been killed by bombs that he'd made, he'd have to feel bad about it.

That's democracy for ya. Pity there wasn't a little more respect for democracy in 1960's NI and we may well not have had the IRA.

Ah yes. The logical answer to violence and a lack of democracy: violence and a lack of democracy.

spikethedog

Stheno wrote: »

Spike dog would you answer my question?

Do you even know who I am talking about without hitting google?

Sorry, I don't spend all my time online.
Has he put himself up for election?
I've voted labour all my life if your interested, until now.
Now. I'm what you'd call a floating voter.

MadsL

UDP wrote: »

Ok so Mandela founds, leads, helps fund and train a terrorist group who murders and injures hundreds of civilians over a thirty period but that's okay because he conducted himself well when released from prison?
They were both terrorists responsible for the death of many innocent civilians. They both have blood on their hands.
I guess it is right to forget Mandela's past for the good of peace but it is not the same for those who put their neck on the line in the pursuit of peace in northern Ireland?
Cognitive dissonance.

It is it cognitive dissonance if you believe the ANC's struggle to be justified and the IRA's bombing strategy in the 70s-80s to be unjustified. I can see how someone might hold that position.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The primary function of IRA bombs that didn't target the British/Unionist security apparatus was economic. Blowing up civilians only ever hurt the cause of Republicans rather than advance it.

A pub in Birmingham was an 'economic' target was it? What utter crap.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

The IRA decided to use bombs to terrorise people because they believed that terrorism was a potentially effective way to achieve their aims. The moral rights and wrongs of terrorism don't appear to have figured too strongly in their calculations.

It's a depressing fact of the Irish republican psyche that it still doesn't appear to figure too strongly. Time and again I see republicans in these threads state that they don't support the dissidents, because a campaign of violence at this time is seen as "ineffective" or "counter-productive" - rarely because it's morally repugnant, or just plain out-and-out wrong. ..............

I was unaware you were a pacifist. Is this the case?

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

I was unaware you were a pacifist. Is this the case?

I'm rarely an unqualified anything, but I'm pretty close to the pacifist end of the spectrum.

maccored

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm rarely an unqualified anything, but I'm pretty close to the pacifist end of the spectrum.

so you have an issue with all conflicts and wars etc? Thats a bit more general than what this is all about.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

The IRA decided to use bombs to terrorise people because they believed that terrorism was a potentially effective way to achieve their aims

.

So the IRA thought they could terrorise the British into doing what they wanted? The IRA thought they could out-terrorise a recently deposed Empire and major military force? Such delightful naivety. The IRA were well aware they could only hope to remove the British by turning the 'Irish problem' into an economic and political hot potato not by out terrorising the BA.

The moral rights and wrongs of terrorism don't appear to have figured too strongly in their calculations.

Who was terrorising who? The most afraid people in the north and most likely to be ethnically cleansed were Catholics/Nationalists. The Unionist junta did little to stop so-called loyalists from burning them out of their homes.

If you look at the numbers of killings attributed to Republicans ~35% were civilians, of the BA killings ~50% civilian, and loyalists (who the British/Unionists colluded with) had an 85% civilian kill rate. Who was terrorising who?

No; "terrorist bomb" as a phrase that's perfectly capable of standing on its own

Your 'terrorist bomb' phrase is ridiculous fucking nonsense and abuse of the English language.

Do you think it came as a surprise to Dessie Ellis?

I doubt it. I'm guessing that when people sign up to join a paramilitary group they know they're not going out to chase butterflies with a net.

That's what's known in the discussion business as a "straw man".

I know perfectly well what a 'straw man' fallacy is and you're pretty fond of using them yourself. Exhibit A: I think Dessie Ellis is a model citizen.

The actual point, for the avoidance of doubt, is that when a terrorist organisation plants a bomb for the purpose of attacking a security force (and that's glossing over the whole it's-OK-to-murder-policemen argument) or an economic target (which usually means destroying private property), that terrorist organisation has decided that the risk of murdering innocent civilians is an acceptable price to pay.

Terrorist, torrorist, turrurist. See above. Who was terrorising who? I'm not so naive to subscribe to your cognitively limited 'Cowboys and Indians' caricatures of the actors who used violence (terrorism) in the north.

Now, there's a different form of logic that says that someone who manufactured bombs in the knowledge that they were very likely going to be used to deliberately murder his fellow human beings is an acceptable public representative

Because bombs are only used to kill people. We've covered this. The IRA's bombs were primarily used to disrupt and destroy the economy of the north and to a lesser extent Britain. Indeed the impetus for the stalled peace process mid 1990's came from the Canary Wharf and Manchester CBD IRA bombings with their hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage to the UK economy.

Ah yes. The logical answer to violence and a lack of democracy: violence and a lack of democracy.

Democracy was attempted. Non violent civil rights was attempted. The civil rights movement was eventually met with lethal force by the British/Unionists. What did you expect people to do? Keep getting shot and burned out of their homes? What would you have done?

The IRA were a fringe element of the northern civil rights issue until people were murdered en masse by those they were asking to treat them fairly.

GRMA

Ah Chuck you don't get it, its all right when grandad fought back(maybe), or when some foreigners did it in far flung places (heroes don't ya know, we're all hoping Mandela pulls through) but taigs in the north? Cant be having it.

oscarBravo

maccored wrote: »

so you have an issue with all conflicts and wars etc? Thats a bit more general than what this is all about.

I have an issue with terrorism, as a rule.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So the IRA thought they could terrorise the British into doing what they wanted? The IRA thought they could out-terrorise a recently deposed Empire and major military force? Such delightful naivety. The IRA were well aware they could only hope to remove the British by turning the 'Irish problem' into an economic and political hot potato not by out terrorising the BA.

And after thirty years of terrorism, Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom. So not only was their terrorism morally wrong, it didn't work. Bra-frigging-vo.

Who was terrorising who? The most afraid people in the north and most likely to be ethnically cleansed were Catholics/Nationalists. The Unionist junta did little to stop so-called loyalists from burning them out of their homes.

If you look at the numbers of killings attributed to Republicans ~35% were civilians, of the BA killings ~50% civilian, and loyalists (who the British/Unionists colluded with) had an 85% civilian kill rate. Who was terrorising who?

And all that makes the IRA not terrorists, how exactly?

Your 'terrorist bomb' phrase is ridiculous fucking nonsense and abuse of the English language.

Why? If there's a phrase that better describes a bomb that's built by terrorists and detonated by terrorists for the purposes of terrorism, can you provide it?

Or is this merely the usual "it's not terrorism to blow up small children if you claim afterwards that you didn't mean to" revisionist tripe?

I doubt it. I'm guessing that when people sign up to join a paramilitary group they know they're not going out to chase butterflies with a net.

Right: so Dessie Ellis made bombs that he knew perfectly well would quite likely be used to murder his fellow human beings, and all the arm-waving in the world about how he didn't know what the bombs he was making would be used for won't change that.

Terrorist, torrorist, turrurist. See above. Who was terrorising who?

In the context of this discussion, Dessie Ellis was terrorising the victims (and potential victims) of the bombs he built.

I'm not so naive to subscribe to your cognitively limited 'Cowboys and Indians' caricatures of the actors who used violence (terrorism) in the north.

It's pretty easy to refuse to subscribe to caricatures that you've invented on my behalf. It's also pretty hypocritical to reject the label of "terrorist" for the IRA while liberally applying it to others.

Because bombs are only used to kill people. We've covered this. The IRA's bombs were primarily used to disrupt and destroy the economy of the north and to a lesser extent Britain.

Every single bomb planted by the IRA carried the risk of death. Every single bomb was planted in that knowledge, and with acceptance of the risk that people would die as a result. Therefore every single bomb was built, transported, planted and detonated by people who were prepared to kill other people by their actions.

You can dance around that with the pathetic whine of "but they didn't really mean to hurt anyone" to your own heart's content, but don't expect me to buy it.

Democracy was attempted. Non violent civil rights was attempted. The civil rights movement was eventually met with lethal force by the British/Unionists. What did you expect people to do? Keep getting shot and burned out of their homes? What would you have done?

I would probably have murdered some innocent children in Manchester. Not because I'm a bad person, but because there's absolutely no conceivable possibility that there's any way whatsoever that any possible improvement in the political situation of northern nationalists could possibly have been achieved by anything other than blowing buildings and people up.

At least, that seems to be the republican narrative, and heaven forbid anyone should deviate from it.

The IRA were a fringe element of the northern civil rights issue until people were murdered en masse by those they were asking to treat them fairly.

And it makes perfect sense to assume that the British government would have continued to gun down civil rights marchers for three decades without repercussions had the IRA not bravely intervened and made Northern Ireland a paradise on earth.

I have trouble getting my head around the mental gymnastics required to believe that republican terrorism made Northern Ireland a better place for anyone.

southsiderosie

gaffer91 wrote: »

Obviously it's no surprise to that a SF member was a thuggish terrorist hood, but linked to 50 murders is really astounding. Would have no doubt there's a few civilians in there as well.

Hope the people of Dublin North-West remember he has blood on his hands come the next election.

MOD NOTE:

That's a rather large brush that you are tarring all SF members with. Please try to avoid sweeping generalizations like this.

For everyone else: I know that this is an emotive topic, but please let's try to keep things civil.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

And after thirty years of terrorism, Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom. So not only was their terrorism morally wrong, it didn't work. Bra-frigging-vo.

Who's terrorism? Are you against terrorism or just against 'green' terrorism? You've completely ignored the statistics and continue to pursue the narrative that 'they' were the turrurists.

And all that makes the IRA not terrorists, how exactly? Why? If there's a phrase that better describes a bomb that's built by terrorists and detonated by terrorists for the purposes of terrorism, can you provide it?

Again you fail to consider who was being terrorised and apply your myopic label to one source of terrorism with zero regard for context.

Right: so Dessie Ellis made bombs that he knew perfectly well would quite likely be used to murder his fellow human beings, and all the arm-waving in the world about how he didn't know what the bombs he was making would be used for won't change that.

You've toned it down from your emotive 'innocent childers godblessum' to 'fellow humans'.

In the context of this discussion, Dessie Ellis was terrorising the victims (and potential victims) of the bombs he built.

So 'they' were victims before 'they' got bombed? Good to see you nail your colours to the mast there Mr. Pacifist.

It's pretty easy to refuse to subscribe to caricatures that you've invented on my behalf.

They're your caricatures. A goodies and baddies disneyworld view of the conflict.

It's also pretty hypocritical to reject the label of "terrorist" for the IRA while liberally applying it to others.

You're using the effectively meaningless turrurist word not I.

Every single bomb planted by the IRA carried the risk of death. Every single bomb was planted in that knowledge, and with acceptance of the risk that people would die as a result. Therefore every single bomb was built, transported, planted and detonated by people who were prepared to kill other people by their actions.

Welcome to the nature of every explosive device that was ever used other than for civil engineering on planet Earth. Enjoy your stay.

At least, that seems to be the republican narrative, and heaven forbid anyone should deviate from it. And it makes perfect sense to assume that the British government would have continued to gun down civil rights marchers for three decades without repercussions had the IRA not bravely intervened and made Northern Ireland a paradise on earth.

Keep ploughing the fallow field of non-violence is it? The north wasn't India - there was no inevitability of loss to the Unionists/British until the the IRA concentrated on hurting the British economy (with bombs).

I have trouble getting my head around the mental gymnastics required to believe that republican terrorism made Northern Ireland a better place for anyone.

There you go again.. ignoring who was being terrorised on behalf of who and applying your 'terrorism' label to one 'shade' of violence. Stop trying to present yourself as some sort of pacifist, morally neutral, judge - it's patently obvious you're not.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Who's terrorism? Are you against terrorism or just against 'green' terrorism? You've completely ignored the statistics and continue to pursue the narrative that 'they' were the turrurists.

In the context of this thread, the organisation to which Dessie Ellis belonged were the terrorists to whom I'm referring. If there are other terrorists in our national parliament, we can discuss them as well.

Again you fail to consider who was being terrorised and apply your myopic label to one source of terrorism with zero regard for context.

Well, no. I'm participating in a discussion in the context of this thread, which is Dessie Ellis and the terrorist organisation to which he belonged and for which he made bombs. Your attempt to widen the context in order to distract attention from the topic at hand is a fairly transparent "look over there!" tactic.

You've toned it down from your emotive 'innocent childers godblessum' to 'fellow humans'.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Both innocent children and many, many other fellow humans were murdered by the IRA, in which organisation Dessie Ellis played an active part.

So 'they' were victims before 'they' got bombed? Good to see you nail your colours to the mast there Mr. Pacifist.

Again, I'm at a complete loss as to what you're trying to say.

They're your caricatures. A goodies and baddies disneyworld view of the conflict.

Please explain, with relevant quotes from my posts in this thread, who I've caricatured as "goodies" in the Northern Ireland conflict.

You're using the effectively meaningless turrurist word not I.

You're the one trying to pretend that Dessie Ellis wasn't a member of a terrorist organisation. You can mis-spell the word "terrorism" to your heart's content, but pretending that their actions weren't terrorism - particularly when hypocritically describing the actions of others as terrorism - doesn't make the term meaningless.

I get it, I really do: it's easier to be a Sinn Féin supporter if you pretend that the armed organisation they were associated with for years were heroic freedom fighters who only ever killed anyone through tragic accidents, but I'm not a SF supporter, and I don't feel any need to subscribe to that fiction.

Welcome to the nature of every explosive device that was ever used other than for civil engineering on planet Earth. Enjoy your stay.

I don't recall lauding the manufacturers or users of any other types of bombs. Maybe my memory is faulty; feel free once again to quote my posts from this thread where I've said otherwise.

Keep ploughing the fallow field of non-violence is it? The north wasn't India - there was no inevitability of loss to the Unionists/British until the the IRA concentrated on hurting the British economy (with bombs).

Clear this up for me: is it your heartfelt belief that, in the absence of the IRA's campaign of violence, Northern Ireland would continue to have the same civil rights problems that it had in the sixties?

Do you genuinely claim that there was absolutely no way that any civil rights could possibly have been achieved in the absence of a campaign of blowing up shopping centres and police stations?

Because, again, I have a great deal of trouble understanding how anyone could possibly believe that.

There you go again.. ignoring who was being terrorised on behalf of who and applying your 'terrorism' label to one 'shade' of violence.

Well, no - actually, I'm challenging the utterly bizarre belief that the civil rights of nationalists in Northern Ireland could only have been achieved by the IRA's campaign of violence (which you've basically asserted).

Stop trying to present yourself as some sort of pacifist, morally neutral, judge - it's patently obvious you're not.

I solemnly promise you that if a convicted loyalist terrorist ever presents himself for election in my constituency, I won't vote for him either.

Cavehill Red

spikethedog wrote: »

A convicted IRA man, now a politician here was involved in the troubles in the north. Shock, horror!!!
In other news, the sun rose again this morning and it might rain today!

Any documents released on Eamon Gilmore's connection to the workers party and the OIRA around the same time?

Unfortunately the Kremlin does not operate the same 30 year rule.

markesmith

To the Irish/Sunday Independent: How do you feel about Tito's work in Yugoslavia pre-1945? Murder? How about Mandela? George Washington? Republicans in Spain, Garibaldi, the guerillas in Algeria, even the folk of 1798 and 1916, even the original Fianna Fail generation?

This was a political issue; an occupying power oppressing an ethnic minority who laid at least some claim to the land.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

While the relationship of some public figures with the IRA has been a matter of public debate for some time (and is therefore fair game for this forum), the accusations of the murder of specific individuals is potentially libelous. Please do not present accusations as fact on this forum - if that is a fight you want to pick, this website is not the place to do it.

Posts deleted. If you have questions, PM me - do not reply on-thread.

RobFowl

markesmith wrote: »

To the Irish/Sunday Independent: How do you feel about Tito's work in Yugoslavia pre-1945? Murder? How about Mandela? George Washington? Republicans in Spain, Garibaldi, the guerillas in Algeria, even the folk of 1798 and 1916, even the original Fianna Fail generation?

This was a political issue; an occupying power oppressing an ethnic minority who laid at least some claim to the land.

Suppose the difference is that these murders happened in very recent living memory.
I've seen people shot dead in the troubles and believe me those memories don't leave you.
I have some respect for Mary Lou Mcdonald, Pearse Doherty and a few other shinners but for the life of me can't understand why we as a country vote for the likes of Ellis.
When he and his peers have gone from public life our Country and our Island will be a better place.

Chips Lovell

One of the things a lot of people forget about the IRA was that if, through some bizarre miracle, they'd overthrown British rule in Northern Ireland, they would have come for us next. They didn't believe our country was legitimate either and were intent on overthrowing the Irish state as well.

Gosub

There's a lot of talk in this thread about bomb makers having blood on their hands. I think a bit of perspective is called for. There are people today making bombs that are killing civilians. They are even paid for their efforts. They are called munitions workers. Their bombs are killing innocent children in Afghanistan. David Cameron is busy selling killing machines around the world. Obama employs bomb makers etc etc.

Should all of these people be charged with murder? Are they all terrorists? Maybe they are. If this is the type of society we find acceptable we cannot jump on our high horse and rail on about individuals because it suits our politics.

Either condemn every arms worker and war-mongering government, or condemn none.

Just to make my position clear: I am not a SF supporter. I have never had any links to the IRA. I am simply a victim of sectarian hatred and abuse in the past.

Please can we let this petty abuse of one of our elected citizens grind to a halt.

I know this plea will fall on deaf ears because we still have a lot of hatred and prejudice buried deep in peoples hearts. The conflict in my country will not be finished until this fades. For the sake of progress... let it go.

Cavehill Red

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

One of the things a lot of people forget about the IRA was that if, through some bizarre miracle, they'd overthrown British rule in Northern Ireland, they would have come for us next. They didn't believe our country was legitimate either and were intent on overthrowing the Irish state as well.

Take a look in the Dail. They're already there. I never have and never will vote for Sinn Fein, but the idea that the 26 county republic is some sort of shining beacon of success is probably the most risible result of partitionist mindsets.
Did you miss the 80 years of child rape gulags, economic devastation, the live export of people and the shame of holding benefit concerts for the nation?
Sinn Fein are correct in asserting that the Irish state as currently formulated is unfit for purpose. They are perfectly entitled to offer an alternative of their own. The way some people get on in this thread, you'd think they preferred the days when Republicans did their arguing with armalites.

RobFowl

Gosub wrote: »

Please can we let this petty abuse of one of our elected citizens grind to a halt.

I know this plea will fall on deaf ears because we still have a lot of hatred and prejudice buried deep in peoples hearts. The conflict in my country will not be finished until this fades. For the sake of progress... let it go.

I suspose the fact that we can "abuse" him without fear of violent retaliation is a measure of progress to some extent.

I for one though no matter how much I disagree with some one else will never support killing them, Ellis and his fellow travelers have come from a different perspective.

mathepac

MadsL wrote: »

... Err. Excuse me, the electorate might want some explanation...

I doubt the electorate is foolish enough to want an explanation as to why the Sindo would waste so many trees and ink on a single. unattributed and unsubstantiated statement -
"We understand that Ellis is linked by forensic evidence to some 50 murders in Northern Ireland and the Republic." If that's all they have well good luck to them in the Four Goldmines.

As for the excitable Sindo / Sun / Star / "Nice one guv'nor, you've got me bang to rights you 'ave" crew well nothing surprises me; they seem to have difficulty distinguishing between real life and the plot of Coronation St.

Gosub

RobFowl wrote: »

I suspose the fact that we can "abuse" him without fear of violent retaliation is a measure of progress to some extent.

I for one though no matter how much I disagree with some one else will never support killing them, Ellis and his fellow travelers have come from a different perspective.

I suppose by "his fellow travelers" you meanThe British government, the US government, all governments that go to war. Even the patriots that fought and died to bring about our freedom from British rule? If a person slaughtered your entire family, would you wish the death penalty for them? Where do you draw the line.... and why?

Rascasse

mathepac wrote: »

I doubt the electorate is foolish enough to want an explanation as to why the Sindo would waste so many trees and ink on a single. unattributed and unsubstantiated statement -
"We understand that Ellis is linked by forensic evidence to some 50 murders in Northern Ireland and the Republic." If that's all they have well good luck to them in the Four Goldmines.

Err, it is attributed; it's from a Telex from an official in the US back to the FCO in London about the need to make sure he is returned to Europe and not Canada. The Indo are in no fear of being sued.

It would have been better if they had scanned the telex and uploaded it like the UK press have done with some of the Falklands and Savile documents.

Poor Dessie Mandela.

votecounts

So we are to beleive some british government scumbag( using this word as its been used here with no penalty) about forensics. Maybe Mr Ellis was playing cards as was the case with the guildford four and we all know how that worked out, short memories.Being irish means you're guilty.

dvpower

votecounts wrote: »

So we are to beleive some british government scumbag( using this word as its been used here with no penalty) about forensics. Maybe Mr Ellis was playing cards as was the case with the guildford four and we all know how that worked out, short memories.

Mr. Ellis openly admits his membership of the IRA and was convicted on explosives charges in this jurisdiction.
I don't think anyone, but you, think he was some kind of innocent bystander, being fitted up by the Brit's, more that they don't see the point of dragging up the past.

The Waltzing Consumer

votecounts wrote: »

So we are to beleive some british government scumbag( using this word as its been used here with no penalty) about forensics. Maybe Mr Ellis was playing cards as was the case with the guildford four and we all know how that worked out, short memories.Being irish means you're guilty.

As people have said in this discussion, Dessie Ellis has admitted being a member of the provisionals and involved in the bomb making process.

So that gives a clear difference between him and the guildford four and there is no comparison.

mathepac

Rascasse wrote: »

Err, it is attributed; it's from a Telex from an official in the US back to the FCO in London about the need to make sure he is returned to Europe and not Canada. The Indo are in no fear of being sued. ...

Why the need in this thread to start typed sentences with what sounds like a speech-impediment? Is this de rigeur in order to be seen as being "home with the Downeys" or somesuch or has it developed from too much reading of the Beano / Dandy / Sindo / Sun / Star / Mail?

A FO / HO lie communicated to the State Department, repeated on a State Department telex back to the FO isn't evidence of anything and doesn't make the original lie true. It's one of the oldest ploys in smear campaigns to protect the press and to mimic attribution and validity in a dirty tricks campaign.

Why would such a telex be released? FOI request? If so why that specific SF TD as the target, why not do down Marty or Gerry? Why now?

It's all very odd with Inda the Idiot and the like clinging to power by their finger-nails hoping for th' oul' pinsin.