Gerry Adams Statement on the killing of Adrian Donohoe and Jerry McCabe

super_furry

How was Jerry McCabe involved in 'the conflict'? He was a Garda murdered trying to prevent criminals from stealing from an An Post van.

golfball37

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm impressed at your insight into the what the British Government thinks, has the whole decommissioning saga eluded you? I would say the British Government's opinion of and confidence in, Sinn Fein, is on much the same level as it was 40 years ago. They entered into an agreement, not a love affair.
The Gardai and the PSNI have both concluded that those who committed this crime came from the Louth/South Armagh area, it's common knowledge that nothing goes down in this area without the knowledge or approval of "former' IRA members. Personally, I could take a stab at the identity of the person whose "approval" was given, I'd wager Mr. Adams is well acquainted with him.

Common knowledge doesn't equal fact. While this gang may operate in this area they are from North Dublin according to other sources, so you might wanna cool the jets on your speculation.

mistermouse

I think it has to be welcomed, not only is it due, but given that there is a well reported dislike of Sinn Fein amongst hardliners, he probably will be quite unpopular with many for doing so

I actually am more annoyed at Minister Shatter who has done nothing to reform law, sentencing or treatment of criminals compared to victims. He also had the force and local communities recently at their lowest when it came to confidence in how we are and plan to tackle crime.

I am amazed that, while this needs to be solved and punished, there is the ability to have up to 100 Gardai on one case. I would imagine either figures are being spun or Gardai are tipping over each other on it while other crimes are being neglected

The Minister needs to sort out quite a few things to restore public and probably Garda confidence when it comes to tackling crime.

Chips Lovell

It's interesting that when it was reported the IRA was considering an apology to all of its victims, rather than just the civlians, Martin McGuinness dismissed it by saying that the IRA was gone and so he didn't know who was going to apologise.

Yet now, at a time when everyone's being reminded by the IRA's own history of killing guards during robberies, they're well able to make an apology.

laoch na mona

surprised but not totally unexpected in light of the nature of the comments he was making. If he didn't mention Mcabe someone else (enda) would have.

to be fair only the most bigoted anti republican thinks that ex Proves have no sympathy or regret what they felt had to be done they weren't fighting for the craic

RandomName2

jank wrote: »

Dammed if they do, dammed if they dont. Got to love Ireland.

The analogy doesn't quite do justice to the gravity of what's involved, and is entirely contrived, but here goes.

Supposing Bertie Ahern was still the leader of FF and was hoping to become Taoiseach or Tanaiste again.

Suppose also that some massive scandal broke about political expenses, fiscal incompetence, or whatever.

On the back of this, Bertie, sweating like bricks, takes the stage in the Dail and says

"Fellow citizens. This scandal makes some of us remember the other poor policy decisions taken in this state, by some of my colleagues. I'd like to take the opportunity to apologise on the behalf of members of the parliamentary party for any mismanagement that may have been in some way connected to their endeavours."

I, for one, would say 'ffs piss or get off the pot. That in no way contradicts the "It was all Lehman's fault" line or makes acknowledges any personal responsibility. But fair dues for apologising on behalf of the 'unnamed others'. :rolleyes:

old hippy

I was impressed with Gerry's winning words, the man is clearly Presidential material and it's only a matter of time before he is acknowledged as one of this country's greatest and much loved elder statesmen. I imagine the Nobel Peace Prize isn't far off, at this stage.

maccored

No - that analogy doesnt fit at all at all. Berties crew were responsible for and actively involved themselves in exploiting where ireland found itself. SF were involved in a social conflict. Two utterly different ballgames. Your train of thought suggest republicans went out of their way to start a war for their own gain. thats rubbish.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The analogy doesn't quite do justice to the gravity of what's involved, and is entirely contrived, but here goes.

Supposing Bertie Ahern was still the leader of FF and was hoping to become Taoiseach or Tanaiste again.

Suppose also that some massive scandal broke about political expenses, fiscal incompetence, or whatever.

On the back of this, Bertie, sweating like bricks, takes the stage in the Dail and says


I, for one, would say 'ffs piss or get off the pot. That in no way contradicts the "It was all Lehman's fault" line or makes acknowledges any personal responsibility. But fair dues for apologising on behalf of the 'unnamed others'. :rolleyes:

RandomName2

maccored wrote: »

No - that analogy doesnt fit at all at all. Berties crew were responsible for and actively involved themselves in exploiting where ireland found itself. SF were involved in a social conflict. Two utterly different ballgames. Your train of thought suggest republicans went out of their way to start a war for their own gain. thats rubbish.

The ends justified the means?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Jerry McCabe was collateral in the struggle.

You don't seem to understand that FF would say that all it was doing was increasing revenue, and improving the lives of Ireland's citizen's accordingly, and that anything which destabilised that setup was outside of their control.

Clearly the deaths of innocents were outside the control of the IRA.

kippy

RandomName2 wrote: »

The ends justified the means?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Jerry McCabe was collateral in the struggle.

You don't seem to understand that FF would say that all it was doing was increasing revenue, and improving the lives of Ireland's citizen's accordingly, and that anything which destabilised that setup was outside of their control.

Clearly the deaths of innocents were outside the control of the IRA.

Jerry McCabe was gunned down by murderers, belonging to a group who had scant disregard for the laws of the state or people acting on behalf of the state they wished to be part of.

How exactly were the deaths of inncents outside the control of the IRA at any time in the past (particularily when members of the IRA pulled the trigger)

At least in financial terms, there are many aspects outside of one control.

cyberhog

Stheno wrote: »

He's just worried about the fallout if this turns out to republicans in any guise.

I think you are right. He's just doing a bit of pre-emptive damage control. As far as I'm concerned his apology is about as good as one from Joseph Mengele.

junder

old hippy wrote: »

I was impressed with Gerry's winning words, the man is clearly Presidential material and it's only a matter of time before he is acknowledged as one of this country's greatest and much loved elder statesmen. I imagine the Nobel Peace Prize isn't far off, at this stage.

Ha ha ha ha, oh what's that? Your not joking, my bad, I thought such a rediculous statement could be nothing else but a joke

GRMA

kippy wrote: »

Jerry McCabe was gunned down by murderers, belonging to a group who had scant disregard for the laws of the state or people acting on behalf of the state they wished to be part of.

How exactly were the deaths of inncents outside the control of the IRA at any time in the past (particularily when members of the IRA pulled the trigger)

At least in financial terms, there are many aspects outside of one control.

They didnt wish to be part of the free state, who would? hey wanted an entirely new state

mitosis

Eff him and his politics

“I want to apologise to Mrs McCabe and the McCabe family, and to Garda Ben O Sullivan and to the families of other members of the state forces who were killed by republicans in the course of the conflict

He suggests a justification for the killings, "the conflict". This shows the attitude of his organisation to the Irish State - they regard it as just as viable a target as the "foreign occupying state".

These people were murdered by republicans in the course of fund-raising because they were soft targets.

kippy

GRMA wrote: »

They didnt wish to be part of the free state, who would? hey wanted an entirely new state

Then what's with all the flags on the coffins of these guys?

super_furry

kippy wrote: »

Then what's with all the flags on the coffins of these guys?

Indeed. They seem ignorant of the origins of the flag and exactly why one third of it is orange.

COYW

junder wrote: »

Ha ha ha ha, oh what's that? Your not joking, my bad, I thought such a ridiculous statement could be nothing else but a joke

I didn't feel that such a post was worth a response myself. I guessed that it was posted in jest. "Winning words", lmao, has to be a joke.

Chips Lovell

GRMA wrote: »

They didnt wish to be part of the free state, who would? hey wanted an entirely new state

This is an important point that's forgotten by a lot of people. They weren't just interested in ending British rule in Northern Ireland, they wanted to bring down our own country as well.

GRMA

kippy wrote: »

Then what's with all the flags on the coffins of these guys?

Its the flag of the Irish republic, free state hijacked it

maccored

the one that was set up in order to enable northern ireland to exist? How else would you see that panning out?

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

This is an important point that's forgotten by a lot of people. They weren't just interested in ending British rule in Northern Ireland, they wanted to bring down our own country as well.

kippy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

This is an important point that's forgotten by a lot of people. They weren't just interested in ending British rule in Northern Ireland, they wanted to bring down our own country as well.

Half of them didn't even understand what they were "fighting" for, from what I can tell.

maccored

the tricolour is from 1884 ... way before the republic was set up. I dont think its 'they' who 'seem ignorant of the origins of the flag'.

super_furry wrote: »

Indeed. They seem ignorant of the origins of the flag and exactly why one third of it is orange.

maccored

RandomName2 wrote: »

The ends justified the means?

I said that?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

and i said that too?

Jerry McCabe was collateral in the struggle.

and that as well? Dear me ... am I posting things idont remember, or are you trying to put words in my mouth?

You don't seem to understand that FF would say that all it was doing was increasing revenue, and improving the lives of Ireland's citizen's accordingly, and that anything which destabilised that setup was outside of their control.

You dont seem to understand thats a fairy tale.

Clearly the deaths of innocents were outside the control of the IRA.

Where they indeed. And of course people like yourself, if they had been brought up in that time, would have ensured there was no conflict and everything was resolved perfectly. yeah, right. :rolleyes: High horses etc etc

kippy

Last words on this thread as it's pointless arguing with cold blooded killer sympathisers.
Adams dropped in the apology purely to soften public opinion on SF and for no other reason. He knows theres a gap in this country at at either of the next two elections SF could capitalise on it.
While, many would see it as a welcome apology I don't for one second believe it to be anything other than self serving.

golfball37

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

This is an important point that's forgotten by a lot of people. They weren't just interested in ending British rule in Northern Ireland, they wanted to bring down our own country as well.

In an ironic twist it was the other Republican Party who succeeded where they failed.

Chips Lovell

maccored wrote: »

the one that was set up in order to enable northern ireland to exist? How else would you see that panning out?

I think there's a fair few people who thought that if Britain left Northern Ireland it would be simply handed over. They didn't realise that the war would continue until the Irish state fell as well.

super_furry

maccored wrote: »

the tricolour is from 1884 ... way before the republic was set up. I dont think its 'they' who 'seem ignorant of the origins of the flag'.

I'm referring to the fact that the flag is a physical representation of an aspirational peace between Republicans and Orangemen. Draping it over the coffins of men committed to the exact opposite of that is displaying an ignorance of the origins of the flag.

maccored

Lets be real - in the early 20th century many thought Britain would invade and cause destruction, so they had no qualms sectioning off the top part of the country and leaving the people there to deal with the violence and conflict instead.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think there's a fair few people who thought that if Britain left Northern Ireland it would be simply handed over. They didn't realise that the war would continue until the Irish state fell as well.

maccored

A) It wasnt a one way street. their fight wasnt against orangemen per se

super_furry wrote: »

I'm referring to the fact that the flag is a physical representation of an aspirational peace between Republicans and Orangemen. Draping it over the coffins of men committed to the exact opposite of that is displaying an ignorance of the origins of the flag.

Chips Lovell

maccored wrote: »

Lets be real - in the early 20th century many thought Britain would invade and cause destruction, so they had no qualms sectioning off the top part of the country and leaving the people there to deal with the violence and conflict instead.

Actually, Northern Ireland was included in the Anglo-Irish Treaty for the creation of an independent Irish state, with the provision that it could opt out. It chose to opt out.

golfball37

If the IRA really wanted to wage war on us I think we'd have seen more than 10 or so gardaí and 1 soldier killed for our troubles.

Statements like VK above are high in hyperbole but short on fact, no matter how its spun.

golfball37

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Actually, Northern Ireland was included in the Anglo-Irish Treaty for the creation of an independent Irish state, with the provision that it could opt out. It chose to opt out.

The Govt of Ireland act which created NI was 1920 and nothing to do with the treaty. The treaty created a boundary commission which never met. NI was never on the table during teh Treaty negotiations as it already existed.

Are you really a mod on here?

Chips Lovell

There's no denying that Northern Ireland was their priority, but they denied the legitimacy of the Irish government and claimed that the IRA Army Council was the true government of Ireland.

Chips Lovell

golfball37 wrote: »

The Govt of Ireland act which created NI was 1920 and nothing to do with the treaty. The treaty created a boundary commission which never met. NI was never on the table during teh Treaty negotiations as it already existed.

Read Article 12 of the Anglo Irish Treaty

Godge

Have thought about this statement for a while and have avoided commenting as I didn't want to engage in a knee-jerk reaction. Even after some reflection I am not sure about the statement.

Positives:

(1) Gerry Adams apologised to the McCabes.
(2) Gerry Adams apologised to the families of other members of the state forces who were killed by republicans in the course of the conflict


We have been waiting a long time for this apology and it would be churlish not to accept it at face value. However, there are a number of disquieting aspects to the apology that make you wonder how sincere it is.

(1) At the start: "On my own behalf and on behalf of Sinn Féin I want to express especially our solidarity and sincerest condolences to Adrian’s wife Caroline and his children Amy and Niall" OK, SF are involved in this part of the apology.
(2) Later on: "I want to restate that the resolve of Sinn Féin and of the majority of Irish people is to ensure that there is never ever a recurrence of conflict."

Note the absence of a reference to Sinn Fein in the apology to the McCabes. SF are very careful in the wording of their statements back to the time when they were writing them for the IRA. Is this just a personal apology to the McCabes and others from Gerry Adams? That is what it looks like to me and while that is welcome, it is only a very small step and not the historical event that some are painting it to be.

Some have said that he is apologising on behalf of all republicans. I don't think so. If we were doing that, he would implicitly be accepting that SF does and always has spoken on behalf of the IRA. He would also be implicitly acknowledging his own links and membership of that organisation. I don't think he intended to do that which is why it was so carefully worded. If I am wrong and Gerry Adams is acknowledging his concrete links to the IRA and his responsibility for the events of the past, then let him come out with a full account of all he did during the terrorist campaign and also a full account from all of his TDs.

To sum up, a small step taken by Gerry Adams, and one to be welcomed, but not one to be cheered from the rafters, and certainly not to be considered as being in any way a historical shift. However, let us hope that it is the first step along the road of the IRA (cloaked in SF clothes) coming to a final admittance that what it did was wrong (wrong in hindsight but also wrong at the time) and finally owning up to the full extent of its wrongdoings and naming those among its TD ranks who had a part to play and the full extent of that role and apologising to those affected and to the Irish and British people for the wrongs they inflicted.

GRMA

Godge wrote: »

Have thought about this statement for a while and have avoided commenting as I didn't want to engage in a knee-jerk reaction. Even after some reflection I am not sure about the statement.

Positives:

(1) Gerry Adams apologised to the McCabes.
(2) Gerry Adams apologised to the families of other members of the state forces who were killed by republicans in the course of the conflict


We have been waiting a long time for this apology and it would be churlish not to accept it at face value. However, there are a number of disquieting aspects to the apology that make you wonder how sincere it is.

(1) At the start: "On my own behalf and on behalf of Sinn Féin I want to express especially our solidarity and sincerest condolences to Adrian’s wife Caroline and his children Amy and Niall" OK, SF are involved in this part of the apology.
(2) Later on: "I want to restate that the resolve of Sinn Féin and of the majority of Irish people is to ensure that there is never ever a recurrence of conflict."

Note the absence of a reference to Sinn Fein in the apology to the McCabes. SF are very careful in the wording of their statements back to the time when they were writing them for the IRA. Is this just a personal apology to the McCabes and others from Gerry Adams? That is what it looks like to me and while that is welcome, it is only a very small step and not the historical event that some are painting it to be.

Some have said that he is apologising on behalf of all republicans. I don't think so. If we were doing that, he would implicitly be accepting that SF does and always has spoken on behalf of the IRA. He would also be implicitly acknowledging his own links and membership of that organisation. I don't think he intended to do that which is why it was so carefully worded. If I am wrong and Gerry Adams is acknowledging his concrete links to the IRA and his responsibility for the events of the past, then let him come out with a full account of all he did during the terrorist campaign and also a full account from all of his TDs.

To sum up, a small step taken by Gerry Adams, and one to be welcomed, but not one to be cheered from the rafters, and certainly not to be considered as being in any way a historical shift. However, let us hope that it is the first step along the road of the IRA (cloaked in SF clothes) coming to a final admittance that what it did was wrong (wrong in hindsight but also wrong at the time) and finally owning up to the full extent of its wrongdoings and naming those among its TD ranks who had a part to play and the full extent of that role and apologising to those affected and to the Irish and British people for the wrongs they inflicted.

He's the leader of Sinn Fein speaking in his capacity as such, of course he was speaking for SF

Godge

GRMA wrote: »

He's the leader of Sinn Fein speaking in his capacity as such, of course he was speaking for SF

No read the statement carefully, he may have wanted to give that impression but that is not what he said. When he wanted to make it clear he was speaking on behalf of Sinn Fein, he made it clear.

In other parts of the statement, it is vague and will allow him to deal with any internal disquiet among the lads by saying it was only me apologising.

GRMA

Godge wrote: »

No read the statement carefully, he may have wanted to give that impression but that is not what he said. When he wanted to make it clear he was speaking on behalf of Sinn Fein, he made it clear.

In other parts of the statement, it is vague and will allow him to deal with any internal disquiet among the lads by saying it was only me apologising.

The statement was emailed to party members a few hours beforehand (very rare) and were told that Gerry Adams would be making an important speech on behalf of the party about the killing of Jerry McCabe and Donohoe.

Mental Mickey

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Unexpected and a pleasant surprise. Looking at the language used, it is quite a significant statement and it should be warmly welcomed.

Here here. The "nay-sayers" are p1$$ed off cos he caught them on the hop. They're just trying to pick holes in anything he says.

It's a step in the right direction imo.

old hippy

kippy wrote: »

Last words on this thread as it's pointless arguing with cold blooded killer sympathisers.
Adams dropped in the apology purely to soften public opinion on SF and for no other reason. He knows theres a gap in this country at at either of the next two elections SF could capitalise on it.
While, many would see it as a welcome apology I don't for one second believe it to be anything other than self serving.

I am always amazed how people dismiss the efforts of Gerry & the peacemakers so blithely. These brave souls have done much to secure peace and freedom for Ireland and all those who live there. And without any financial gain or mandate, too, I might add. The noble sacrifice of the men and women of the struggle for peace and unity has not gone un-noticed, despite the self loathing on display here. Where would Ireland be, without the selfless efforts to combat fascism and all that it entails?

Godge

Mental Mickey wrote: »

Here here. The "nay-sayers" are p1$$ed off cos he caught them on the hop. They're just trying to pick holes in anything he says.

It's a step in the right direction imo.

A small step taken by Gerry Adams and one to be welcomed is what I said and I would consider myself a "nay-sayer", using your term so where's the difference between us?

I am not going to be jumping up and down singing hallelujah for something that should have happened 20 years ago. Noted, welcomed, let us see the next step of SF/IRA towards normal humanity.

Godge

old hippy wrote: »

I am always amazed how people dismiss the efforts of Gerry & the peacemakers so blithely. These brave souls have done much to secure peace and freedom for Ireland and all those who live there. And without any financial gain or mandate, too, I might add. The noble sacrifice of the men and women of the struggle for peace and unity has not gone un-noticed, despite the self loathing on display here. Where would Ireland be, without the selfless efforts to combat fascism and all that it entails?

Not quite sure whether this post falls under the definition of irony or sarcasm.

RandomName2

maccored wrote: »

I said that?

No, but there are logical conclusions which must be arrived at based upon the position which you described.

maccored wrote: »

and i said that too?

and that as well? Dear me ... am I posting things idont [sic] remember, or are you trying to put words in my mouth?

No, that's just a paraphrasing the Official Position

maccored wrote: »

You dont seem to understand thats a fairy tale.

Obviously I do. *Sigh*

maccored wrote: »

Where they indeed. And of course people like yourself, if they had been brought up in that time, would have ensured there was no conflict and everything was resolved perfectly. yeah, right. :rolleyes: High horses etc etc

So as I said.. the end justified the means?

RandomName2

old hippy wrote: »

I am always amazed how people dismiss the efforts of Gerry & the peacemakers so blithely. These brave souls have done much to secure peace and freedom for Ireland and all those who live there. And without any financial gain or mandate, too, I might add. The noble sacrifice of the men and women of the struggle for peace and unity has not gone un-noticed, despite the self loathing on display here. Where would Ireland be, without the selfless efforts to combat fascism and all that it entails?

I've read this twice but I can't work out if it's ironic or not.

bmaxi

golfball37 wrote: »

Common knowledge doesn't equal fact. While this gang may operate in this area they are from North Dublin according to other sources, so you might wanna cool the jets on your speculation.

Alright then, fact. From North Dublin, well that's OK, no IRA sympathisers there. Oh wait, where was that big funeral lately, you know, the one with all the paramilitary trappings?

oscarBravo

super_furry wrote: »

How was Jerry McCabe involved in 'the conflict'? He was a Garda murdered trying to prevent criminals from stealing from an An Post van.

He didn't get a chance to try to prevent anything of the sort. His car was rammed at high speed from behind, and while he sat too dazed from the impact to reach for his gun, he was shot multiple times with an assault rifle. The "robbers" then proceeded to ignore the open security van containing the cash that they were allegedly there to steal, and drove away.

Let's not forget that the same Gerry Adams who issued this apology was photographed inside Castlerea prison smiling with the perpetrators of this heinous murder. Let's not also forget that his parliamentary colleague Martin Ferris was there to meet them when they were released.

An apology for an act indicates a belief that the act was wrong. I'm having trouble reconciling this apology with his words and actions in the past. Has he changed his mind? Was he wrong before? Is he wrong now?

maccored

RandomName2 wrote: »

So as I said.. the end justified the means?

No - this is the bit I dont understand, and refers also to OscarBravos response above. The insinuation that the whole thing was a blame game/right or wrong issue is over simplification.

Do you honestly think republicans are happy/proud/elated that a member of the gardaí was shot? Its not a simple thing of thinking something was right or wrong. Its all part of a much bigger, muddier picture so what more can you expect than a sincere apology that such deaths happened at all? I completely agree putting the word 'conflict' in there on the outset doesnt make much sense - but it does when you consider the grouping that done it existed and was created by the vacuum created by the 'conflict' - and wouldnt have existed otherwise (certainly not as the PIRA anyway).

maccored

I sure you'll find pockets of sympathisers of many versions of the IRA all around the country. Basically it doesnt matter where the people responsible came from then ... im sure you'll blame it on the 'IRA' (though the PIRA, to who SF were the political wing dont actually exist, but nevermind) ....

bmaxi wrote: »

Alright then, fact. From North Dublin, well that's OK, no IRA sympathisers there. Oh wait, where was that big funeral lately, you know, the one with all the paramilitary trappings?

maccored

Godge wrote: »

Not quite sure whether this post falls under the definition of irony or sarcasm.

I'd say sarcasm. and theres a saying about that when you put it in the same sentence as 'wit'.

BlaasForRafa

maccored wrote: »

Do you honestly think republicans are happy/proud/elated that a member of the gardaí was shot?

I'd bet that some of them do. I highly doubt whether any of them feel regret, sorrow or shame about it though.

Its not a simple thing of thinking something was right or wrong.

Yes it is easy to say it was wrong. Because it WAS wrong. Anything else is just the usual republican justifications.