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

bmaxi

maccored wrote: »

Hey ... You told me there was no conflict. I was outlining that there was. And what does the fact the pira killed a gard have to do with that conflict? Really? You need someone to explain that yet again?

The Northern troubles were not a conflict between the sovereign states of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, no conflict has ever existed between these two states. It is the sovereign duty of every internationally recognised state to protect and enforce it's borders.
It was not my efforts which diverted the debate from it's original topic.

bmaxi

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not that tenuous according to some.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/ira-involved-in-horse-burgers-willie-frazer-1-4725860

See, I told you.

bmaxi

maccored wrote: »

Back with bitching over words again. What a great debating technique

It wasn't my choice to differentiate, I call it what it is.

maccored

A basic understanding of what went on is kind of quite important. You should try and get some of that as that quote below is ignoring reality. Please yourself all the same. Knock yourself out in ignoring the issue - no skin off my nose.

bmaxi wrote: »

The Northern troubles were not a conflict between the sovereign states of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, no conflict has ever existed between these two states. It is the sovereign duty of every internationally recognised state to protect and enforce it's borders.
It was not my efforts which diverted the debate from it's original topic.

maccored

Looks to me like you were complaining he didn't use the word 'murder'. Rinse and repeat.

bmaxi wrote: »

It wasn't my choice to differentiate, I call it what it is.

bmaxi

maccored wrote: »

Looks to me like you were complaining he didn't use the word 'murder'. Rinse and repeat.

I'm saying I would have. His reasons need to be solicited from him.

maccored

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out that's probably because no-one was convicted of murder. Really. Read the thread as this has been done to death.

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm saying I would have. His reasons need to be solicited from him.

bmaxi

maccored wrote: »

A basic understanding of what went on is kind of quite important. You should try and get some of that as that quote below is ignoring reality. Please yourself all the same. Knock yourself out in ignoring the issue - no skin off my nose.

The "issue" was whether or not the Gardaí and the Defence Forces should enforce the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, explain to me just where I'm ignoring it.

bmaxi

maccored wrote: »

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out that's probably because no-one was convicted of murder. Really. Read the thread as this has been done to death.

Whether or not anyone was convicted of murder doesn't alter the fact that it was murder, it just means no one was convicted.

maccored

No it's not - that's nothing to do with the op at all. The initial mention of the border was tying in the conflict with the murder

bmaxi wrote: »

The "issue" was whether or not the Gardaí and the Defence Forces should enforce the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, explain to me just where I'm ignoring it.

maccored

Tell the courts that - plus try to move forward here and stop rehashing the same comments already addressed by numerous times in this thread

bmaxi wrote: »

Whether or not anyone was convicted of murder doesn't alter the fact that it was murder, it just means no one was conv

bmaxi

maccored wrote: »

Tell the courts that - plus try to move forward here and stop rehashing the same comments already addressed by numerous times in this thread

bmaxi wrote: »

Whether or not anyone was convicted of murder doesn't alter the fact that it was murder, it just means no one was conv

I don't know what you don't understand. There is a definition of murder on the statute books, those in front of the court during that case could not be safely convicted in line with that definition, it happens all the time. That doesn't mean the crime committed was not murder, it means that either someone other than those before the court was guilty or that insufficient evidence is to hand in the allotted time.
Furthermore, try not to bully people into abandoning a point, as you've done several times, that doesn't prove the validity of your point, just that you're a bully.

maccored

Great debating. "blah blah blah, you're a bully." well done!

Lets try this once more - and I'll type really slowly.

The courts said it was manslaughter. Thats probably why Adams didnt use the word murder. Alas though - thats been mentioned numerous times so far - pity I have to repeat myself.

I'll rejoin this thread when theres an actual debate and less hissy fits.

bmaxi wrote: »

maccored wrote: »

Tell the courts that - plus try to move forward here and stop rehashing the same comments already addressed by numerous times in this thread




I don't know what you don't understand. There is a definition of murder on the statute books, those in front of the court during that case could not be safely convicted in line with that definition, it happens all the time. That doesn't mean the crime committed was not murder, it means that either someone other than those before the court was guilty or that insufficient evidence is to hand in the allotted time.
Furthermore, try not to bully people into abandoning a point, as you've done several times, that doesn't prove the validity of your point, just that you're a bully.

bmaxi

maccored wrote: »

Great debating. "blah blah blah, you're a bully." well done!

Lets try this once more - and I'll type really slowly.

The courts said it was manslaughter. Thats probably why Adams didnt use the word murder. Alas though - thats been mentioned numerous times so far - pity I have to repeat myself.

I'll rejoin this thread when theres an actual debate and less hissy fits.

Once again bullying. The significance in Adams' statement is that he didn't use the word murder, when the evidence proves that it was. The court's verdict concerned those in the dock at that time, it did not state that the crime committed was not murder, just that those in the dock could not be safely found guilty of murder.
The way I, and many more see it, Adams used that terminology because he didn't consider the crime committed murder, because of the circumstances in which it was committed and by whom it was committed.
Shame you won't be around to read this.

GRMA

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/sinn-fein-jerry-mccabe-apology-779225-Feb2013/


fair article I think

Sierra Oscar

GRMA wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/sinn-fein-jerry-mccabe-apology-779225-Feb2013/


fair article I think

Gerry Adams will have no credibility in my mind so long as he still refers to the murder of Jerry McCabe as a 'killing'. It was cold blooded murder, and when you murder a member of An Garda Síochána you are attacking society itself. I still don't get the sense that Adams realises the damage that his PIRA has done throughout Ireland, and the countless lives he has ruined. Also to make matters worse it was Adams himself who actively organised cheering parties for the release of murderers, who were treated with royalty at countless SF Ardfheiseanna. Even one of his closest deputies was sent to collect these murderous thugs from prison. Do those kind of actions demonstrate that Adams was sorry for the murder? Also don't try and claim that this all occurred in the distant past - the release of these killers, which saw SF embrace them with open arms, occurred during the lifetime of the last government.

Also don't be fooled. The only reason this apology was forthcoming was due to a political crisis within SF. Adams could not have went to the funeral of the slain detective, who was in his constituency, without commenting on the McCabe murder. Hence the apology to ensure he could be seen to attend the funeral. Pure politicking forced this apology, not compassion.

Happyman42

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Gerry Adams will have no credibility in my mind so long as he still refers to the murder of Jerry McCabe as a 'killing'. It was cold blooded murder, and when you murder a member of An Garda Síochána you are attacking society itself. I still don't get the sense that Adams realises the damage that his PIRA has done throughout Ireland, and the countless lives he has ruined. Also to make matters worse it was Adams himself who actively organised cheering parties for the release of murderers, who were treated with royalty at countless SF Ardfheiseanna. Even one of his closest deputies was sent to collect these murderous thugs from prison. Do those kind of actions demonstrate that Adams was sorry for the murder? Also don't try and claim that this all occurred in the distant past - the release of these killers, which saw SF embrace them with open arms, occurred during the lifetime of the last government.

Also don't be fooled. The only reason this apology was forthcoming was due to a political crisis within SF. Adams could not have went to the funeral of the slain detective, who was in his constituency, without commenting on the McCabe murder. Hence the apology to ensure the could be seen to attend the funeral. Pure politicking forced this apology, not compassion.

Pedantic self serving argument there. You even referred to them as 'killers' yourself! The significance of your pedantic need for this is irrelevant to Jerry McCabe and his family. The man is dead, Gerry Adams has a party faithful to hold together, that he has held together and that togetherness has been securing the peace since the GFA. And the moral high grounders want him to destabilise that and possibly destroy it....an for what????
Every party standing in the Dail has some blame attached to them for what happened. The fact that the solution was eventually achieved by governmental compromises attests to that simple fact. Those compromises could have been made much earlier and would not have had to have been made had governments behaved fairly and responsibly. As somebody who lived through and in it, for the duration of the troubles I can never forgive the lack of effort or the continual moral high ground grandstanding of those who should have worked harder to achieve the peace. Adams, for all his faults has shown what can be achieved if the will is there.
Your pedantry and that from the likes of Enda Kenny in the Dail is churlish and disgraceful.

Sierra Oscar

michael999999 wrote: »

Would you care to remind us of your views of the irish that got you banned about a month ago?

What are you talking about? I have never been banned from this forum. What are you alleging I have done?

GRMA

Lets not forget that FF had an integral role in setting up the provisionals in the first place.

Sierra Oscar

GRMA wrote: »

Lets not forget that FF had an integral role in setting up the provisionals in the first place.

Indeed, there should have been much tougher action taken against those who tried to set about arming the provisional movement.

GRMA

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Indeed, there should have been much tougher action taken against those who tried to set about arming the provisional movement.

Thats only half the story and you know it.

They wanted to split the republican movement and were successful,, and were instrumental in persuading the PIRA to take up the offensive role they did, with promises of money and weapons. They also got the defense forces to train the provos in Donegal

It wasnt just "One or two bad eggs" as the likes of you might like to portray it but it was party and govt policy.

Lelantos

If Gerry McCabe's widow acceptes the apology grand, until then, jog on Gerry!

nesf

michael999999 wrote: »

Would you care to remind us of your views of the irish that got you banned about a month ago?

You're thinking of someone else, Sierra Oscar has never had a ban from Politics or any of the sub forums.

Happyman42

Lelantos wrote: »

If Gerry McCabe's widow acceptes the apology grand, until then, jog on Gerry!

And if she doesn't, do we hang the process up and banish SF to the wilderness again? A whole lot of people died across these islands, each one equally tragic, we bow and scrape and hold out our hands to the Queen but we can't to our own. Hypocritical nonsense, that doesn't even make sense.

flutered

Lelantos wrote: »

If Gerry McCabe's widow acceptes the apology grand, until then, jog on Gerry!

why should it be so, one can bet the farm that she will not accept.

Lelantos

Happyman42 wrote: »

And if she doesn't, do we hang the process up and banish SF to the wilderness again? A whole lot of people died across these islands, each one equally tragic, we bow and scrape and hold out our hands to the Queen but we can't to our own. Hypocritical nonsense, that doesn't even make sense.

Your post makes no sense.
I made no remarks about the "process" I just see no sincerity in his apology, just lip service at a time that he hopes will curry favour. If it truely is a sincere apology she will accept, if she deems it insincere, she will be dignified & remain silent I believe.

maccored

Lelantos wrote: »

If it truely is a sincere apology she will accept,

Whether anyone accepts the apology or not, doesnt determine if it was sincere or not. I think its pretty clear to see at this point why people are giving out about it, and its nothing to do any interest in if he was sincere. Its basically something they claimed they wanted to hear, but obviously didnt think he'd say it, and now he has its deprived them of a political football.

Lelantos

maccored wrote: »

Whether anyone accepts the apology or not, doesnt determine if it was sincere or not. I think its pretty clear to see at this point why people are giving out about it, and its nothing to do any interest in if he was sincere. Its basically something they claimed they wanted to hear, but obviously didnt think he'd say it, and now he has its deprived them of a political football.

Ah, no, if she deems the apology to be sincere she will accept, that is the criteria of an apology. To make recompense with the injured party. Not lip service being paid as its the flavour of the month.

sparkling sea

maccored wrote: »

Whether anyone accepts the apology or not, doesnt determine if it was sincere or not. I think its pretty clear to see at this point why people are giving out about it, and its nothing to do any interest in if he was sincere. Its basically something they claimed they wanted to hear, but obviously didnt think he'd say it, and now he has its deprived them of a political football.

Whether its sincere or not determines it, many people don't believe he is sincere because history shows he is such an accomplished bluffer.

Mrs McCabes veiws are all that matters, her husband was murdered and her life was destroyed. Mrs McCabe when throught the hell that is grief following a death but even worse following a murder, no one should underestimate her role in all of this !

maccored

my point is someone elses acceptance on any apology cannot make that apology sincere or not. Someone could accept an insincere apology or not accept a sincere one. the fact of accepting or not doesnt determine how sincere the apology is.

sparkling sea

maccored wrote: »

my point is someone elses acceptance on any apology cannot make that apology sincere or not. Someone could accept an insincere apology or not accept a sincere one. the fact of accepting or not doesnt determine how sincere the apology is.

Thats true, but being sincere is often easier after the fact, the damage is done and G Adams is no longer the important person. Whether he is sincere or not ceases to be of importance, his action have pushed the unwilling, the victims, those in pain, to the forefront. The apology is minor compared to the major heartache caused.

But you do make a valid point

Lelantos

maccored wrote: »

my point is someone elses acceptance on any apology cannot make that apology sincere or not. Someone could accept an insincere apology or not accept a sincere one. the fact of accepting or not doesnt determine how sincere the apology is.

If the apology was sincere, it would have been made directly to the person involved to ease her hurt. Not in the dáil in front of tv cameras

maccored

Lelantos wrote: »

If the apology was sincere, it would have been made directly to the person involved to ease her hurt. Not in the dáil in front of tv cameras

doesnt normally work that way. I doubt anyone from the british government ever travelled through the north personally apologising for the pain and destruction they caused - but thats another matter altogether.

sparkling sea

Lelantos wrote: »

If the apology was sincere, it would have been made directly to the person involved to ease her hurt. Not in the dáil in front of tv cameras

I doubt Mrs McCabe would take any comfort from G Adams; it was her life that was destroyed, how could his words help her, her husband was murdered needlessly - an apology will never make up for the loss of a life - how could it?

Happyman42

maccored wrote: »

I think its pretty clear to see at this point why people are giving out about it, and its nothing to do any interest in if he was sincere. Its basically something they claimed they wanted to hear, but obviously didnt think he'd say it, and now he has its deprived them of a political football.

That's the nail on the head. Pedantry masking their dislike, it would be more honest if they just squealed 'I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!
FF, FG know that SF will rise and they can't hack it, so they resort to grandstanding to prejudice. It's more than pathetic at this stage.
Whether Mrs McCabe accepts or not is moot, Gerry McCabe was just one person who died in a long litany of deaths. His death should not be used as a license to hold back a party with a very real and legitimate mandate.

sparkling sea

maccored wrote: »

doesnt normally work that way. I doubt anyone from the british government ever travelled through the north personally apologising for the pain and destruction they caused - but thats another matter altogether.

Well that makes it OK then; typical of us, a fight to the bottom rather than a race to the top - shame on you

Lelantos

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's the nail on the head. Pedantry masking their dislike, it would be more honest if they just squealed 'I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!
FF, FG know that SF will rise and they can't hack it, so they resort to grandstanding to prejudice. It's more than pathetic at this stage.
Whether Mrs McCabe accepts or not is moot, Gerry McCabe was just one person who died in a long litany of deaths. His death should not be used as a license to hold back a party with a very real and legitimate mandate.

Like the legitimate murder of Gerry McCabe?
An apology has to be accepted or else it is just a little hot air, political spin at a time when another guard has been murdered.
For you to even suggest the acceptance of an apology is a moot point shows that justice isn't alone in being blind

Happyman42

Lelantos wrote: »

Like the legitimate murder of Gerry McCabe?
An apology has to be accepted or else it is just a little hot air, political spin at a time when another guard has been murdered.
For you to even suggest the acceptance of an apology is a moot point shows that justice isn't alone in being blind

And if she doesn't accept it?...that's also Adams fault and the fault of those who elected SF members to serve them in the Dail?
So what if she doesn't accept it?
If the people affected by Bloody Sunday hadn't accepted the British Government's apology....so what?
(Nobody served any time for 13 deaths...the British refer to them as unlawful killings btw probably because they have to be careful of sensitivities too, just like SF)

Lelantos

Happyman42 wrote: »

And if she doesn't accept it?...that's also Adams fault and the fault of those who elected SF members to serve them in the Dail?
So what if she doesn't accept it?
If the people affected by Bloody Sunday hadn't accepted the British Government's apology....so what?
(Nobody served any time for 13 deaths...the British refer to them as unlawful killings btw probably being politic just like SF)

If he wants to make an apology he could have done so thru her local TD. Not on television, empty words, a politicians apology & nothing more

pablomakaveli

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's the nail on the head. Pedantry masking their dislike, it would be more honest if they just squealed 'I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!
FF, FG know that SF will rise and they can't hack it, so they resort to grandstanding to prejudice. It's more than pathetic at this stage.
Whether Mrs McCabe accepts or not is moot, Gerry McCabe was just one person who died in a long litany of deaths. His death should not be used as a license to hold back a party with a very real and legitimate mandate.

The difference with his death is that members of the current Dail campaigned for his killers release. And its important to note that Adams didnt apologize for this as well as the killing. Even if he said they were wrong to try and get those men released it might have made his apology more sincere.

maccored

sparkling sea wrote: »

Well that makes it OK then; typical of us, a fight to the bottom rather than a race to the top - shame on you

Shame on me maybe - if its shameful to point out reality.

Happyman42

Lelantos wrote: »

If he wants to make an apology he could have done so thru her local TD. Not on television, empty words, a politicians apology & nothing more

And then the pathetics would be whinging that he did it in secret. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The difference with his death is that members of the current Dail campaigned for his killers release. And its important to note that Adams didnt apologize for this as well as the killing. Even if he said they were wrong to try and get those men released it might have made his apology more sincere.

Maybe he doesn't think it was wrong, are we going to insist he apologises for everything a member of party ever did? It's ridiculous, if you look at how other parties behave in response to the behaviour of past and present members.

Lelantos

Happyman42 wrote: »

And then the pathetics would be whinging that he did it in secret. :rolleyes:

That apology could have been made years ago, in person if he so wished. It would have been genuine & it would have come out into public knowledge eventually. But he chose to grandstand in the dáil after the murder of another guard. A cheap political trick, nothing more.

pablomakaveli

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe he doesn't think it was wrong, are we going to insist he apologises for everything a member of party ever did? It's ridiculous, if you look at how other parties behave in response to the behaviour of past and present members.

If he doesnt think the murder of a Garda is wrong then he shouldnt be sitting in the Dail.

GRMA

Lots of people were released who did worse than kill a Garda. It really shines a light on freestater hypocrisy when they are fine with other prisoners getting released who killed soldiers and RUC not to mention innocent people in explosions but draw the line at a single Garda.

The men should have been released under the GFA.

Eventually they asked to be left alone to serve their sentence. (Gee, I wonder if Gerry's visits to the prison had anything to do with things like that, nah they must have been hi fiving over the death of Jerry McCabe right?)

Happyman42

Lelantos wrote: »

That apology could have been made years ago, in person if he so wished. It would have been genuine & it would have come out into public knowledge eventually. But he chose to grandstand in the dáil after the murder of another guard. A cheap political trick, nothing more.

What party are we comparing his too again?:rolleyes:


Of course it was political, just as Mrs McCabes intervention into the Presidential campaign was 'political', why are you not saying she should have made her views known privately?
The apology is made, the time is served and it's time to let the man rest in peace, like all the others. Quit looking for the old sticks to beat people with, if he makes a private apology that's his and Ms McCabes business. He has and those he represents have made a committment to democratic politics that we all asked them to do. Let them get on with it.

Happyman42

pablomakaveli wrote: »

If he doesnt think the murder of a Garda is wrong then he shouldnt be sitting in the Dail.

He denounced the killing at the time and denounced the killing of Adrian Donohue. You should stick to facts.

pablomakaveli

GRMA wrote: »

Lots of people were released who did worse than kill a Garda. It really shines a light on freestater hypocrisy when they are fine with other prisoners getting released who killed soldiers and RUC not to mention innocent people in explosions but draw the line at a single Garda.

The men should have been released under the GFA.

Eventually they asked to be left alone to serve their sentence. (Gee, I wonder if Gerry's visits to the prison had anything to do with things like that, nah they must have been hi fiving over the death of Jerry McCabe right?)

Here we go with this "freestater" nonsense again. As long as republicans treat us with such disdain you'll never get far in this country. Your posts lose credibility when you start spouting this nonsense.

GRMA

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Here we go with this "freestater" nonsense again. As long as republicans treat us with such disdain you'll never get far in this country. Your posts lose credibility when you start spouting this nonsense.

Freestater refers to, thankfully, a minority who have strange attitudes to their fellow Irishmen.

But sure ignore everything else I wrote and hide behind what is quite frankly an irrelevance.