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

maccored

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.

On the contrary. I think your side of the debate has been exposed for what it is pages back.

pablomakaveli

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

You said maybe he doesnt think it was wrong. I said if he really does view it like that he has no place in the Dail.

Happyman42

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You said maybe he doesnt think it was wrong. I said if he really does view it like that he has no place in the Dail.

I mean't lobbying for the release of the priisoners...even the Alliance party lobbied for it and accused the Irish gov of hypocrisy ffs!

maccored

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You said maybe he doesnt think it was wrong. I said if he really does view it like that he has no place in the Dail.

'if he really does view it like that' then i assume he wouldnt have denounced it.

pablomakaveli

GRMA wrote: »

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.

And is a true Irishman supposed to abide to the Republican hive mind in order to be considered a true irishman?

With the GFA i dont think anyones happy to see criminals released. It was a necessary evil for peace. We dont have to like it. I certainly dont. Ideally they would have been left in prison. If the people of NI are happy to see people who killed members of the RUC released or are willing to accept it thats their concern.

GRMA

pablomakaveli wrote: »

And is a true Irishman supposed to abide to the Republican hive mind in order to be considered a true irishman?

With the GFA i dont think anyones happy to see criminals released. It was a necessary evil for peace. We dont have to like it. I certainly dont. Ideally they would have been left in prison. If the people of NI are happy to see people who killed members of the RUC released or are willing to accept it thats their concern.

Where did you get that from? I said "fellow Irishmen" nothing about "true Irishmen" at all.

People were released from Portlaoise too ya know! And eh... everyone voted in one way or another about the GFA.

Lelantos

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

Oh he can rest in peace now because the "apology" was made.
Grandstanding springs to mind, he saw a political opportunity to profit from another guards murder. He should be ashamed of himself, but I doubt he has that ability.

RandomName2

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?)

This post is so wrong, on so many levels. :pac:

*Criticising criticism as being hypocritical.
*Criticising opponents of militant republicanism as being free-staters
*Declaring that the murder of Gerry McCabe was a political crime and thus the perpetrator should have been released.
*Saying that Gerry Adams' connection with the perpetrators is exonerated by their being coached in the fundamentals of Sinn Fein public relations by the leader of the party.
*Implying that the perpetrators were subject to the orders of Adams in this fashion.
[...]

I don't think you are doing your position many favours, to be perfectly honest.

Happyman42

Lelantos wrote: »

Oh he can rest in peace now because the "apology" was made.
Grandstanding springs to mind, he saw a political opportunity to profit from another guards murder. He should be ashamed of himself, but I doubt he has that ability.

You need to assess who the real footdraggers are now. You need to ask yourself the question...'So what if the apology was sincere, or accepted or not?'.

It took the British 40 odd years to 'partly apologise' for the events in Derry. They STILL haven't released the information they have on collusion that caused the deaths in my community on the day of the Dublin /Monaghan bombings. I and my siblings narrowly missed by 2 minutes being involved in that incident (we would have been buying chips after swimming about two yards from the bomb, one of my sisters still has nightmares about seeing the mutilation) yet the moral grandstanders are telling me that I am retarded for not wanting to acknowledge the presence of the titular head of those same colluders (the Queen) in MY country until the info is released and those responsible called to account.
A lot of people, me included had to swallow objections to that visit in the 'interests' of the peace, that is fine, I will get over it because the ultimate PRIZE is the greater thing.
I am saying to Mrs McCabe, that she has to do the same thing now in all our interests.
You need to ask yourself, 'are you happy that this organisation is now firmly in the democratic fold or not?' and 'what will be the price if they can't serve their mandate, a mandate that represents an awful lot of your fellow countrymen and women whose future's deserve as much respect and consideration as Mrs McCabe's and all the other victims of the troubles?'.
But no, YOU will just sit on the high moral ground and watch while it all degenerates again because you can't get over your real problem..your hate.

GRMA

Genuine question for the naysayers, should Gerry Adams apologise for anything ever again? Is there any point seeing as you won't find him sincere?

When the British government apologise for things we are expected to accept it, for example Bloody Sunday. That was a great day forty years overdue and during those years the people of Derry and Ireland were told that those murdered were gunmen and killers themselves. But by and large everyone welcomed the apology and said how great it was. They overlooked the fact that the soldiers were not going to be exposed or prosecuted. Did that make it insincere? Did the fact that the British HAD to apologise in the face of the overwhelming report make it insincere?

Going by the logic on display here the answer must be yes.

It's clear here that people just want to give out about Sinn Fein either way, which is alright I suppose, you'd be giving out just as much if he didn't apologise and demanding that he do so. Just be honest about it

Lelantos

Happyman42 wrote: »

You need to assess who the real footdraggers are now. You need to ask yourself the question...'So what if the apology was sincere, or accepted or not?'.

It took the British 40 odd years to 'partly apologise' for the events in Derry. They STILL haven't released the information they have on collusion that caused the deaths in my community on the day of the Dublin /Monaghan bombings. I and my siblings narrowly missed by 2 minutes being involved in that incident (we would have been buying chips after swimming about two yards from the bomb, one of my sisters still has nightmares about seeing the mutilation) yet the moral grandstanders are telling me that I am retarded for not wanting to acknowledge the presence of the titular head of those same colluders (the Queen) in MY country until the info is released and those responsible called to account.
A lot of people, me included had to swallow objections to that visit in the 'interests' of the peace, that is fine, I will get over it because the ultimate PRIZE is the greater thing.
I am saying to Mrs McCabe, that she has to do the same thing now in all our interests.
You need to ask yourself, 'are you happy that this organisation is now firmly in the democratic fold or not?' and 'what will be the price if they can't serve their mandate, a mandate that represents an awful lot of your fellow countrymen and women whose future's deserve as much respect and consideration as Mrs McCabe's and all the other victims of the troubles?'.
But no, YOU will just sit on the high moral ground and watch while it all degenerates again because you can't get over your real problem..your hate.

Sir, you are so riddled with hate & self righteous indignation it would almost be funny except you seem to think that Mrs McCabe owes you & your ilk something! She should get over it. You swallowed your objections, she had to swallow the murder of her husband. No comparison whatsoever, if you can't see the ignorance of your post with all its bile, my "real" problem is that you are probably not alone in your misguided thinking & that is scary for the decent people of Ireland

Happyman42

Lelantos wrote: »

Sir, you are so riddled with hate & self righteous indignation it would almost be funny except you seem to think that Mrs McCabe owes you & your ilk something! She should get over it. You swallowed your objections, she had to swallow the murder of her husband. No comparison whatsoever, if you can't see the ignorance of your post with all its bile, my "real" problem is that you are probably not alone in your misguided thinking & that is scary for the decent people of Ireland

My 'hate' isn't hidden behind a wall of moral nonsense. I deal with my 'hates' everyday...do you?
Mrs McCabe has to do what we all had to do, she is not the only one affected.

pablomakaveli

GRMA wrote: »

Genuine question for the naysayers, should Gerry Adams apologise for anything ever again? Is there any point seeing as you won't find him sincere?

When the British government apologise for things we are expected to accept it, for example Bloody Sunday. That was a great day forty years overdue and during those years the people of Derry and Ireland were told that those murdered were gunmen and killers themselves. But by and large everyone welcomed the apology and said how great it was. They overlooked the fact that the soldiers were not going to be exposed or prosecuted. Did that make it insincere? Did the fact that the British HAD to apologise in the face of the overwhelming report make it insincere?

Going by the logic on display here the answer must be yes.

It's clear here that people just want to give out about Sinn Fein either way, which is alright I suppose, you'd be giving out just as much if he didn't apologise and demanding that he do so. Just be honest about it

Personally i think they should be prosecuted. So as with Gerrys apology it does come across ar least as a little insincere since the actions didnt match the words. It was welcome but ultimately not enough.

flutered

Lelantos wrote: »

Sir, you are so riddled with hate & self righteous indignation it would almost be funny except you seem to think that Mrs McCabe owes you & your ilk something! She should get over it. You swallowed your objections, she had to swallow the murder of her husband. No comparison whatsoever, if you can't see the ignorance of your post with all its bile, my "real" problem is that you are probably not alone in your misguided thinking & that is scary for the decent people of Ireland

one cannot be selective in their objections, also their apologys, in the true sense of going forward, everyone has to give up something so an agreement can be made, to say an agreement can be made, then some years afterwars each party can be selective in what they take or put into it, cannot be correct/

RandomName2

GRMA wrote: »

Genuine question for the naysayers, should Gerry Adams apologise for anything ever again? Is there any point seeing as you won't find him sincere?

When the British government apologise for things we are expected to accept it, for example Bloody Sunday. That was a great day forty years overdue and during those years the people of Derry and Ireland were told that those murdered were gunmen and killers themselves. But by and large everyone welcomed the apology and said how great it was. They overlooked the fact that the soldiers were not going to be exposed or prosecuted. Did that make it insincere? Did the fact that the British HAD to apologise in the face of the overwhelming report make it insincere?

Going by the logic on display here the answer must be yes.

It's clear here that people just want to give out about Sinn Fein either way, which is alright I suppose, you'd be giving out just as much if he didn't apologise and demanding that he do so. Just be honest about it

You are shifting the goalposts quite a bit.

Why someone who doesn't live in the UK should feel passionately about UK politics is something I really don't get...

But that aside, there wasn't just an apology about Bloody Sunday. Saville Inquiry? No? Well anyway, I don't believe that Cameron was PM at the time of Bloody Sunday. He issued an apology on the back of the Saville report.

I er.. don't really see where you're going with that analogy.

This would be an analogy: if a report came out saying that US intelligence knew about an Al Qaeda attack planned in Pakistan and did nothing. In the wake of this revelation Hilary Clinton stands up, unprompted, and says "this is horrible and must be fully investigated. Oh, by the way, my sincere apologies that the US knew about the Rwanda genocide and did nothing about it"

GRMA

This partitionaist nonsense is really just that. I live in Ireland, I'm an Irishman, of course I care about bloody sunday, the murder of 14 civil rights marchers in my country and the response of the British govt to it. How could you not?

RandomName2

GRMA wrote: »

This partitionaist nonsense is really just that. I live in Ireland, I'm an Irishman, of course I care about bloody sunday, the murder of 14 civil rights marchers in my country and the response of the British govt to it. How could you not?

Yes but I care more about my Parliament, and my country, and my political parties. It is not relevant to say "why not bring up the RUC when talking about the murder of a Garda". One can care about the Bloody Sunday of 1972 without having to frame every analysis of Irish politics within the scope of its ramifications.

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

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes but I care more about my Parliament, and my country, and my political parties. It is not relevant to say "why not bring up the RUC when talking about the murder of a Garda". One can care about the Bloody Sunday of 1972 without having to frame every analysis of Irish politics within the scope of its ramifications.

SF are in your Parliament, are part of your country and are one of your political parties and represent your country men and women. But you go right ahead with your partitionism if it helps you sleep nights. :rolleyes:

Lelantos

A chara, – In reference to your Editorial (February 1st), on January 29th I apologised in the Dáil on my own behalf and that of Sinn Féin for the killing of Garda Jerry McCabe in 1996.

I did so in the context of the murder of Garda Donohoe. Republicans were not involved in the killing of Adrian Donohoe. That much is clear. But there is a need to address the fact that republicans killed other gardaí.

That is what I tried to do in a genuine and sincere way.

Garda McCabe was the last garda to be killed. Contrary to the media line – including in your columns – I had apologised on previous occasions. The last time was in 2009 when I expressed my deep regret for “the great loss and hurt suffered by the McCabe and O Sullivan families”. In my remarks in the Dáil I also apologised to the families of other members of the Garda and the Defence Forces who were killed in the course of the conflict.
It just raises too many questions! Why did he apologise?! He has repeatedly stated he wasnt a member of the IRA, is he now saying otherwise? "Great loss & hurt"? No mention of murder, sure he could have been talking about their pet labrador!
I'm sorry, but this is not a an apology, it is a self serving device for Gerry Adams, he can stand up & say, there! I said sorry,but on my terms only, wonder how many RUC officers will get even this shallow apology?

Zombrex

GRMA wrote: »

Genuine question for the naysayers, should Gerry Adams apologise for anything ever again? Is there any point seeing as you won't find him sincere?

The only apology from Gerry Adams would be an apology that contains the simple statement

"We were wrong."

Not we are sorry it had to happen. Not that we regret the way it turned out. Not we are sorry we were forced into doing it. Not we are sorry for the hurt it caused. Not that we regret the effect on families. Not we are sorry it happened but lets ensure that it never happens again.

But that it was wrong, and we were wrong for doing it/supporting those who did.

When the British government apologized for Bloody Sunday they acknowledged that what happened was wrong, that those involved were wrong.

"The conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."
David Cameron

When Adams says the same of the IRA's actions during the troubles I will accept that apology. Anything else is BS.

We are all still waiting ...

Happyman42

Zombrex wrote: »

When Adams says the same of the IRA's actions during the troubles I will accept that apology. Anything else is BS.

We are all still waiting ...

You won't be getting that, because SF and those they represent don't believe that what the IRA did was wrong.
Some actions and renegade actions where wrong and have been dealt with.
You and others need to deal with that simple fact of life, and move on, just like we did after we achieved a bloddy and violent independence.
You can attempt to proscribe and deny but you will not succeed, the British tried that but had to come to the table and make the changes eventually. Thankfully they have come a long way and are now running a fair and inclusive society, we in the south need to do the same.

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

SF are in your Parliament, are part of your country and are one of your political parties and represent your country men and women. But you go right ahead with your partitionism if it helps you sleep nights. :rolleyes:

Which is the reason why I give a single damn about what Gerry Adams has to say.

Duh.

partitionism

If you aren't a partitionalist you're a unionist! Hur-a-hur.

Seriously man? Seriously? Did "free-stater" get too repetitive? 2nd Dail ftw.

RandomName2

Zombrex wrote: »

The only apology from Gerry Adams would be an apology that contains the simple statement

"We were wrong."

Not we are sorry it had to happen. Not that we regret the way it turned out. Not we are sorry we were forced into doing it. Not we are sorry for the hurt it caused. Not that we regret the effect on families. Not we are sorry it happened but lets ensure that it never happens again.

But that it was wrong, and we were wrong for doing it/supporting those who did.

When the British government apologized for Bloody Sunday they acknowledged that what happened was wrong, that those involved were wrong.

"The conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."
David Cameron

When Adams says the same of the IRA's actions during the troubles I will accept that apology. Anything else is BS.

We are all still waiting ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfmdBPl48uw

Zombrex

Happyman42 wrote: »

You won't be getting that, because SF and those they represent don't believe that what the IRA did was wrong.
Some actions and renegade actions where wrong and have been dealt with.
You and others need to deal with that simple fact of life, and move on, just like we did after we achieved a bloddy and violent independence.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think Gerry Adams will ever apologize sincerely, but then Gerry Adams is an immoral f**kwit. I'm not actually waiting for this. The "still waiting" comment was a rhetorical

GRMA

Zombrex wrote: »

The only apology from Gerry Adams would be an apology that contains the simple statement

"We were wrong."

Not we are sorry it had to happen. Not that we regret the way it turned out. Not we are sorry we were forced into doing it. Not we are sorry for the hurt it caused. Not that we regret the effect on families. Not we are sorry it happened but lets ensure that it never happens again.

But that it was wrong, and we were wrong for doing it/supporting those who did.

When the British government apologized for Bloody Sunday they acknowledged that what happened was wrong, that those involved were wrong.

"The conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."
David Cameron

When Adams says the same of the IRA's actions during the troubles I will accept that apology. Anything else is BS.

We are all still waiting ...

You might want to look again at Camerons apology specifically the lengthy section where he goes on about how great the British Army were in the north,why the double standard?

Zombrex

GRMA wrote: »

You might want to look again at Camerons apology specifically the lengthy section where he goes on about how great the British Army were in the north,why the double standard?

You are missing the point. Cameron's apology, and the actions by the British government to all actions during the troubles, is far from perfect. The reaction is lacking is numerous and significant ways, particular in relation to how the British Army continues to behave in places like Afghanistan.

But then I'm not defending Cameron or the British government. I used Cameron's apology as a contrast to what Adams has never even done. Cameron acknowledged that the actions on Bloody Sunday was wrong. Totally wrong. Utterly wrong. Cameron did not attempt to dance around semantics like Adams and the other 'RA supporters do when they "apologize" for the actions of militant republicans. Cameron did not pretend that Army snipers shooting civilians was an unfortunate but necessary aspect of the conflict. He did not pretend that the Army was forced into Bloody Sunday by republicans. He didn't not pretend that if they hadn't had done Blood Sunday the conflict would have gone on longer than necessary.

You asked what Adam's should apologize for and I told you.

If all you can do is muster the predictable and pathetic "oh well what about the British" then that is disappointing but not unsurprising.

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

Which is the reason why I give a single damn about what Gerry Adams has to say.

Duh.



If you aren't a partitionalist you're a unionist! Hur-a-hur.

Seriously man? Seriously? Did "free-stater" get too repetitive? 2nd Dail ftw.

You'll need to make some sense to continue in the debate.

Happyman42

Zombrex wrote: »

You are missing the point. Cameron's apology, and the actions by the British government to all actions during the troubles, is far from perfect. The reaction is lacking is numerous and significant ways, particular in relation to how the British Army continues to behave in places like Afghanistan.

But then I'm not defending Cameron or the British government. I used Cameron's apology as a contrast to what Adams has never even done. Cameron acknowledged that the actions on Bloody Sunday was wrong. Totally wrong. Utterly wrong. Cameron did not attempt to dance around semantics like Adams and the other 'RA supporters do when they "apologize" for the actions of militant republicans. Cameron did not pretend that Army snipers shooting civilians was an unfortunate but necessary aspect of the conflict. He did not pretend that the Army was forced into Bloody Sunday by republicans. He didn't not pretend that if they hadn't had done Blood Sunday the conflict would have gone on longer than necessary.

You asked what Adam's should apologize for and I told you.

If all you can do is muster the predictable and pathetic "oh well what about the British" then that is disappointing but not unsurprising.

Do you understand that Cameron needed to be senistive in his 'apology'? That he needed to talk not only to the victims but also to the British Army and that he was politic in doing so?
Adams is in the exact same position.
Adams will not apologise for the IRA because he represents those who think the IRA achieved something for them. He has addressed mistakes and wrongful actions many times, and he has apologised for the hurt caused but he won't be apologising for the military campaign.

Nodin

Zombrex wrote: »

................

"The conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."
David Cameron

When Adams says the same of the IRA's actions during the troubles I will accept that apology. Anything else is BS.

We are all still waiting ...

A even that neither will nor should happen.

Zombrex

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do you understand that Cameron needed to be senistive in his 'apology'? That he needed to talk not only to the victims but also to the British Army and that he was politic in doing so?
Adams is in the exact same position.
Adams will not apologise for the IRA because he represents those who think the IRA achieved something for them. He has addressed mistakes and wrongful actions many times, and he has apologised for the hurt caused but he won't be apologising for the military campaign.

Yes, that is the whole point. Adams believed and still probably believes that it was not wrong with the IRA did. As such any apology for what the IRA did will be meaningless to me and most people in Ireland.

Bloody Sunday was an appalling crime, but even the British army and government of the time knew it was immoral and unjustifiable, which is why they tried to cover it up. Even the criminal who attempts to cover his crime has more moral awareness than the criminal who struts out hands up saying yeah he did it what is all the fuss about. We call those people psychopaths.

maccored

Zombrex wrote: »

We call those people psychopaths.

Interesting list of popular careers for psychopaths and non psychopaths. Dont see politicians mentioned anywhere though. 7 is interesting.

http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/11/professions-most-fewest-psychopaths/

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

Interesting list of popular careers for psychopaths and non psychopaths. Dont see politicians mentioned anywhere though. 7 is interesting.

http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/11/professions-most-fewest-psychopaths/

On the other hand, most of the roles on the left do offer power and many require an ability to make objective, clinical decisions divorced from feelings. Psychopaths would be drawn to these roles and thrive there

Yes because successful politicians have no power and don't have to make many decisions.

Did you even read the article you quoted :rolleyes:

GRMA

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, that is the whole point. Adams believed and still probably believes that it was not wrong with the IRA did. As such any apology for what the IRA did will be meaningless to me and most people in Ireland.

Bloody Sunday was an appalling crime, but even the British army and government of the time knew it was immoral and unjustifiable, which is why they tried to cover it up. Even the criminal who attempts to cover his crime has more moral awareness than the criminal who struts out hands up saying yeah he did it what is all the fuss about. We call those people psychopaths.

So unless he apologises and says everything the IRA did was wrong any apology for individual events is meaningless?

goalposts have vanished over the horizon

maccored

Zombrex wrote: »

On the other hand, most of the roles on the left do offer power and many require an ability to make objective, clinical decisions divorced from feelings. Psychopaths would be drawn to these roles and thrive there

Yes because successful politicians have no power and don't have to make many decisions.

Did you even read the article you quoted :rolleyes:

Yes I did, otherwise I wouldnt have posted it. Still - I dont see politicians on the list. You obviously do.

Zombrex

GRMA wrote: »

So unless he apologises and says everything the IRA did was wrong any apology for individual events is meaningless?

Yes, because it implies there were good events the IRA don't need to be apologized for, and that Adam's doesn't need to be ashamed of supporting.

On Bloody Sunday the British Army shot 26 people. If the British government apologized for 7 of those, saying those deaths were utterly wrong, would you think "Well its not perfect but at least they gave a meaningful apology for the 7".

Or would you be outraged they didn't apologize, and apparently didn't think they need to apologize, for all the injuries?

The latter I would imagine. Tell me again about goal posts :rolleyes:

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

Yes I did, otherwise I wouldnt have posted it. Still - I dont see politicians on the list. You obviously do.

Face it, you messed up. Even a basic understanding of what a psychopath is would tell you that they would be drawn to the power and influence of political leadership. You don't see politician on the list because politician would not be a common career, not because psychopaths are not drawn to it.

The characteristics that define clinical psychopathy are many of the same that make effective leaders.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-startling-accuracy-of-referring-to-politicians-as-psychopaths/260517/

Many people at some point have likely wondered if their boss is a psychopath. It turns out that if your boss is a politician, there’s a good chance he or she is. Several of the characteristics that define a psychopath also correspond to the same traits that make for effective leaders
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/08/research-suggests-politicians-are-more-likely-to-be-psychopaths/

CptMackey

By apologising he is not now admitting culpability? To me all he said is that I was/still am part of the ira and as leader I apologise for the murder in our war against reason

Zombrex

CptMackey wrote: »

By apologising he is not now admitting culpability? To me all he said is that I was/still am part of the ira and as leader I apologise for the murder in our war against reason

He is apologizing as he always does in a "Sorry I had to do that" kinda way.

Regret, not guilt.

Nodin

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, because it implies there were good events the IRA don't need to be apologized for, and that Adam's doesn't need to be ashamed of supporting.

You seem to be under some bizarre notion that Gerry and SF are going to undergo some collective mental breakdown and say that the armed struggle was wrong. Thats never, ever, ever going to happen.

Zombrex

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be under some bizarre notion that Gerry and SF are going to undergo some collective mental breakdown and say that the armed struggle was wrong. Thats never, ever, ever going to happen.

I've no idea why people keep saying that to me. Where in any of my posts did I say, or even suggest, that I expect Adams will actually apologize in a meaningful way?

I would be bowled over with surprise if he ever actually did that. I imagine we will never get a meaningful apology for Adams, McGuinness or any senior member of Sinn Fein.

maccored

Im beginning to to see you might be the kind of person who just argues on relentlessly regardless. I posted a link to a list - actually in jest more than anything else tbh - and you're still going on about politicians even though they arent even mentioned. I'm thinking your debating technique makes sense to me now.

Zombrex wrote: »

Face it, you messed up. Even a basic understanding of what a psychopath is would tell you that they would be drawn to the power and influence of political leadership. You don't see politician on the list because politician would not be a common career, not because psychopaths are not drawn to it.

The characteristics that define clinical psychopathy are many of the same that make effective leaders.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-startling-accuracy-of-referring-to-politicians-as-psychopaths/260517/

Many people at some point have likely wondered if their boss is a psychopath. It turns out that if your boss is a politician, there’s a good chance he or she is. Several of the characteristics that define a psychopath also correspond to the same traits that make for effective leaders
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/08/research-suggests-politicians-are-more-likely-to-be-psychopaths/

Nodin

Zombrex wrote: »

I've no idea why people keep saying that to me. Where in any of my posts did I say, or even suggest, that I expect Adams will actually apologize in a meaningful way?

I would be bowled over with surprise if he ever actually did that. I imagine we will never get a meaningful apology for Adams, McGuinness or any senior member of Sinn Fein.

Nor Should yez. While some terrible things happened, the struggle was nessecary.

maccored

You do realise many on this thread have just heard a whooshing sound as that went right over their heads?

Nodin wrote: »

Nor Should yez. While some terrible things happened, the struggle was nessecary.

Nodin

maccored wrote: »

You do realise many on this thread have just heard a whooshing sound as that went right over their heads?

...it looks fairly straightforward to me, tbh...

pablomakaveli

Nodin wrote: »

Nor Should yez. While some terrible things happened, the struggle was nessecary.

Yes come to think of it,the shooting of unarmed innocents on the basis of their religion was very necessary.

maccored

Nodin wrote: »

...it looks fairly straightforward to me, tbh...

same here, but I think the post above kinda shows what I mean

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

Im beginning to to see you might be the kind of person who just argues on relentlessly regardless. I posted a link to a list - actually in jest more than anything else tbh - and you're still going on about politicians even though they arent even mentioned.

You posted a link thinking, I can only imagine, that you had some how demonstrated that psychopaths are not drawn to politics because it didn't appear in a list.

I pointed out how silly that assertion is. Apparently you know nothing about psychopaths (or politics) because it is common knowledge, and the basis of many a work of fiction, that politics is precisely the type of work that psychopaths are drawn to.

You now just keep clinging to the fact that it wasn't in your list, and won't admit that that means nothing.

Do you now agree that politics actually has all the hall marks of a career that would be appealing to a psychopath?

Or do you wish to cling foolishly to the idea that its absence in your list some how means something significant.

Your choice.

Zombrex

Nodin wrote: »

Nor Should yez. While some terrible things happened, the struggle was nessecary.

That thinking is a fallacy.

Even if a struggle was necessary, that does not justify or excuse the struggle we got.

A more general example. If you are hungry and need food that may justify stealing some bread as breaking the law in extreme circumstances in order to save yourself. But it doesn't justify murdering the baker while you are at it. Saying "But I was hungry I had to brake the law to survive" does not excuse the murdering of the baker.

The IRA and Sinn Fein choose an immoral path. Saying a struggle was necessary does not justify the struggle they choose. They should apologize for thinking that was justifiable, though of course they never will.

Nodin

Zombrex wrote: »

........
Even if a struggle was necessary, that does not justify or excuse the struggle we got...........

If you can find an armed conflict where bad things didn't happen, you'll be doing well.

Zombrex wrote: »

........
The IRA and Sinn Fein choose an immoral path. ...........

In your opinion. Others beg to differ.

Happyman42

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, because it implies there were good events the IRA don't need to be apologized for, and that Adam's doesn't need to be ashamed of supporting.

On Bloody Sunday the British Army shot 26 people. If the British government apologized for 7 of those, saying those deaths were utterly wrong, would you think "Well its not perfect but at least they gave a meaningful apology for the 7".

Or would you be outraged they didn't apologize, and apparently didn't think they need to apologize, for all the injuries?

The latter I would imagine. Tell me again about goal posts :rolleyes:

What people like you, always forget is why those people where on the street that day and what they where looking for and what had brought them to that point. Bloody Sunday was not the start of something, it was the end of something. You also conveiniently forget that it took 40 years and a good deal of bargaining (only when they would gain something, did they aqquiesce to a proper inquiry- the cessation of the military campaign against them) to get them to tell the truth and that nobody was brought to justice for it. They only did it because it was politicaly advantageous, not because it was right or moral. We STILL await them to tell the truth about numerous other skullduggery they got up to in NI and this state, including the lethal bombing of our capital. Any rational person can see that what happened that day was part of a plan (it may have been wrong but it was a planned operation) and that what happened in Adare was a mistake that was acknowledged immediately as being a horrendous one by Gerry Adams himself.
To attempt to partly exonerate those responsible for Bloody Sunday (that covering it up mean't they where ashamed) is just embarrassing doffing of the hat. They are STILL doing the same thing around the world.

But, sure let's forget about that, the Queen is coming in her pretty frock and we want to show we haven't become savages since she left.:rolleyes: