Gerry Adams on RTE PrimeTime--29-05-13

Chips Lovell

Nodin wrote: »

He's been asked similar questions before. Whats the point in going over and over the same ground? He's made his position clear already.

Can we start holding Gerry and his colleagues to the same standards? Once he's asked questions about FF or FG policies a few times, he has to shut up, because they've made their position clear already. Why are SF so special?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

They did of course support the IRA, who found themselves in the middle of a conflict not of their making and with no choice but to fight back. Furthermore, while the IRA didnt start the war, they were the ones to end it. But you go right ahead entertaining this myth taht all was well with the world until the big bad IRA crawled out of the sea and started killing people for no reason.

It is quite chilling to see the number of people who seem to actively endorse what the IRA did.

old hippy

Nodin wrote: »

Because it refers to their southern counterparts.

Ruth Dudley Edwards? Conor Cruise O'Brien?

Still not comfortable with the term, mind.

Crooked Jack

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It is quite chilling to see the number of people who seem to actively endorse what the IRA did.

There's loads of them. The fuckers are everywhere. Parades outside the GPO at Easter. I even saw the Taoiseach and president at one. This thing goes right to the top.
Monuments to what the IRA did all over Cork and Kerry. I saw a huge one at Kilmichael.
Shameless shower of bastards.

Frank Black

Nodin wrote: »

Actually it refers to those who look to Britian, rather than Ireland. Such creatures do exist, though the term itself is overused.

The kind of people who wear Premiership football jerseys and watch Coronation Street and Eastenders?


I've seen these guys at Nationalist protests all right.

Nodin

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Can we start holding Gerry and his colleagues to the same standards? Once he's asked questions about FF or FG policies a few times, he has to shut up, because they've made their position clear already. Why are SF so special?.

Because the war is over? You either agree with it or not.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It is quite chilling to see the number of people who seem to actively endorse what the IRA did.

Armed struggle was nessecary.

Nodin

old hippy wrote: »

Ruth Dudley Edwards? Conor Cruise O'Brien?

Still not comfortable with the term, mind.

...Gay Byrne, Eoin Harris, yep.

CrinkElite

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Smart never came into it, the southern clowns lay back and tolerated a sectarian war in the northern counties, and allowed the brits to carry out terror attacks in Dublin and Monaghan, and several other places. What did the sheeple of our so called republic do, cowered down and took it up the butt. When our overlords seen how cowardly some of us were they decided to ride us again, such is the situation we now find ourselves in. We are cowards, and denigrate those who stood up for their rights, and would not lay down for the ba$tards.
Get off your ass and stand up and be counted, Your kids will if you do not have the guts.

You're a f*ckin CLOWN!

Nodin

CrinkElite wrote: »

You're a f*ckin CLOWN!

Careful now. Everyone has to make a livin.

My name is URL

How come there's no discussion here about Adams' call for a Truth Commission to be set up? Loads of rabble about how people want the truth yet a profound unwillingness by those most vocal; to actually do something which would uncover the truth.. mad that

Do FG or any of its lackeys here support the setting up of such a commission? I doubt it very much... truth me hole. All people want is a one-sided version of events so they can continue on with their vitriol and pigeonholing. Hypocrites.

kingtiger

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It is quite chilling to see the number of people who seem to actively endorse what the IRA did.

do they equal the number of people who endorse what the ANC (Spear of a nation) were also responsible for?

didnt Ed Miliband's defend the armed struggle against apartheid a couple of years ago?

so what's the difference between the ANC and Sinn Fein?

Yamanoto

Nodin wrote: »

Actually it refers to those who look to Britian, rather than Ireland. Such creatures do exist, though the term itself is overused.

On Boards, its use so often just reads as utter ballsology - a lowest common denominator type of slur, employed by those who cannot fathom that some folks on this island don't subscribe to their narrow notion of how Irish folk should think, feel and react by default.

Rather than engage in a reasoned or reasonable debate, it's lobbed in as a lazy catch-all insult, across a whole range of topics:

Don't like the GAA - West Brit

Watch the Royal Wedding - West Brit

Question funding for the Irish language - West Brit

The irony is so many of those who are quick to use it demonstrate little knowledge or understanding of Irish history and culture - as they appear to favour cheer-leading balladeer bufoons over genuinely brilliant exponents of the folk tradition, and would most probably have labelled Wolfe Tone, Douglas Hyde and Erskine Childers west-brit one and all.

It's also notable by its absence from the contributions of certain Republican posters on this site.

Nodin

Yamanoto wrote: »

On Boards, its (..........)of certain Republican posters on this site.

Overused and misapplied indeed.

bobbysands81

Frank Black wrote: »

The kind of people who wear Premiership football jerseys and watch Coronation Street and Eastenders?


I've seen these guys at Nationalist protests all right.

I never quite understand this argument, are you castigating Republicans because they don't hate Britain enough or do you have difficulty separating the British Government's policies in Ireland with British culture?

Either way your argument doesn't stack up but hey it's a good sound bite that you read in the Irish Indo that makes you sound somewhat intelligent.

SoulandForm

Nodin wrote: »

Armed struggle was nessecary.

Outside of defensive actions was the armed struggle really necessary?

If the offensive armed struggle was necessary than surely it remains necessary now?

Sierra Oscar

The interview really shows that the apology offered by Gerry Adams in Dáil Éireann was nothing more than a political stunt following the murder of Garda Adrian Donohoel. There was no compassion in the apology, and there was no compassion in the interview last night.

SF continue to fail to recognize the immense damage that the actions of the IRA had upon society, particularly upon civilians who tried to stay out of the conflict. The Boston College tapes will expose Adams, and mark the end of his career in political life.

fishy fishy

nothing like a few armchair experts to make you laugh - so much expertise on these forums - the intelligence that is on here is mind staggering - makes one wonder why the country is down the swanny.

Sierra Oscar

fishy fishy wrote: »

nothing like a few armchair experts to make you laugh - so much expertise on these forums - the intelligence that is on here is mind staggering - makes one wonder why the country is down the swanny.

There are many who know first hand the damage that the IRA have done to families and communities throughout Ireland. Don't be so quick to jump into condescending mode, it is highly offensive to those who have been affected by the actions of the IRA.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

There isn't any point in having an opinion if you can't prove it in this case.

It tends to be difficult to get proof of who was in the IRA Army Council, especially if somebody denies it. The same stuff happens with McGuinness after 73, no journalist, books, politicians or police opinions will be good enough for some.

The peace process collapses if he says he was in the IRA and names who was responsible or the peace process collapses because he doesn't?

Well it hardly would be because he doesn't, sure that's what he has done for years. It might damage a fragile peace process as you said yourself, I think it would carry on anyway at this stage, just damage Adams politically.

Happyman42

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The interview really shows that the apology offered by Gerry Adams in Dáil Éireann was nothing more than a political stunt following the murder of Garda Adrian Donohoel. There was no compassion in the apology, and there was no compassion in the interview last night.

You want Enda style tears and choking? :rolleyes:

The Boston College tapes will expose Adams, and mark the end of his career in political life.....

..and the peace process. But sure then you will have the mythical, elusive and modern phenomenon of 'closure' and you can 'move on' secure in the knowledge the 'sure we knew rightly'.

fishy fishy

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

There are many who know first hand the damage that the IRA have done to families and communities throughout Ireland. Don't be so quick to jump into condescending mode, it is highly offensive to those who have been affected by the actions of the IRA.

there are plenty of people who know about damage on both sides of communities and families - not exclusive to one group.

my post was referring to all these "experts" that seem to know everything, even tho they were probably not even born and have no idea what actually went on up north. just regurgitating what they hear.

i.e. armchair experts.

it has nothing to do with the Facts of what went on, so I think your reply to my post is misunderstanding it.

Sierra Oscar

Happyman42 wrote: »

You want Enda style tears and choking? :rolleyes:

No. To begin with I would welcome explanations surrounding unsolved murders, and closure for the families of the disappeared.

Is that too much to ask for?

FTA69

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The Boston College tapes will expose Adams, and mark the end of his career in political life.

Brendan Hughes' book has been published for around three years now. Believe it or not accusing Gerry Adams of being in the IRA isn't a new political development.

SoulandForm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

No. To begin with I would welcome explanations surrounding unsolved murders, and closure for the families of the disappeared.

Is that too much to ask for?

Yes I think it is too much to ask. I dont think its rational to expect honesty from either the British establishment, the Provisional movement or indeed Unionism.

We will never get the full story behind what happened during the Troubles. People also had a lot of left over questions that never got answered after the violence of the 20s. We just have to deal with it. I say this as someone who had close family killed during the Troubles.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

It tends to be difficult to get proof of who was in the IRA Army Council, especially if somebody denies it. The same stuff happens with McGuinness after 73, no journalist, books, politicians or police opinions will be good enough for some.

Most of them in public life have admitted their roles, and they didn't have to in most cases. Why should Adams admit to something he wasn't just to placate people who said he was. People with something to gain from saying it. Political gain, monetary gain or career gain.

Well it hardly would be because he doesn't, sure that's what he has done for years. It might damage a fragile peace process as you said yourself, I think it would carry on anyway at this stage, just damage Adams politically.

McGuinness's evidence at Bloody Sunday Tribunal caused massive friction within Republicanism, don't underestimate how fragile it all is.
I don't as yet vote for SF or am I a supporter of all their policies but I can appreciate just what has been done to keep the process on track within that movement, it has been monumental and downright dangerous for the leaders.

Crooked Jack

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

No. To begin with I would welcome explanations surrounding unsolved murders, and closure for the families of the disappeared.

Is that too much to ask for?

From one man? Yes! Yes it absolutely is. Adams has said republicans will cooperate fully with a truth and reconciliation process in which everyone is involved and admits the role they played. That sounds fair enough to me.

As for the disappeared, as Adams pointed out in the Prime Time video, the ICLVR have stated that IRA volunteers have cooperated with the commission fully.

Do you think Adams has an encyclopedic record of every person every killed or that he personally buried the disappeared?

golfball37

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

No. To begin with I would welcome explanations surrounding unsolved murders, and closure for the families of the disappeared.

Is that too much to ask for?

I think thats what everyone wants.

As an aside was Adams apology anymore or less sincere than Champs apology for the ruination of a nation or was that still Lehmans fault? Believe it or not people have died in this state as a result of all parties not just Adams and his crew.

Politicians play politics with everything, don't act so surprised.

Happyman42

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

No. To begin with I would welcome explanations surrounding unsolved murders, and closure for the families of the disappeared.

Is that too much to ask for?

He has said he will meet any family member and answer as best he can...what more do you want?
If somebody has contradictory evidence to what he is saying then present it, otherwise it's time to shut up.
You can't just keep calling somebody a liar based on a guess.

Crooked Jack

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The interview really shows that the apology offered by Gerry Adams in Dáil Éireann was nothing more than a political stunt following the murder of Garda Adrian Donohoel. There was no compassion in the apology, and there was no compassion in the interview last night.

SF continue to fail to recognize the immense damage that the actions of the IRA had upon society, particularly upon civilians who tried to stay out of the conflict. The Boston College tapes will expose Adams, and mark the end of his career in political life.

He doesnt apologise, he's condemned. He does apologise, he's condemned.

As for the actions of the IRA, if the gerrymandered, corrupt, bigoted regime in the post-partition north is what passes for society then thank God the IRA damaged it.

FTA69

Also the last thing Adams wants is a truth commission, you can be sure of that. There's too many vested interests on all sides in NOT having one.

K-9

SoulandForm wrote: »

Yes I think it is too much to ask. I dont think its rational to expect honesty from either the British establishment, the Provisional movement or indeed Unionism.

We will never get the full story behind what happened during the Troubles. People also had a lot of left over questions that never got answered after the violence of the 20s. We just have to deal with it. I say this as someone who had close family killed during the Troubles.

Indeed, that's why I find the calls for a truth and reconciliation process hollow. It doesn't suit any side that was involved.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Most of them in public life have admitted their roles, and they didn't have to in most cases. Why should Adams admit to something he wasn't just to placate people who said he was. People with something to gain from saying it. Political gain, monetary gain or career gain.

Some find it difficult to believe that a big player in the foundation of the PIRA has so little knowledge of acts in the early years of the same organisation. I think its a reasonable position to be skeptical on.

McGuinness's evidence at Bloody Sunday Tribunal caused massive friction within Republicanism, don't underestimate how fragile it all is.
I don't as yet vote for SF or am I a supporter of all their policies but I can appreciate just what has been done to keep the process on track within that movement, it has been monumental and downright dangerous for the leaders.

Well as somebody who has voted SF, I think the peace process would get over it. McGuinness admitted his membership and things carried on, same would happen with Adams once the initial drama was over, maybe without him though, because he has denied it for so long.

Madam

FTA69 wrote: »

Also the last thing Adams wants is a truth commission, you can be sure of that. There's too many vested interests on all sides in NOT having one.

Why is he pushing for it then?

Frank Black

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I never quite understand this argument, are you castigating Republicans because they don't hate Britain enough or do you have difficulty separating the British Government's policies in Ireland with British culture?

Either way your argument doesn't stack up but hey it's a good sound bite that you read in the Irish Indo that makes you sound somewhat intelligent.

Neither - I just love the irony.

Crooked Jack

FTA69 wrote: »

Also the last thing Adams wants is a truth commission, you can be sure of that. There's too many vested interests on all sides in NOT having one.

That must be why he is continually pushing for one. Reverse psychology. Clever bugger.

Chuck Stone

SoulandForm wrote: »

West Brit though doesnt seem to get used in reference to Ulster Unionists and Loyalists.

I've far far more respect for Unionists and Loyalists than I do for West Brits, indeed they're viewed as ****ing morons by many actual unionists (remember John Bruton's pleading with the IRA to lay down its guns?). The West Brit would be akin to a Black person from the Windies who despises all things Black and West Indian. It's a servile, forelock tugging, cap doffing, self-loathing mentality.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Can we start holding Gerry and his colleagues to the same standards?

When we start holding the BA/British Govt and other belligerents to the same standards. Asking SF to spill their guts while allowing those off the hook who, you know, actually caused the conflict is little other than evidence of people's own double standards.

Crooked Jack

Frank Black wrote: »

Neither - I just love the irony.

But it's not ironic.

circadian

Could you imagine what a truth commission would do to FF never mind SF.

Busted Flat.

circadian wrote: »

Could you imagine what a truth commission would do to FF never mind SF.

What would it do to OSF/IRA/SFWP/DL/LP, try opening the can there.

General Monck

Had a watch of the first 10 minutes of this documentary. Typical rte Sinn Fein bashing rubbish. If they're looking for someone to blame, why don't they blame the British Government for creating an enviornemnt where this could happen?

Chips Lovell

General Monck wrote: »

Had a watch of the first 10 minutes of this documentary. Typical rte Sinn Fein bashing rubbish. If they're looking for someone to blame, why don't they blame the British Government for creating an enviornemnt where this could happen?

Because RTE is not SF's propaganda mouthpiece.

Sierra Oscar

FTA69 wrote: »

Brendan Hughes' book has been published for around three years now. Believe it or not accusing Gerry Adams of being in the IRA isn't a new political development.

We all know he was in the IRA, what is not as well known is his close involvement in specific cases.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, that's why I find the calls for a truth and reconciliation process hollow. It doesn't suit any side that was involved.

Just like the IRA allegations....why don't they call his bluff then?

Some find it difficult to believe that a big player in the foundation of the PIRA has so little knowledge of acts in the early years of the same organisation. I think its a reasonable position to be skeptical on.

Again, how long can you be sceptical on a guess, how excluding can you be because you 'feel in your waters' that he was a member of the IRA?
Does he have to resign if he admits to being in the IRA, even though you and Enda and Mrs Windsor and the dogs in the street already 'knew'? Isn't that what people want here, they can't convict him so they want him to fall on his own sword so that they can feel all righteous and morally upstanding?
What purpose would that serve...do you think Pearse Doherty could hold the ranks as well as Adams has done?

Well as somebody who has voted SF, I think the peace process would get over it. McGuinness admitted his membership and things carried on, same would happen with Adams once the initial drama was over, maybe without him though, because he has denied it for so long.

I don't think the peace process would recover at all, there is a reason he is probably the longest serving party leader in Europe, I know we all have benefitted from his political savvy and leadership. Every single one of us.

Chuck Stone

General Monck wrote: »

If they're looking for someone to blame, why don't they blame the British Government for creating an enviornemnt where this could happen?

Because it might mean the search light of truth shines across the border and starts to illuminate the failings of the mealy mouthed succession of morons who populated the Dail through the bad old days who only cared about insulating themselves from the conflict*.




*Albert Reynolds exempted.

golfball37

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

We all know he was in the IRA, what is not as well known is his close involvement in specific cases.

We all know Owen O'Callaghans money found its way into Champs wife's bank account. What he/she did with it is anyone's guess too I suppose?

How exactly do you know? Out of interest.

Seaneh

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Because RTE is not SF's propaganda mouthpiece.

No, they are the FF/FG centre right, comfortable political class mouthpiece, least we ever forget it.

SoulandForm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just like the IRA allegations....why don't they call his bluff then?

Because they have far to many of their own dirty secrets.

Its not rocket science.

Chuck Stone

SoulandForm wrote: »

Its not rocket science.

It is to our southern, sound-bite gobbling, ignorers of context.

Chips Lovell

Seaneh wrote: »

No, they are the FF/FG centre right, comfortable political class mouthpiece, least we ever forget it.

Indeed, they've never upset them, have they?

It's flawed reasoning to conclude that if they aren't in SF's pocket, they must be in somebody's pocket.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just like the IRA allegations....why don't they call his bluff then?

I don't know, we've had inquiries recently into murders so I doubt it's a big conspiracy against Republicans or a matter of calling Adams bluff.

Again, how long can you be sceptical on a guess, how excluding can you be because you 'feel in your waters' that he was a member of the IRA?
Does he have to resign if he admits to being in the IRA, even though you and Enda and Mrs Windsor and the dogs in the street already 'knew'? Isn't that what people want here, they can't convict him so they want him to fall on his own sword so that they can feel all righteous and morally upstanding?
What purpose would that serve...do you think Pearse Doherty could hold the ranks as well as Adams has done?

He's a politician, I'm naturally skeptical of all of them.

To me it is no big deal, unlike yourself, I've voted for an SF candidate with Adams as leader. Adams will retire soon enough anyway so I don't really see that as a point.

I don't think the peace process would recover at all, there is a reason he is probably the longest serving party leader in Europe, I know we all have benefitted from his political savvy and leadership. Every single one of us.

Still amazed you haven't voted for a candidate from this party with such a wonderful leader!

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Because RTE is not SF's propaganda mouthpiece.

Didn't think that reply through thoroughly, now I want to know whose propaganda mouthpiece they are?

Happyman42

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It is to our southern, sound-bite gobbling, ignorers of context.

Spot on.
People really need to question exactly what they are doing here, what the end game of all this will be.
In their efforts to 'get' Gerry, they will expose all the testimony in Boston and bring the process tumbling down. Do they cod themselves that there aren't those in the Unionist camp waiting to opt out over something like this?
A lot of the peace is dependent on those who don't want to be seen bringing it down, but would in a heart beat. There are those on the fringes of the republican side who would do it too.