breaking: Gerry Adams Arrested in connection to McConville - MOD WARNING First Post

alaimacerc

mickydoomsux wrote: »

It's not that St. Gerry has been wishy washy at best and probably has some serious questions to answer.

For me, the surprise is that the "don't hit me while I'm holding the peace process baby in my arms!" pass has worn off to the extent as to allow this happening.

The encouraging aspect of this is that the UK politicians didn't feel they had to quash this investigation happening for the obvious political reasons.

The discouraging aspect of this is wondering if they might not be wrong about that.

Of course, it all depends on how far this process gets, and my immediate gut instinct is to guess "not very far at all".

alaimacerc

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Duly noted! Mind the Shinners here are already rather cross though I am not too sure why? Perhaps they think this might actually cause them some grief? Personally I doubt if it will.

Well, they were fairly cross to start with, it must be said. Then a couple of people said "Shinnerbots". That, as we all know, is beyond the pale in political discourse. Never mind calling people well-poisoning neurotics. Or, oh yeah, shooting them.

But even pricing that in, it's a pretty sensational development. And the timing is pretty spectacular, even if you don't think it's all a brilliantly organised political stroke coordinated on both sides of the border, without any leaks coming out about such a thing happening. (Which as I've said, I don't.)

alaimacerc

rockbeast wrote: »

I'm quite aware of all I've typed tonight - IMO VB made a vociferous attack on GA tonight when he had no more information than we do.

There something wrong with being vociferous? It's not like Denis O'Brien is paying him to show up Mon-Thu and "by your leave if you please m'lud" his guests (and his topics).

OK, VB isn't necessarily simply contrarian all the time: he has his own hobbyhorses, and he can be like a dog with a bone with them at times. (Haven't watched the show yet myself, and TBH I'd rather comment on it on that thread than here anyway.) But I think it illustrates the insufficiency of "let's argue the opposite for the sake of it" in itself.

Dangerous territory. TV3(solicitors, if they have them) should be busy tonight.

If TV3 are well-staffed in any area, I bet it's the legal department.

Never voted because I felt it was always the same shower of bastards in control. If there is a chance to get a new shower of bastards in control then I'm good with that...

As in, say, a coalition between SF and the previous subset of the aforementioned showever of bastards? (i.e. FF) That might be less maximum-contrariness change-of-bastard than you were hoping for, I guess.

Are they letting SF voters into rugby forum these days, btw? Game must be really slumming it these days.

WilyCoyote

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Supporters will still think the sun shines out his arse, the rest of us will still despise him for what he is. And the world keeps turning.

Very apt username!

rockbeast

alaimacerc wrote: »

There something wrong with being vociferous? It's not like Denis O'Brien is paying him to show up Mon-Thu and "by your leave if you please m'lud" his guests (and his topics).

OK, VB isn't necessarily simply contrarian all the time: he has his own hobbyhorses, and he can be like a dog with a bone with them at times. (Haven't watched the show yet myself, and TBH I'd rather comment on it on that thread than here anyway.) But I think it illustrates the insufficiency of "let's argue the opposite for the sake of it" in itself.


If TV3 are well-staffed in any area, I bet it's the legal department.



As in, say, a coalition between SF and the previous subset of the aforementioned showever of bastards? (i.e. FF) That might be less maximum-contrariness change-of-bastard than you were hoping for, I guess.

Are they letting SF voters into rugby forum these days, btw? Game must be really slumming it these days.

Hey Alaimacerc,

Just stating an opinion tonight - not a "shinnerbot" - what?

I believe Adams is innocent ... until found guilty , s'all...

I said "collusion" earlier, which is a possibly inflammatory word but if Jean's (RIP) body was found in Louth then there had to be to be arrested in NI, no...?

Anyhoo, goodnight, I'm not gonna get wrinkles over this. Justice for all and a proper judgement through the correct channels...not online....

alaimacerc

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Will the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead get free legal aid?

Please! That's former Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead -- it's about nine resignations ago now. Apparently he was "succeeded" in April 2011, and the current holder is the Other Brother Milliband.

WilyCoyote

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that most people were disgusted by those amazing, heroic freedom fighters murdering innocent people on our behalf in a "war" that the majority in the Republic had no interest in.

It was all about winning votes, even when SF were a non-entity down here.

So I take it that you believe that Britain didn't execute people that consorted with the enemy. Regarding who ordered the execution ....... the timing of this is the nub.
If you think that the war against the barbaric civil rights suppression by the British establishment was unjust ...... you either don't know your history or are feeble minded.

alaimacerc

rockbeast wrote: »

Just stating an opinion tonight - not a "shinnerbot" - what?

I'm sure not. Just don't be a contraribot either, there's a good lad!

(I don't think it'd be fair to call all SF voters/supporters "Shinnerbots", long-standing or not; but there are certainly some that are very loudly and in-unison "on message". If one finds oneself compelled to type out lengthy phrases and formulae from SF election literature and The Saying of Chairman Adams -- plus of course the thanking-in-packs, since "guilt-by-like-button" has already been thrown the other way... those would be some of the warning sign, all right.)

I said "collusion" earlier, which is a possibly inflammatory word but if Jean's (RIP) body was found in Louth then there had to be to be arrested in NI, no...?

I'm no legal expert, but the facts of the case would seem to imply criminal offences being committed (by persons unknown, etc) on both sides of the border -- for example the abduction on the one hand, and the clandestine disposal of the body on the other. With regard to the murder itself, it might have been actually carried out in one location, and incited, conspired, planned, accessoried, etc, in another. So in principle, I think persons suspected of involvement could be questioned, charged and prosecuted in either jurisdiction.

You'd hope that the PSNI and the Gardai are sending each other the odd memo and so on about the states of their respective investigation, all the same.

alaimacerc

WilyCoyote wrote: »

So I take it that you believe that Britain didn't execute people that consorted with the enemy.

Point or three here...
a) Micky didn't say anything remotely close to this. Putting words into people's mouths just to find something to argue against has to be done a lot more skillfully than this if you've a hope of pulling it off;
b) It's shameless whataboutery;
c) ... and I dunno, do you have any particular examples in mind? Without straying outside your own defined parameters, if you'd be so good.

Regarding who ordered the execution ....... the timing of this is the nub.

I don't believe I follow. What's the significance of the precise timing?

The gist of the evidence, as I understand it, is that at least two people claim to have personal knowledge that Adams was the person actually making the "order". Several other people claim that he was the person "in command", whose decision it would logically have been. Which may be all wrong, of course, and certainly may be insufficient for the matter to proceed much further, but what's it to do with "timing"?

If you think that the war against the barbaric civil rights suppression by the British establishment was unjust ...... you either don't know your history or are feeble minded.

Well, that was all very enlightening, wasn't it. Who needs a point, when you can just throw an equivalent postal weight of abuse?

MadsL

WilyCoyote wrote: »

So I take it that you believe that Britain didn't execute people that consorted with the enemy. Regarding who ordered the execution ....... the timing of this is the nub.

Any specific examples post WW2?

If you think that the war against the barbaric civil rights suppression by the British establishment was unjust ...... you either don't know your history or are feeble minded.

All actions in a just war are just? Seriously?

flas

Anyone with any knowledge of how the ira worked know that one of the factors of adams getting control was that operations could be carried out without central commands backing,in so far as he actually ight have known nothing about it til after it had already happenwd,but facts arw for another thread,not after hours...

MadsL

flas wrote: »

Anyone with any knowledge of how the ira worked know that one of the factors of adams getting control was that operations could be carried out without central commands backing,in so far as he actually ight have known nothing about it til after it had already happenwd,but facts arw for another thread,not after hours...

Based on just how many years active duty are these facts gleaned?

kumate_champ07

MadsL wrote: »

Based on just how many years active duty are these facts gleaned?

"

Although the IRA’s General Headquarters issues broad guidance on operations and will sometimes
designate and plan specific high-value targets, it is the local commander and ASUs who
plan and execute the majority of IRA operations (Bell 1990). The ASU is very
decentralized and the members may actually be in contact for only the few minutes of the
action they are conducting. Their movements to the objective, equipment pick up,
movement from the target, and equipment drop off is all conducted individually (British
Company Commander 2003) "

alaimacerc

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

"

Although the IRA’s General Headquarters issues broad guidance on operations and will sometimes
designate and plan specific high-value targets, it is the local commander and ASUs who
plan and execute the majority of IRA operations (Bell 1990). The ASU is very
decentralized and the members may actually be in contact for only the few minutes of the
action they are conducting. Their movements to the objective, equipment pick up,
movement from the target, and equipment drop off is all conducted individually (British
Company Commander 2003) "

But the allegation is that Adams was the "local commander". Not the commander of a "brigade", who IIRC is one of the people who made the allegation, but in overall charge in of the Belfast command.

Either way, reasoning from "normal operational doctrine" would never prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There's no "strict liability" in being a commander on the basis of what "should" have happen.

MadsL

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

"

Although the IRA’s General Headquarters issues broad guidance on operations and will sometimes
designate and plan specific high-value targets, it is the local commander and ASUs who
plan and execute the majority of IRA operations (Bell 1990). The ASU is very
decentralized and the members may actually be in contact for only the few minutes of the
action they are conducting. Their movements to the objective, equipment pick up,
movement from the target, and equipment drop off is all conducted individually (British
Company Commander 2003) "

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/marques.pdf

From a thesis for a Masters by a military chap in Kansas. I too can google opinions.

Stop with the Walter Mitty stuff about knowing the IRA...

kumate_champ07

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/marques.pdf

From a thesis for a Masters by a military chap in Kansas. I too can google opinions.

Stop with the Walter Mitty stuff about knowing the IRA...

I didnt google it, you did that. did you check the source or just the thesis text?

MadsL

Literature on IRA urban combat techniques is hard to find

He said it...basically you could have just quoted Bell's book....no other sources there really..

What exactly was your point again? Gerry knew nothing. That it?

.jacksparrow.

Seaneh wrote: »

From rabble.ie:
In 1971, the Paras shot dead 10 people in the Ballymurphy Massacre. Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers today ruled out their call for an independent enquiry. If only there was some way of getting the emotional press conference and this travesty of justice off the main news...


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/ballymurphy-families-consider-case-30227991.html

Not forgetting a mother of 8 children who was shot dead, where's the outcry for justice?


Taoiseach Enda Kenny expressed ‘disappointment’ at Northern Secretary Theresa Villiers decision to reject a call for the creation of an independent panel to investigate the Ballymurphy killings in west Belfast in 1971 which resulted in 11 deaths.

A mother of eight children was among those shot dead by British Army Paratroopers.

Expressing 'disappointment' is hardly what is required from the Irish Taoiseach. This is the fundamental reason why Sinn Fein garners so much support from northern Nationalists. When it comes to campaigning for victims of British State murder, southern parties have always remained silent. It is this very silence that will lead to their downfall since neither the southern nor northern justice systems can ever accommodate for nationalist victims of the troubles.

Teyla Emmagan

I'd say Mary Lou is both horrified and doing back flips.

I would be surprised if the PSNI have any hard evidence at this stage. Surely they would have acted sooner if they had.

The timing is hilarious IMO. And if it hurts Sinn Fein's inexorable rise then I for one won't cry tears for them. Might remind a few of their newer supporters where they came from. Tainted forever as far as I'm concerned.

Gatling

So he's still at the police station then ,
Wonder if we we see charged headlines before the end of the day ?

road_high

This is surely a hammer blow to the SF campaign. Just goes to show you can't erase the past. A timely reminder to the electorate what they could be voting in.

Troy Lumberjack

road_high wrote: »

This is surely a hammer blow to the SF campaign. Just goes to show you can't erase the past. A timely reminder to the electorate what they could be voting in.

Yes, I would imagine that is the reasoning alright. Just as well all the other parties are descended from people who are pure as the driven snow.

Is there a certain set amount of time that has to lapse between the violent founders and the current holders of the moral high ground, or is it purely arbitrary and a matter of optics? It's a good job no other party has its roots in terrorism or violence - that would be awfully hypocritical, wouldn't it.

Phoebas

Troy Lumberjack wrote: »

Yes, I would imagine that is the reasoning alright. Just as well all the other parties are descended from people who are pure as the driven snow.

Is there a certain set amount of time that has to lapse between the violent founders and the current holders of the moral high ground, or is it purely arbitrary and a matter of optics? It's a good job no other party has its roots in terrorism or violence - that would be awfully hypocritical, wouldn't it.

There is a massive difference between being in a party with its roots in terrorism and violence and being personally involved in terrorism and violence yourself.

I wonder why people build this straw man - it fools nobody.

road_high

Phoebas wrote: »

There is a massive difference between being in a party with its roots in terrorism and violence and being personally involved in terrorism and violence yourself.

I wonder why people build this straw man - it fools nobody.

Because it's what they want to believe. Reckon SF can now kiss goodbye to all those beloved seats they thought they were going to con people into voting for.

Fozzie Bear

Troy Lumberjack wrote: »

Yes, I would imagine that is the reasoning alright. Just as well all the other parties are descended from people who are pure as the driven snow.

Is there a certain set amount of time that has to lapse between the violent founders and the current holders of the moral high ground, or is it purely arbitrary and a matter of optics? It's a good job no other party has its roots in terrorism or violence - that would be awfully hypocritical, wouldn't it.

Its not so much the party as it is some of the current members/leaders for me and others. Too many of them have blood on their hands and shady back grounds. Gerry is just a two faced lying gangster. I would have more respect for the man if he stood up and admitted to what and who he was. Northern Ireland was a difficult place to grow up in I have no doubt and people like him may have had little choice in life other then to get involved in the troubles. But for him to deny his past and expect people to believe it is laughable.

Not as laughable as his blind zealot followers who lap it up while lashing out at the imagined evil forces of the Free state/media/security forces/British conspiracy to taint him and his "good" name by accusing him of IRA membership or being involved in killings. Hell even former IRA memebers have said he was involved but they of course were mental/sick/had agendas... Nobody is telling the truth except Gerry.

Then you have others like Martin Ferris, the former gun runner who openly supports the murderers of Garda Jerry McCabe. How do you expect people to vote for that?

FF/FG have their past histories too yes. But as far as I know Bertie, Enda, Cowan, Martin, Noonan etc have never been directly or indirectly involved in the murder of innocent civilians let alone countless soliders and police men. They may well be complete gobsh1tes but they are not even in the same league as Gerry & Co. Thats the point.

knucklehead6

road_high wrote: »

Because it's what they want to believe. Reckon SF can now kiss goodbye to all those beloved seats they thought they were going to con people into voting for.

I really don't think so. And don't get me wrong, I would be about as far from an SF supporter as there can be, but if Adams voluntarily presented himself to the authorities it could turn out to be a brilliant move, politically speaking.
It will galvanise the party's support base. People like rockbeast will actively vote for SF despite being apolitical in the past as a way of 'sticking it to the man'. Add to that the fact that the party faithful are going to be screaming "conspiracy" about this until voting day, thus swaying the minds of a few more anti establishment heads. It's something like this that causes disenfranchised voters to go out and vote, and not in the way that the mainstream party's want them to.

Phoebas

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I really don't think so. And don't get me wrong, I would be about as far from an SF supporter as there can be, but if Adams voluntarily presented himself to the authorities it could turn out to be a brilliant move, politically speaking.
It will galvanise the party's support base. People like rockbeast will actively vote for SF despite being apolitical in the past as a way of 'sticking it to the man'. Add to that the fact that the party faithful are going to be screaming "conspiracy" about this until voting day, thus swaying the minds of a few more anti establishment heads. It's something like this that causes disenfranchised voters to go out and vote, and not in the way that the mainstream party's want them to.

SF's objective is become a mainstream party and that's not going to happen by galvanising the base (SF's base have always been well galvanised) or appealing to more disenfranchised voters.
They need to get support from the centre - labour and FF supporters, and that's not going to happen when the party leadership is directly associated with terrorism.

They could start with Adams vacating the leadership.

delthedriver

Surely like anyone arrested or helping Police with enquiries Mr. Adams is innocent until proven guilty?




Perhaps this latest development is simply a SF publicity stunt ?

Gatling

delthedriver wrote: »

Surely like anyone arrested or helping Police with enquiries Mr. Adams is innocent until proven guilty?




Perhaps this latest development is simply a SF publicity stunt ?

In Adams case I'll personally believe he's Guilty till proven otherwise

twowheelsgood

Phoebas wrote: »

SF's objective is become a mainstream party and that's not going to happen by galvanising the base (SF's base have always been well galvanised) or appealing to more disenfranchised voters.
They need to get support from the centre - labour and FF supporters, and that's not going to happen when the party leadership is directly associated with terrorism.

They could start with Adams vacating the leadership.

I doubt if they are in any great rush to get in to power in the South, that would see a wheel or two come of their train given our current circumstances.

They won't want to push Adams but along with some of the other old soldiers, retirement isn't too far away for him - maybe even by the next GE?

I think they will be happy to wait.