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

ellavin

See all the scumbags protesting.. they really have showed there butchers apron colour's ... rot..

Happyman42

delthedriver wrote: »

I respect your view point, however they did not have a mandate from the Irish people. I am not aware of people who gave them a mandate to represent them


The ROI had its own Defence Forces. The IRA on the other hand was a terrorist organisation .


My recollection is that an overwhelming majority of people on the island of Ireland voted for the peace process

Could you list some examples of revolutionaries/insurgents who first seek a mandate from the people?

Phoebas

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you list some examples of revolutionaries/insurgents who first seek a mandate from the people?

True that. The point of a terrorist campaign is that you don't seek a mandate - you seek to force your will through terror, not democratic process.

Happyman42

Phoebas wrote: »

you seek to force your will through terror, not democratic process.

Just like the British Army on the the streets of NI you mean?

NipNip

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just like the British Army on the the streets of NI you mean?

That's different. 'Cos the Queen told them they were allowed.

JohnInDublin59

NipNip wrote: »

The following is just my opinion of the situation and is purely my own speculative take on things.

I think some people are unaware of the fact that there are a lot of people with motive to destroy GA.

If you can try to imagine someone who has grown up during the troubles, who has been recruited into the IRA from a very young age, who has been programmed to be a 'soldier', who has seen comrades tortured and murdered, who has had friends and family members killed or lost, who has believed 100% in their cause, who has fought relentlessly for what they believe to be a valid war and who has devoted their entire energy to a fight for freedom, then you might begin to understand the psyche of the likes of some of the individuals who spoke on the Boston tapes.

For someone like this, the notion that GA would do what they perceive to be an about-turn, to shake hands with the enemy and to agree politically to end the 'war', is quite simply a treacherous and traitorous act. It would just not be comprehensible to them.

Don't forget that these people are people who committed heinous acts in the belief that they were fighting a valid war. Therefore, to sully the name of a perceived traitor is child's play to them. Morally, it would be absolutely justifiable to them, to lie or to manipulate the truth in order to undermine the progression towards peace - something which they would perceive to be surrender or defeat.

Now. Quite apart from SF's past links with the IRA, I like their policies. I also believe that people in this party are not mé-féiners. They are not gutless self-serving money-grabbing clowns. They are (in my belief), individuals and a party with an unusual devotion and loyalty to the greater good of the Irish people. I don't think a solo run for money or fame would be tolerated within their party. I believe that whatever decisions or policies they would make, would genuinely be made with our collective best interests at heart.

They are not a collection of incompetent Neanderthal hooligans. That is why I support their party.

1. I don’t know whether Hughes and Price told the truth. How could I? I wasn’t there. Though these were people who knew Adams well at some stage.

2. Yes, IF they lied, maybe it was because they wanted to damage Adams or the peace process. So presumably they got together to make up this lie, or perhaps they just happened to think of it independently.

3. However it could just as well have been that they resented Adams trying to deny involvement in, and indeed criticise, acts they knew he was a part of.

4. Also I feel you fail to take your argument to its logical conclusion.

5. “Don't forget that these people are people who committed heinous acts in the belief that they were fighting a valid war. Therefore, to sully the name of a perceived traitor is child's play to them. Morally, it would be absolutely justifiable to them, to lie or to manipulate the truth....”

6. I don’t see how that doesn’t apply to the whole of SF. Adams in particular. It’s always seemed plain to me that, if you're prepared to arrogate to yourself the right to torture, murder and maim, you might just be prepared to spin a few porky pies. Which is why I never really believe anything SF says. And however smart and articulate they may be, I don’t see them as morally superior to other politicians. Nor indeed morally equal...

Phoebas

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just like the British Army on the the streets of NI you mean?

I didn't mention the BA at all so I don't know why you would think I meant anything in relation to them.
I think you're just playing whataboutery now.

RandomName2

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Few facts about the psni I read.

The PSNI continues to prevent effective investigations into the deaths of Irish citizens at the hands of British controlled death squads.
The PSNI continues to obstruct and unnecessarily delay inquests into many of those same deaths as a matter of routine.
The PSNI continues to withhold information, documentation and intelligence files from the families of those who died as a result of British state terrorism.
The PSNI has re-employed huge numbers of ex-RUC Special Branch personnel, many of whom are implicated in the murders of Irish citizens and other serious human rights abuses.
Large numbers of PSNI personnel routinely operate under MI5 control. A report by the Committee on the Administration of Justice in 2012 suggests the actual figure could be as high as 2,500 personnel – one third of the PSNI’s total manpower. This clearly indicates the formal establishment of an unaccountable ‘a force within a force’, rather than the existence of a small ‘cabal’ of rogue cops.
The PSNI regularly calls upon Britain’s shadowy military force, the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, to conduct undercover operations on its behalf.
The PSNI ignored rulings of the European Court of Human Rights by continuing to conduct thousands of unlawful ‘stop and searches’, almost exclusively against republicans. Evidence shows that MI5 directs the usage of stop and search powers by the PSNI.
The PSNI has engaged in evidence tampering in a number of cases against republicans.
The PSNI has fired large number of plastic bullets at unarmed civilians and stockpiled many thousands of those lethal projectiles.
The PSNI has approved use of child informers.
The British state has introduced 28 day detention for those under arrest.
The PSNI and the British courts routinely use ‘internment by remand’ to imprison political opponents for periods of up three years.
The PSNI and the British courts impose a draconian form of internal exile upon political opponents within the Six Counties. Such measures have not been used in the Six Counties since the abolition of the old Special Powers Act.
The PSNI and the British courts have flouted European court rulings by retaining DNA samples and fingerprints of thousands of innocent people, including children.

Hush. If SF can support the PSNI, why can't you?

Although if you... you know... shared the source of where you got those... facts... people would be less likely to think you are just making stuff up.

Karl Stein wrote: »

You poor lambs having to force yourselves to listen to things you would normally have just switched off.

If there was an award for stupidest post of the month I'd nominate the one above.

You do a lot of nominations of stupidest post it seems. Vote early, vote often!

pO1Neil wrote: »

The Provos knew what was best for the Irish people imo.

And this gets my vote

Happyman42

Phoebas wrote: »

I didn't mention the BA at all so I don't know why you would think I meant anything in relation to them.
I think you're just playing whataboutery now.

And I didn't mention 'terrorists', so if you would care to address yourself to my original question.

Phoebas

Happyman42 wrote: »

And I didn't mention 'terrorists', so if you would care to address yourself to my original question.

The question was in relation to the IRA who were terrorists.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you list some examples of revolutionaries/insurgents who first seek a mandate from the people?

Few if any. But many of them would argue (rightly or wrongly) that they did have the support of their people but for obvious reasons it could not be formally demonstrated.

It can be demonstrated that PIRA did not have the support of the Irish people.

Happyman42

Phoebas wrote: »

The question was in relation to the IRA who were terrorists.

As we have seen I can also 'label' whoever I want as 'terrorists'. It is a term of convenience which means nothing.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Few if any. But many of them would argue (rightly or wrongly) that they did have the support of their people but for obvious reasons it could not be formally demonstrated.

And there where many, usually those opposed to them who could equally claim they hadn't.

The original point was stupid, revolutionaries do not and cannot demonstrate a mandate, it is impossible.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

The original point was stupid, revolutionaries do not and cannot demonstrate a mandate, it is impossible.

They can if the field candidates in elections and get popular support. If the get
minuscule support it demonstrates that they do not have a mandate.

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

And there where many, usually those opposed to them who could equally claim they hadn't.

The original point was stupid, revolutionaries do not and cannot demonstrate a mandate, it is impossible.

The Maoists in Nepal would disagree......

bumper234

Happyman42 wrote: »

As we have seen I can also 'label' whoever I want as 'terrorists'. It is a term of convenience which means nothing.

Are you really trying to claim that the IRA were not terrorists?

Banjo String

bumper234 wrote: »

Are you really trying to claim that the IRA were not terrorists?

'Terrorists' in some peoples eyes. Just like the British army could be seen as 'terrorists' in others.

Terrorist or the Dreamer?
The Savage or the Brave?
It depend's on whose vote you're trying to catch,
Whose face you're trying to save.

mickydoomsux

bumper234 wrote: »

Are you really trying to claim that the IRA were not terrorists?

Some mentally ill people think that they were freedom fighters.

bumper234

Banjo String wrote: »

'Terrorists' in some peoples eyes. Just like the British army could be seen as 'terrorists' in others.

Terrorist or the Dreamer?
The Savage or the Brave?
It depend's on whose vote you're trying to catch,
Whose face you're trying to save.

Manchester,
Birmingham,
Warrington etc

The epitome of terrorist actions.










Awaits the deluge of whataboutery

Banjo String

bumper234 wrote: »

Manchester,
Birmingham,
Warrington etc

The epitome of terrorist actions.










Awaits the deluge of whataboutery

How can I compare the actions of either if you pre-accuse me of 'whataboutery'

(and the British army have commited some heinous crimes, not only in Ireland.)

bumper234

Banjo String wrote: »

How can I compare the actions of either if you pre-accuse me of 'whataboutery'

(and the British army have commited some heinous crimes, not only in Ireland.)

Where have i "accused" you of anything?

timtime

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Few if any. But many of them would argue (rightly or wrongly) that they did have the support of their people but for obvious reasons it could not be formally demonstrated.

It can be demonstrated that PIRA did not have the support of the Irish people.

neither did the men of 1916, but that doensnt matter as it happened before 1922 when it was ok to blow someones head off as it was the good IRA, not like the evil IRA who appeared after 1922, isnt that the propaganda we are supposed to believe in the free state?

Banjo String

bumper234 wrote: »

Where have i "accused" you of anything?

Awaits the deluge of whataboutery

How can I seriosly compare the two factions without you making a claim of 'whataboutery'

Thats not a debate, thats one person making a claim/argument and the other person not being able to defend it without being accused of 'whataboutery'.

You are old enough to use google, look up British army attrocities. You will find many examples, not only committed in this Island, but in many other parts of the world.

But as I have already been pre-judged as using these examples as 'whataboutery' what's the point in attempting to debate with you

JohnInDublin59

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you list some examples of revolutionaries/insurgents who first seek a mandate from the people?

Can a case not be made that the old IRA had some kind of mandate for the War of Independence? From the Wiki page, ‘Irish War of Independence’:

“In the December 1918 election, the republican party Sinn Féin won a landslide victory in Ireland. On 21 January 1919 they formed a breakaway government (Dáil Éireann) and declared independence from Great Britain. That same day, two members of the armed police force, the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC), were shot dead in County Tipperary. This is often seen as the beginning of the conflict.”

NB on a similar topic, I get v tired of the old ‘Adams = Mandela’ business. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what the ANC chose to do, it’s hard to see how anyone could have said to them, ‘you must pursue your aims through peaceful parliamentary means, and obtain a democratic mandate’, when that option was specifically excluded by law - blacks weren’t allowed to vote in South Africa. It wasn’t excluded to SF. The nationalist side of NI persistently supported the SDLP, who appear to have been whitewashed out of history by SF. And in the Republic voters repeatedly supported parties opposed to the Provo campaign. And at that time both the Provos and the Shinners displayed blatant contempt for democratic parties, and elections in general.

To my mind this displays a certain a la carte approach to democracy – rather like ‘we support the police – as long as they don’t arrest one of us...’

twowheelsgood

timtime wrote: »

neither did the men of 1916, but that doensnt matter as it happened before 1921 when it was ok to blow someones head off as it was the good IRA, not like the evil IRA who appeared after 1921, isnt that the propaganda we are supposed to believe in the free state?

That point has been put before and answered before, most recently, here.

In addition, on what basis would you criticise dissident republicans (if you do) if it is not on the basis that they have no mandate from the Irish people?

Happyman42

bumper234 wrote: »

Are you really trying to claim that the IRA were not terrorists?

Yes.

What is a 'terrorist' in your eyes?

bumper234

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes.

What is a 'terrorist' in your eyes?

ter·ror·ist

ˈterərist/

noun

a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

Terrorism

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism 

Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Date: 1795

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Happyman42

JohnInDublin59 wrote: »

rather like ‘we support the police – as long as they don’t arrest one of us...’

This is how I am gonna treat this bull when I see it.

Provide a source where anyone in SF said the above.

Happyman42

bumper234 wrote: »

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

For me that can be applied to the actions of the British Army and elements of the RUC and UDR in my locality.

pO1Neil

Jawgap wrote: »

A Marxist-Leninist Republic!!!! I'm sure that would have worked out well!

That was the Officals. The Provos believed self determination was the best thing for them. Even John "Mother Thersea" Hume believed that.