What evidence of Gerry Adams' IRA membership do people need?

Happyman42

I'll let you have that 'sleep' on it.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D:D
Come on Alastair, you're bigger than that.
Where they murders? If not...why weren't they?

I'm supposed to be swayed by that? I don't think so.
Jean McConville was taken from her family home by thugs, beaten, and then murdered and buried on a beach. And you can't find the decency to admit that it was a murder. There's your real bias.

relaxed

alastair wrote: »

It's a safe understanding that decades of insider info amounts to 'something' alright.

.

Interesting article in the Irish independent this morning, Adams basically says the only "evidence" the police had last week was some 1970's photos, anonymous newspaper articles and books about the IRA in the 1970's.

No sign of your decades of informer info. and stacks of evidence.

He also says he ever disassociated himself from the IRA and never will.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'm supposed to be swayed by that? I don't think so.
Jean McConville was taken from her family home by thugs, beaten, and then murdered and buried on a beach. And you can't find the decency to admit that it was a murder. There's your real bias.

Once again you use your faux outrage about the death of one woman, in a conflict that led to deaths of over 3000 people, to try and deflect from a point being made.

You accused me of dissembling about Jean McConville's death and yet you refuse to answer a question directly related to how I view that death.

Are the deaths at Loughgall murders? If not, why are they not?

Of course the world and it's mother knows why you won't answer that question. It's just more of your disgusting use of this poor woman's demise and her family in an attempt to get your great boogeyman, Gerry Adams.
I would think more of you if you just jumped up and down screaming 'I hate you, I hate you, I hate You!', like Violet Elizabeth in Just William.

Answer the question if you have any smidgen of substance.

relaxed

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Yes you did say what evidence they may have.

You age is relevant because I hate arguing with a child, which I think you are.

I do not know what evidence the police have. I never said on this thread I knew what evidence the police have. I never claimed on this thread to know what evidence the police have.

How many more times do I have to explain it to you?

Villain

From http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/jean-mcconville-killing-gerry-adams-innocent-accusers

It would appear that alastairs assertion that the PSNI have years of information from Informers is not the case and the only evidence they have is the same stuff that has been reported in this thread, which any open minded person would agree is very weak and circumstantial at best.

It was asserted that I was guilty of IRA membership through association because of my family background – my friends. They referred to countless pieces of "open source" material that, they said, linked me to the IRA. These were anonymous newspaper articles from 1971 and 1972, photographs of Martin McGuinness and me at republican funerals, and books about the period.

If any of these claimed I was in the IRA, then that was, according to my interrogators, evidence. They consistently cast up my habit of referring to friends as "comrades". This, they said, was evidence of IRA membership. They claimed I was turned by special branch during interrogations in Belfast's Palace Barracks in 1972 and that I became an MI5 agent! They also spoke about the peace talks in 1972, and my periods of internment and imprisonment in Long Kesh. This was presented as "bad-character evidence".

Much of the interrogations concerned Boston College's so-called Belfast Project conceived by Paul Bew – a university lecturer and a former adviser to the former unionist leader David Trimble – and run by Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre.

Both Moloney and McIntyre are opponents of the Sinn Féin leadership and our strategy, and have interviewed former republicans who are also hostile. These former republicans have accused us of betrayal and have said we should be shot because of our support for the Good Friday agreement and policing.

The allegation of conspiracy in the killing of Mrs McConville is based almost exclusively on hearsay from unnamed alleged Boston College interviewees but mainly from the late Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes. Other alleged interviewees were identified only by a letter of the alphabet, eg interviewee R or Y. It has been claimed by prosecutors in court that one of these is Ivor Bell, although the interrogators told me he has denied the allegations.

Happyman42

relaxed wrote: »

I do not know what evidence the police have. I never said on this thread I knew what evidence the police have. I never claimed on this thread to know what evidence the police have.

How many more times do I have to explain it to you?

Doesn't matter how many times you point it out...if you are guilty in their eyes, then that is that!

Godge

Villain wrote: »

From http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/jean-mcconville-killing-gerry-adams-innocent-accusers

It would appear that alastairs assertion that the PSNI have years of information from Informers is not the case and the only evidence they have is the same stuff that has been reported in this thread, which any open minded person would agree is very weak and circumstantial at best.

"I have never disassociated myself from the IRA and I never will, but I am not uncritical of IRA actions and particularly the terrible injustice inflicted on Mrs McConville and her family"

This will come back to haunt him. I can see a newspaper sending him a list of IRA atrocities and asking him which ones he wishes to criticise and which he wants to associate himself with.

Fuzzy Clam

relaxed wrote: »

But there may well be no further evidence available so all the police have is half a photograph and a few recollections from 40 years ago, in which case there is no meaningful evidence to bring him to trial and it would backfire badly.

......so all the police have.........etc.

Fuzzy Clam

relaxed wrote: »

But there may well be no further evidence available so all the police have is half a photograph and a few recollections from 40 years ago, in which case there is no meaningful evidence to bring him to trial and it would backfire badly.

......so all the police have.........etc.

relaxed

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

......so all the police have.........etc.

You really are struggling here. Suggest you read post #349 again, both paragraphs.

I'll try simplify it for you,

In the first paragraph I say the police might have evidence and the second paragraph I say they may not have evidence, this is because I don't know, or claim to know, what evidence the police have.

Now read the next bit slowly and try and take it in:

I do not know what evidence the police have. I never said on this thread I knew what evidence the police have. I never claimed on this thread to know what evidence the police have.


If you only read part of my post, and miss understood me thats fine, your mistake, get over it.

But stop quoting bits of lines from half the paragraphs in my post to try and convince yourself that I said something which I can confirm to you, in case you are still confused, for the umpteenth time, I did not say.

Fuzzy Clam

relaxed wrote: »

I don't think anybody here objects to bringing it to trial, the police have interviewed him, if they have more evidence and feel there is a case then they will presumably bring it to trial.

But there may well be no further evidence available so all the police have is half a photograph and a few recollections from 40 years ago, in which case there is no meaningful evidence to bring him to trial and it would backfire badly.

relaxed wrote: »

You really are struggling here. Suggest you read post #349 again, both paragraphs.

I'll try simplify it for you,

In the first paragraph I say the police might have evidence and the second paragraph I say they may not have evidence, this is because I don't know, or claim to know, what evidence the police have.

Now read the next bit slowly and try and take it in:

I do not know what evidence the police have. I never said on this thread I knew what evidence the police have. I never claimed on this thread to know what evidence the police have.


If you only read part of my post, and miss understood me thats fine, your mistake, get over it.

But stop quoting bits of lines from half the paragraphs in my post to try and convince yourself that I said something which I can confirm to you, in case you are still confused, for the umpteenth time, I did not say.

Spot the difference between what you actually said and what you claim you said

maccored

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Spot the difference between what you actually said and what you claim you said

great to see you pushing the debate forward with relevant discussion all right. 'Straws' and 'clutching' are two words that come to mind.

Fuzzy Clam

maccored wrote: »

great to see you pushing the debate forward with relevant discussion all right. 'Straws' and 'clutching' are two words that come to mind.

Its not a debate when one side denies what they have said.
Nice to see your intelligent input though.....

relaxed

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Oh Christ. It's Relaxed who claimed to know what evidence the police have. Keep up.

Remind me again where I claimed to know what evidence the police have exactly?

I said there may well be no further evidence, after saying in the previous paragraph the police might have more evidence to bring it trial.

Put simply, I said the police might or might not have more evidence.

Can you highlight where I state exactly:

"I know what evidence the police have"

You really are flapping the wings on this one!

relaxed

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Its not a debate when one side denies what they have said.
Nice to see your intelligent input though.....

Actually it became a non debate when you started convincing yourself you were arguing with a child instead of conceding you lost a point.

Fuzzy Clam

You made 2 statements to cover yourself which need to be looked at separately.
The 1st, "there may be new evidence" (or words to that effect), in which case you could be correct and I think we all agree, we don't know what it is.

The 2nd was this "But there may well be no further evidence available so all the police have is half a photograph and a few recollections from 40 years ago,"


That is also a statement!
If it transpires that there is no further evidence, then the 1st statement becomes void.

You can't have it both ways. You clearly said "may well be no further evidence available so all the police have is half a photograph and a few recollections from 40 years ago,"

I'll leave you now to debate away:)

Happyman42

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

all the police have is half a photograph and a few recollections from 40 years ago,"

We all agree that that is what they have, the 'debate' was about Alastair trying to claim without sources that the 'PSNI had more'

I think we may need diagrams with circles and arrows etc etc at this stage. :rolleyes:

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

We all agree that that is what they have, the 'debate' was about Alastair trying to claim without sources that the 'PSNI had more'

Are we back to pretending that decades worth of informer information has somehow been forgotten by the PSNI? Because otherwise there's clearly volumes of additional evidence available to them.

alastair

relaxed wrote: »

Interesting article in the Irish independent this morning, Adams basically says the only "evidence" the police had last week was some 1970's photos, anonymous newspaper articles and books about the IRA in the 1970's.

No sign of your decades of informer info. and stacks of evidence.

He also says he ever disassociated himself from the IRA and never will.

Interesting, only if you believe Adams is prepared to fully reveal what was said in interview, that the PSNI were prepared to show their entire hand to Adams in an interview, and that they would be prepared to let Adams know who their informers were by revealing information they supplied. At least some of those scenarios don't stand up to scrutiny.

Villain

alastair wrote: »

Are we back to pretending that decades worth of informer information has somehow been forgotten by the PSNI? Because otherwise there's clearly volumes of additional evidence available to them.

So you just completely disregard the only information we have about what happened over those 4 days and what evidence they furnished??

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Once again you use your faux outrage about the death of one woman, in a conflict that led to deaths of over 3000 people, to try and deflect from a point being made..

Nothing faux about my disgust regarding your inability to acknowledge her murder. It's entirely genuine.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You accused me of dissembling about Jean McConville's death and yet you refuse to answer a question directly related to how I view that death. .

It's in no way directly related, and I thought I made clear that your opinion is of no interest to me.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are the deaths at Loughgall murders? If not, why are they not?.

Again - Jean McConville was not in Loughgall. She was in her own home.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Of course the world and it's mother knows why you won't answer that question. It's just more of your disgusting use of this poor woman's demise and her family in an attempt to get your great boogeyman, Gerry Adams.
I would think more of you if you just jumped up and down screaming 'I hate you, I hate you, I hate You!', like Violet Elizabeth in Just William.

Answer the question if you have any smidgen of substance.

The family of McConville are quite clear where their disgust is directed, and it's not against those who would deny, or dissemble about their mother's murder.

alastair

Villain wrote: »

So you just completely disregard the only information we have about what happened over those 4 days and what evidence they furnished??

For the reasons I articulated above - sure. You think the PSNI (or any police investigation, for that matter) are in the business of exposing everything they know in an interview?

Villain

alastair wrote: »

For the reasons I articulated above - sure. You think the PSNI are in the business of exposing everything they know in an interview?

You obviously aren't familiar with how these interrogations work.

alastair

Villain wrote: »

You obviously aren't familiar with how these interrogations work.

Oh, do tell.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Nothing faux about my disgust regarding your inability to acknowledge her murder. It's entirely genuine.


It's in no way directly related, and I thought I made clear that your opinion is of no interest to me.

Why have you the arrogance to think that anybody's 'opinion' matters? Are you saying yours does over mine or anybody else's?

You are using this death in your pathetic faux hysterical crusade against a man. You couldn't care less about Jean McConville or her children.

Again - Jean McConville was not in Loughgall. She was in her own home.

How silly. If she was an informer then whether she was in her home or not is of no significance.
So you haven't the moral conviction of your argument to answer a simple question, quite plain what that evidence makes you.

Villain

alastair wrote: »

Oh, do tell.

You present evidence and question the suspect on that evidence to establish if the evidence is usable. No point just preventing all the evidence at a trial and have the suspect explain it all away.

Is seems obvious from the report Gerry wrote that the PSNI have no evidence to link him to the abduction murder and burial of Jean McConville so they are trying to prove he was a leader of the IRA at the time and thus by proxy must have been involved.

The only evidence they have that he was a member is based on a photo of him at a funeral and opinions of commentators and past members who are openly against him and the peace process.

You can talk around the issue and keep coming back to "everyone knows he was" but that thankfully for me, you and everyone else is not enough to convict someone in a normal court.

Now if he was to stand trial down here in the special criminal court that might be a different story, although the fact that former Minister for Justice McDowell had to use Dail privilege to accuse him of membership says a lot about what evidence actually exists he is lying.

relaxed

alastair wrote: »

that the PSNI were prepared to show their entire hand to Adams in an interview,

that's what happens actually, you present the information and invite answers from the respondent.

After this a file goes to the prosecutors office and a decision is made to proceed or not.

No point in holding back on bits because the prosecutor needs the full picture to decide how to proceed.

Your lack of understanding on this is showing you in a poor light, especially as you were able to tell us previously there is stacks of evidence.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why have you the arrogance to think that anybody's 'opinion' matters? Are you saying yours does over mine or anybody else's?

Ehh, I'm simply telling you that your opinion on this is of no interest to me whatsoever. Clear thinking people, the law, and anyone without a bias will recognise that this woman was murdered - your personal little agenda is your own business.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are using this death in your pathetic faux hysterical crusade against a man. You couldn't care less about Jean McConville or her children.

No hysteria here friend. Just genuine disgust at your dissembling.

Happyman42 wrote: »

How silly. If she was an informer then whether she was in her home or not is of no significance.
So you haven't the moral conviction of your argument to answer a simple question, quite plain what that evidence makes you.

My moral convictions really don't come into play when someone tries to distract from the question to hand.

relaxed

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

You made 2 statements to cover yourself which need to be looked at separately.
The 1st, "there may be new evidence" (or words to that effect), in which case you could be correct and I think we all agree, we don't know what it is.

The 2nd was this "But there may well be no further evidence available so all the police have is half a photograph and a few recollections from 40 years ago,"


That is also a statement!
If it transpires that there is no further evidence, then the 1st statement becomes void.

You can't have it both ways. You clearly said "may well be no further evidence available so all the police have is half a photograph and a few recollections from 40 years ago,"

I'll leave you now to debate away:)

So you can't point me to where I said "I know what evidence the police have"

It's a pity you didn't try and decipher my post before shooting your mouth off and convincing yourself you were argueing with a child.

maccored

Someone has to provide it. It certainly doesnt seem to be coming from yourself or alastair.

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Nice to see your intelligent input though.....

maccored

It obviously has 'somehow been forgotten by the PSNI'. They wouldn't have released Adams at all otherwise.

alastair wrote: »

Are we back to pretending that decades worth of informer information has somehow been forgotten by the PSNI? Because otherwise there's clearly volumes of additional evidence available to them.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Ehh, I'm simply telling you that your opinion on this is of no interest to me whatsoever. Clear thinking people, the law, and anyone without a bias will recognise that this woman was murdered - your personal little agenda is your own business.


No hysteria here friend. Just genuine disgust at your dissembling.


My moral convictions really don't come into play when someone tries to distract from the question to hand.

If a soldier shoots a combatant...is that murder? Yes or no? And if no, why is it not.
Stop deflecting and answer the question please. You accused me of something and I have a right to defend myself.

Or do you always reserve the right to accuse anybody you want of something without allowing them the right to reply?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

If a soldier shoots a combatant...is that murder? Yes or no? And if no, why is it not.
Stop deflecting and answer the question please. You accused me of something and I have a right to defend myself.

Or do you always reserve the right to accuse anybody you want of something without allowing them the right to reply?

I've heard your reply, and commented accordingly. You're not honest enough to admit the woman was murdered. I think we're clear there.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

If a soldier shoots a combatant...is that murder? Yes or no? And if no, why is it not.
Stop deflecting and answer the question please. You accused me of something and I have a right to defend myself.

Or do you always reserve the right to accuse anybody you want of something without allowing them the right to reply?

We have been through this many times.

A: If there was no war, then it was a murder
B: If there was a war, and Jean McConville was an innocent, it was a war crime to torture and kill her.
C: If there was a war, and Jean McConville was a civilian informer, she was entitled to prisoner of war treatment, which meant she shouldn't be tortured and killed and it was therefore a war crime.

You can legitimately kill in a combat situation, but to make that argument, you would need to prove (1) Jean McConville was an enlisted member of the security forces and (2) was armed at the time she was shot.

So let us keep it simple, which is it? War crime or murder? There is no other option.

maccored

Godge wrote: »

War crime or murder? There is no other option.

Its not as simple as that in reality. If she was an informer then it muddies the water. The IRA claim she was an informer. I would go for war crime, but then the BG would have to admit there was a war on first.

Godge

maccored wrote: »

Its not as simple as that in reality. If she was an informer then it muddies the water. The IRA claim she was an informer. I would go for war crime, but then the BG would have to admit there was a war on first.

The point I am making is that no matter how you view the killing or the conflict, it is either a war crime or a murder. It is not a legitimate combat killing.

Happyman has been trying to avoid labelling it a murder, backing himself into the corner labelled war crime.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I've heard your reply, and commented accordingly. You're not honest enough to admit the woman was murdered. I think we're clear there.

If Jean mcConville was murdered then everyone killed in the conflict was murdered...or are we gonna cherrypick which ones are murders and which one are killings on the basis of your bias?
You are a moral coward when it comes to it, that is clear enough.

nagirrac

I think most reasonable people would agree that the killing of Jean McConville was a war crime, in a war that was characterized by war crimes, as all ethnic or sectarian wars are. The very first killings in the NI conflict when civilians were shot by security forces were war crimes, even before the war had began, in fact more than anything else they caused the war as the IRA reformed initially to protect their communities from violent attacks, including attacks from the so called security forces. The killing of children using plastic bullets were war crimes, Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy were war crimes, paramilitary actions on both sides targeting civilians were war crimes, and on and on.

Where people have an issue is the double standard by certain commentators regarding the bias of the PSNI. I would repeat the simple question which alastair and Gogde have repeatedly dodged. If the PSNI are genuinely interested in pursuing those responsible for war crimes, why have they not sought the extradition of the OC in charge on Bloody Sunday?, why have they not demanded the names and arrest of the paratroopers involved?.. you know the ones that testified under oath at the Saville inquiry that they shot people. Why have they not done the same for the Ballymurphy massacre, the various incidents where children were shot at point blank range with plastic bullets?

As long as the PSNI fail to pursue those who carried out some of the worst atrocities against civilians, they simply cannot be seen as impartial. That's the fundamental issue here, either the PSNI investigate all war crimes, or an independent body investigates all war crimes, or the British, Irish and Stormont governments need to issue a statement that it is time to move on and stop playing politics with people who have already suffered enough.

Lastlight.

Happyman42 wrote: »

If Jean mcConville was murdered then everyone killed in the conflict was murdered...or are we gonna cherrypick which ones are murders and which one are killings on the basis of your bias?
You are a moral coward when it comes to it, that is clear enough.

You might as well just say the holocaust didn't happen if you think Jean McConville wasn't murdered. I have never read such utter crap in all my life.

Godge

nagirrac wrote: »

.

Where people have an issue is the double standard by certain commentators regarding the bias of the PSNI. I would repeat the simple question which alastair and Gogde have repeatedly dodged. If the PSNI are genuinely interested in pursuing those responsible for war crimes, why have they not sought the extradition of the OC in charge on Bloody Sunday?, why have they not demanded the names and arrest of the paratroopers involved?.. you know the ones that testified under oath at the Saville inquiry that they shot people. Why have they not done the same for the Ballymurphy massacre, the various incidents where children were shot at point blank range with plastic bullets?

.

I have not dodged the question. In my opinion (and that is all I have control over), there should be charges brought for all the murders and war crimes in Northern Ireland subject to sufficient evidence being available.

That is a job for the PSNI to get on with.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

If Jean mcConville was murdered then everyone killed in the conflict was murdered...or are we gonna cherrypick which ones are murders and which one are killings on the basis of your bias?
You are a moral coward when it comes to it, that is clear enough.

For the purposes of this post, let us accept the IRA view that there was a war (not that I do but to answer your point). Let us give a few simple examples.

(1) Incidences of British soldiers being killed by IRA volunteers are casualties of war.

(2) IRA volunteers shot dead in cold blood by security personnel are casualties of war.

(3) The killing of Jean McConville was a war crime.

So it is not true to say that all killings were murder.

Now, let us drop the assumption that there was a war.

(1) The deliberate killing of British soldiers was murder

(2) The killing of Jean McConville was murder.

(3) The killing of IRA volunteers be security forces may be murder, depending on the circumstances.

Do you understand this yet?

nagirrac

Godge wrote: »

That is a job for the PSNI to get on with.

.. a job they are clearly not getting on with, as there is no war crime more worthy of prosecution than Bloody Sunday, in terms of the effect it had and the evidence against those responsible. That single event drove young people into the IRA, and convinced them that violence was the only path forward. The fact that those responsible have not even been charged, let alone convicted, is an absolute travesty.

Would you agree with that?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I have not dodged the question. In my opinion (and that is all I have control over), there should be charges brought for all the murders and war crimes in Northern Ireland subject to sufficient evidence being available.

That is a job for the PSNI to get on with.

Does that include for eg: the combatatants shot dead at Loughgal?
Would you charge the soldiers with murder or a war crime? Or was it a killing of people who threatened lives?

*sounds of doors closing and running feet.

relaxed

Godge wrote: »

For the purposes of this post, let us accept the IRA view that there was a war (not that I do but to answer your point). Let us give a few simple examples.

(1) Incidences of British soldiers being killed by IRA volunteers are casualties of war.

(2) IRA volunteers shot dead in cold blood by security personnel are casualties of war.

(3) The killing of Jean McConville was a war crime.

So it is not true to say that all killings were murder.

Now, let us drop the assumption that there was a war.

(1) The deliberate killing of British soldiers was murder

(2) The killing of Jean McConville was murder.

(3) The killing of IRA volunteers be security forces may be murder, depending on the circumstances.

Do you understand this yet?

In fairness I see where you are coming from but the IRA had a few problems. Firstly they had no pow camp available for these people, secondly, they had to rule with an iron fist and send out a clear signal that any informer will be shot dead, to prevent this happening again.

It was a guerilla war and as with all conflicts the rules are never black and white.

I don't know too many of the facts but was this lady warned by the ira previous to being killed?

It could also be argued that she committed a type of act of treason against the catholic community in which she lived.

nagirrac

Godge wrote: »

Now, let us drop the assumption that there was a war.

What constitutes a war in your opinion, and more importantly a legitimate war? Self defense is imo the only justification for war, and therefore there was plenty justification for war in NI. The peaceful route had been tried, and the violent response of the state to peaceful protest well documented. Should the nationalist community have waited until everyone was burned out of their homes?, everyone who protested beaten or shot?

..or perhaps they should have waited for the spineless cowards in the so called republic to come and offer them protection. It would have been a long wait, much longer than the long war.

alastair

nagirrac wrote: »

If the PSNI are genuinely interested in pursuing those responsible for war crimes, why have they not sought the extradition of the OC in charge on Bloody Sunday?, why have they not demanded the names and arrest of the paratroopers involved?.. you know the ones that testified under oath at the Saville inquiry that they shot people.

Any testimony presented to the Saville inquiry is exempted from any criminal prosecution. So the PSNI cannot demand any names from the inquiry. Having said that, the PSNI have said that they're preparing charges against some of the soldiers, so they will come in time - just as was/is the case with the McConville investigation.

alastair

nagirrac wrote: »

What constitutes a war in your opinion, and more importantly a legitimate war? Self defense is imo the only justification for war, and therefore there was plenty justification for war in NI. The peaceful route had been tried, and the violent response of the state to peaceful protest well documented. Should the nationalist community have waited until everyone was burned out of their homes?, everyone who protested beaten or shot?

The Nationalist community in NI didn't support the IRA's campaign of violence though. So what you end up with is the grubby reality a criminal gang of vigilantes murdering people without a mandate.

nagirrac

alastair wrote: »

The Nationalist community in NI didn't support the IRA's campaign of violence though.

How do you know that? Is it in much the same way you know the evidence the PSNI have against Gerry Adams? Have you interviewed all the nationalists in NI to ascertain what they did or didn't support.

If you are looking for evidence of what level of support the IRA had, I would say your best bet is look at the voting records of nationalists once SF started contesting elections. A vote for SF was by definition a tacit approval of the armed struggle.

alastair wrote: »

So what you end up with is the grubby reality a criminal gang of vigilantes murdering people without a mandate.

The only relevant reality is that the nationalist community had to resort to violence to both defend themselves from state violence and achieve basic human rights, while the grubby reality is that most, save a few brave ones, in the ROI sat on their couches watching the violence unfold on TV wringing their hands. If there were a pair of balls between them they would not have stood for what occurred 50 miles north of them.

alastair

nagirrac wrote: »

How do you know that? Is it in much the same way you know the evidence the PSNI have against Gerry Adams? Have you interviewed all the nationalists in NI to ascertain what they did or didn't support.

It's called the polling booth.

nagirrac wrote: »

If you are looking for evidence of what level of support the IRA had, I would say your best bet is look at the voting records of nationalists once SF started contesting elections. A vote for SF was by definition a tacit approval of the armed struggle. .

Indeed - and they were dwarfed by the Nationalist vote for the SDLP - year after year..