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

beeno67

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Your whole post boils down to "I don't believe him because he is unbelievable and sure who would believe him".
It is entirely evidence free. No facts are provided to support anything.

Ok. Why don't you give me your evidence that Adams wasn't involved and while you are at it give me the evidence that he wasn't in the IRA.
Remember facts only.

Dan_Solo

beeno67 wrote: »

Ok. Why don't you give me your evidence that Adams wasn't involved...

And we have a full house in the logical fallacy bingo!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Godge

oscarBravo wrote: »

And she's, what? too stupid to realise it?

What would be her motivation for allowing herself to be used in this way?

They actually don't realise the extent of their misogyny. They really believe that the woman is too stupid to know she is being manipulated. The attitude to women that comes across from SF and their apologists on here (am using the word apologists as none of them claim to be members or supporters) is incredible, like something out of the 1930s.

http://www.nwci.ie/?/learn/article/national_womens_council_of_ireland_statement_on_mairia_cahill_and_survivors

The following article was published a year ago:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/eilis-ohanlon-men-and-women-raped-by-ira-volunteers-are-not-going-away-gerry-29655467.html

It is prophetic and unfortunately is coming true, bit by bit.

Fr. Ned

Godge wrote: »

Getting this back on topic, the attached link is interesting:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mairia-cahill-my-grandfather-recruited-gerry-adams-into-the-ira-30677311.html


Mairia Cahill had this to say this morning:

"I know Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA. My grandfather recruited him into what was termed the Community Organisation. That is a matter of record."

"I have family members who were also in the IRA who would have confirmed this."


Having listened to the interview, Ms. Cahill comes across as a sincere clear-headed reliable person, and clearly not a politician. She sounded credible on everything she had to say and it rings true.

'Gerry Adams was in the IRA'
Well who'd have thought it......I, for one, am absolutely shocked:eek::eek::eek::rolleyes:

Fr. Ned

Godge wrote: »

They actually don't realise the extent of their misogyni. They really believe that the woman is too stupid to know she is being manipulated. The attitude to women that comes across from SF and their apologists on here (am using the word apologists as none of them claim to be members or supporters) is incredible, like something out of the 1930s.

Is this a new word you've found recently?
You seem to try and get it into almost every post.....maybe it's a vain attempt to look intelligent...

beeno67

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And we have a full house in the logical fallacy bingo!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Not quite sure you understand the term fallacy.
Anyway, in this case there are 2 people's versions of events. You are asking me to prove Maria Cahill's which clearly I can't and nobody can.
Gerry Adams maintains he told her, via a family member to inform the RUC. You think being asked to prove that ridiculous.

Why do Maria Cahill's statements require evidence but not Gerry Adams?

What she is saying makes sense. The IRA did run kangaroo courts. They did "investigate" child abuse. They did not report it to authorities. They sometimes according to Adams expelled the abusers from Northern Ireland to abuse elsewhere. This is similar to the church moving priests to different parishes to abuse again.

Gerry Adams admission of all this means IRA members at least (possible Current and/or past Sinn Fein members also) were involved in the coverup of abuse. Mary Lou said before that priests who covered up abuse should be imprisoned. Will she and Adams now ensure that the IRA members who covered up abuse are also brought to justice?

eire4

Berserker wrote: »

Ah, do I sense the good old persecution complex? You shinners are trying anything and everything to try and get rid of this. Surely, it would have been better to release something like this prior to your failed campaign in South Dublin last week? It would have be ideal for you, as you could have blamed that loss on it.

A very spite filled response there I must say. I am simply stating what my opinion is and while it is none of your business really I can say I have actually never voted for Sinn Fein so your response is very wide of the mark given the incorrect assumptions you made. I have however been impressed with how they have performed in recent years and I am happy to see their growth in recent years as I think it is good for Irish politics.

alias no.9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Your whole post boils down to "I don't believe him because he is unbelievable and sure who would believe him".
It is entirely evidence free. No facts are provided to support anything.

Is the testimony of Ms Cahill not evidence? The changing position of various SF spokespeople, evolving from total denial to conceding little by little that parts of Ms Cahill's testimony that they or their colleagues had previously denied are in fact true, adds to the weight of this evidence.
I heard her speak on TodayFM earlier and she came across as a credible and articulate witness. The circling of the wagons by the party faithful reminds me of the defence of Haughy and Ahern by FF supporters.
The cult like, blind faith in the leader is a recurring theme in irish society that's almost always used to mask wrongdoing.

Fr. Ned

alias no.9 wrote: »

Is the testimony of Ms Cahill not evidence? The changing position of various SF spokespeople, evolving from total denial to conceding little by little that parts of Ms Cahill's testimony that they or their colleagues had previously denied are in fact true, adds to the weight of this evidence.
I heard her speak on TodayFM earlier and she came across as a credible and articulate witness. The circling of the wagons by the party faithful reminds me of the defence of Haughy and Ahern by FF supporters.
The cult like, blind faith in the leader is a recurring theme in irish society that almost always used to mask wrongdoing.

The woman apparently has a load of information on people who have access to children 'right now' according to herself, yet she's not going to the PSNI or the Gardai with this information.
She's going to every media outlet who'll listen.
Why's that?
This has nothing to do with 'circling the wagons' or 'blind faith' in anyone, I'm asking a very simple question, If she has information regarding possible sexual abuse of children that, in her own words, may be happening right now, why hasn't she reported it to the authorities?

beeno67

Fr. Ned wrote: »

The woman apparently has a load of information on people who have access to children 'right now' according to herself, yet she's not going to the PSNI or the Gardai with this information.
She's going to every media outlet who'll listen.
Why's that?
?

Gerry Adams also has this information. He knows of abusers in the North who were expelled from the North. Has he passed this information to the Gardai/PSNI?

Also where is your evidence of a conspiracy?

alias no.9

Fr. Ned wrote: »

The woman apparently has a load of information on people who have access to children 'right now' according to herself, yet she's not going to the PSNI or the Gardai with this information.
She's going to every media outlet who'll listen.
Why's that?
This has nothing to do with 'circling the wagons' or 'blind faith' in anyone, I'm asking a very simple question, If she has information regarding possible sexual abuse of children that, in her own words, may be happening right now, why hasn't she reported it to the authorities?

How do you know she hasn't or won't in the near future. I'd imagine the first thing any victim will need is support which she said she'd do her best to get them.

Sand

Can I ask a question - why is Gerry Adams explaining the IRAs "investigations" and "punishments" process and detailing the problems and issues and failings in carrying out those acts? What the hell would he know about the inner workings of the IRA?

Surely someone with some knowledge of the topic, some IRA commander for example, should be explaining the IRA activities and policies in this regard.

Fr. Ned

alias no.9 wrote: »

How do you know she hasn't or won't in the near future. I'd imagine the first thing any victim will need is support which she said she'd do her best to get them.

Support? Not justice?

alias no.9

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Support? Not justice?

Justice can be pursued when any immediate distress has been dealt with. Reporting sexual assault and recounting the ordeal will be traumatic, support is absolutely the first step.

There's plenty of evidence from other cases of institutional cover up of sexual assault that the victims will have felt alone and isolated, no doubt the character assassination that Ms Cahill has been subjected to will make the isolation feel worse.

Dan_Solo

beeno67 wrote: »

Why do Maria Cahill's statements require evidence but not Gerry Adams?

Do they? Did I say otherwise? Go on, quote me on that and make a star of yourself.

beeno67 wrote: »

What she is saying makes sense.

Hahaha, sure it's only common sense and everybody will agree that it's obvious that that's yet another logical fallacy.
Congrats! FULL HOUSE!

Dan_Solo

Sand wrote: »

Can I ask a question - why is Gerry Adams explaining the IRAs "investigations" and "punishments" process and detailing the problems and issues and failings in carrying out those acts? What the hell would he know about the inner workings of the IRA?

Surely someone with some knowledge of the topic, some IRA commander for example, should be explaining the IRA activities and policies in this regard.

You mean, for example, a woman running a trial by media campaign who claims to know there are recordings of all SF/IRA meetings? That sort of IRA commander?

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You mean, for example, a woman running a trial by media campaign who claims to know there are recordings of all SF/IRA meetings? That sort of IRA commander?

Wow.

I've seen an unreal amount of sh*t thrown at Mairia Cahill over the past few days by desperate Republicans, but you're accusing her of being an IRA commander now?

Jesus.

DarkyHughes

I think all the confusion stems from the fact that he was a member of the Irish Republican boy scout organization Na Fianna Eireann. But NFE is not the IRA. NFE did engage in some illegal activity like starting riots & throwing rocks & petrol bombs at the British Army of occupation & the RUC. But it did not engage in any guerrilla military action like ambushes, sniping, gun battles, planting bombs, airstrikes & assassinations like the IRA or INLA did.
And more confusion stems from the fact that Na Fianna Eireann were subordinate to the IRA just like Cumman na Bman - the women's Auxie division

He joined both SF & NFE in 1964. After the riots over Paisley demanding the flag of all Ireland be removed for from a SF office.

beeno67

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Do they? Did I say otherwise? Go on, quote me on that and make a star of yourself.

Hahaha, sure it's only common sense and everybody will agree that it's obvious that that's yet another logical fallacy.
Congrats! FULL HOUSE!

Your angry little boy stuff is getting irritating.
You have actually said nothing just occasional blasts of hot air and a misunderstanding of fallacy

maccored

Theres no better sign of someone who's lost the argument than that statement.

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Says the man who believes in the paranormal..........:rolleyes:

maccored

Many people I grew up with - and me myself - were very aware of these things and none of us where in the IRA. You didnt need to be in the IRA to know that.

Sand wrote: »

Can I ask a question - why is Gerry Adams explaining the IRAs "investigations" and "punishments" process and detailing the problems and issues and failings in carrying out those acts? What the hell would he know about the inner workings of the IRA?

Surely someone with some knowledge of the topic, some IRA commander for example, should be explaining the IRA activities and policies in this regard.

Happyman42

Sand wrote: »

Can I ask a question - why is Gerry Adams explaining the IRAs "investigations" and "punishments" process and detailing the problems and issues and failings in carrying out those acts? What the hell would he know about the inner workings of the IRA?

Surely someone with some knowledge of the topic, some IRA commander for example, should be explaining the IRA activities and policies in this regard.

I asked myself the same question, shouldn't her most vehement attack be against the member of the IRA who allegedly raped her and those who interrogated her? But no, it's aimed at Gerry Adams. Curious.

Sand

maccored wrote: »

Many people I grew up with - and me myself - were very aware of these things and none of us where in the IRA. You didnt need to be in the IRA to know that.

You'd regard yourself as able to speak with authority on the IRA's activities as regards "community policing" across all areas or just your own? Were investigations of sexual abuse and rapes carried out by IRA members common knowledge on your street?

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow.

I've seen an unreal amount of sh*t thrown at Mairia Cahill over the past few days by desperate Republicans, but you're accusing her of being an IRA commander now?

Jesus.

Well you should point your woefully aimed moan gun at Sand then, as he's the guy who said anyone expressing any knowledge of the inner workings of the IRA must be an IRA commander.
But hey, nobody will think you're totally biased for not giving out about the exact same thing when it's about Gerry Adams, will they?

maccored

no - but its common knowledge how the IRA worked, how they policed etc etc. you didnt need to be in the IRA to understand those things. you just needed to have been brought up in the middle of it. something I think that people here in the south will never understand.

Sand wrote: »

You'd regard yourself as able to speak with authority on the IRA's activities as regards "community policing" across all areas or just your own? Were investigations of sexual abuse and rapes carried out by IRA members common knowledge on your street?

Dan_Solo

beeno67 wrote: »

Your angry little boy stuff is getting irritating.
You have actually said nothing just occasional blasts of hot air and a misunderstanding of fallacy

And desperately resorting to lame ad hominems will really convince the audience of the validity of you own arguments, won't they.
Prove it isn't common sense... LOL.

maccored

sure apparently Im thick because Ive an interest in ghosties according to some on this thread. Its amazing how much barrel scraping is going on.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And desperately resorting to lame ad hominems will really convince the audience of the validity of you own arguments, won't they.
Prove it isn't common sense... LOL.

Dan_Solo

Happyman42 wrote: »

I asked myself the same question, shouldn't her most vehement attack be against the member of the IRA who allegedly raped her and those who interrogated her? But no, it's aimed at Gerry Adams. Curious.

Yeah, none of the anti-SF crew want to answer this do they. Why not orchestrate a trial by media campaign against the alleged rapist if it's justice she's after? She actually thinks Adams is worse than the man who raped her and should be the prime target?

Dan_Solo

maccored wrote: »

sure apparently Im thick because Ive an interest in ghosties according to some on this thread. Its amazing how much barrel scraping is going on.

Bog standard "I will call you an X therefore it doesn't matter that I have entirely flopped in conducting a logical argument" tactics.
We're all new to the internet though so it works on us every time! ;-)

Sand

maccored wrote: »

no - but its common knowledge how the IRA worked, how they policed etc etc. you didnt need to be in the IRA to understand those things. you just needed to have been brought up in the middle of it. something I think that people here in the south will never understand.

And its not something I ever want to understand to be fair.

But how can you know anything about investigations in sexual abuse and rapes carried out by IRA members when they weren't public knowledge? How can Gerry know anything about the inner workings of a very secretive organisation which simply would not discuss their activities with a non-member? It just seems very odd that a secret organisation paranoid about informers would happily publicise knowledge about very publicly damaging cases it was investigating and how it was investigating them.

maccored

you made the point that if gerry adams knew what the IRA did (as per his blog, self policing etc etc) then he must have been in the IRA. Im simply telling you that these things were common knowledge even to people outside the republican movement. I have never stated I knew anything about sexual abuse cases.

Dan_Solo

Sand wrote: »

And its not something I ever want to understand to be fair.

But how can you know anything about investigations in sexual abuse and rapes carried out by IRA members when they weren't public knowledge? How can Gerry know anything about the inner workings of a very secretive organisation which simply would not discuss their activities with a non-member? It just seems very odd that a secret organisation paranoid about informers would happily publicise knowledge about very publicly damaging cases it was investigating and how it was investigating them.

Same question again. Would somebody who knows for a fact that there are recordings of IRA meetings not also have knowledge of "inner workings of a very secretive organisation which simply would not discuss their activities with a non-member"? Does that make you automatically a member of the IRA then?

Happyman42

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Same question again. Would somebody who knows for a fact that there are recordings of IRA meetings not also have knowledge of "inner workings of a very secretive organisation which simply would not discuss their activities with a non-member"? Does that make you automatically a member of the IRA then?

She also claims to know that GA was a member and who recruited him.


On community policing. Anyone who lived in nationalist areas knew about community policing.

oscarBravo

maccored wrote: »

Im simply telling you that these things were common knowledge even to people outside the republican movement. I have never stated I knew anything about sexual abuse cases.

So you're telling us that these things were common knowledge, and that you didn't know anything about them.

Right so.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you're telling us that these things were common knowledge, and that you didn't know anything about them.

Right so.

No, he's not.
You're really clawing for purchase in this argument flailing about with this sort of misquoting rubbish.

maccored

To me its quite clear what is happening, and its an attempt (again) at a political assasination. I fully believe that unfortunate woman suffered terrible abuse - I dont doubt her on that for a second. Everything else though, rings alarm bells. first is why now? How is a trial by media going to help her. Second is why focus on adams? if it was the IRA covering up, thats one thing, but it seems the debate is solely about if she discussed the abuse at one particular meeting with adams. isnt there much, much more important aspects to look at? Third is where is the critical evidence that Maria Cahil has stated she has. Add to that, what happened the other two court cases? Trial by media again seems to be preferred over the legal system. Fourthly, just look at the political climate, the fear of Sinn Fein kicking ass in the elections and the latest calls for Adams to stand down. It now makes sense of whyt his is happening now. Maria is once again being abused, this time by people scoring cheap political points, with the likes of Enda and Michael taking pot shots in the Dail.

I think the even bigger travesty to that of this poor woman being abused in the first place, is other people taking advantage of her anger - and trying to save their own political asses - to take down their opposition. Absolutely disgraceful carryon.

maccored

Seriously? Do I have to retype what I posted? The idea of the IRA self policing was common knowledge, indeed. Gerry Adams didnt need to be in the IRA to know those kinds of things.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you're telling us that these things were common knowledge, and that you didn't know anything about them.

Right so.

Sand

Happyman42 wrote: »

On community policing. Anyone who lived in nationalist areas knew about community policing.

I lived in the Republic of Ireland and I "knew about community policing". I wouldn't claim to know about the inner workings of the IRA units that carried it out or how they handled particular crimes or victims. But Gerry Adams claims to have enough knowledge of it, across all nationalist areas throughout Northern Ireland, to actually weigh up the efforts of those IRA men and judge them negatively.

That's very arrogant for a non-member of the IRA isn't it?

If there is a need to defend the IRA "community policing" surely an IRA member or commander should be doing this. Not some guy whose only qualification appears to be that he grew up in a nationalist area.

Happyman42

maccored wrote: »

Seriously? Do I have to retype what I posted? The idea of the IRA self policing was common knowledge, indeed. Gerry Adams didnt need to be in the IRA to know those kinds of things.

You only have to go to the Jean McConville thread and 'community policing' and what it meant is taken as a given. Even with people reacting on this thread as if it was a revelation.

Sand

maccored wrote: »

To me its quite clear what is happening, and its an attempt (again) at a political assasination.

Yep, its pretty much a repeat of the McCartney case - smear the victim as a fool or a vindictive person whose against the peace process. But be sure to cover it with a "Oh, isn't it terrible..."

maccored

I have no idea what you are on about.

Sand wrote: »

Yep, its pretty much a repeat of the McCartney case - smear the victim as a fool or a vindictive person whose against the peace process. But be sure to cover it with a "Oh, isn't it terrible..."

Dan_Solo

Sand wrote: »

I lived in the Republic of Ireland and I "knew about community policing". I wouldn't claim to know about the inner workings of the IRA units that carried it out or how they handled particular crimes or victims. But Gerry Adams claims to have enough knowledge of it, across all nationalist areas throughout Northern Ireland, to actually weigh up the efforts of those IRA men and judge them negatively.

That's very arrogant for a non-member of the IRA isn't it?

If there is a need to defend the IRA "community policing" surely an IRA member or commander should be doing this. Not some guy whose only qualification appears to be that he grew up in a nationalist area.

Haha, third rate stuff.
Anyone who has an opinion on community policing is arrogant and most likely a high ranking IRA member? Don't suppose you have any opinion on it at all yourself then...

Dan_Solo

Sand wrote: »

Yep, its pretty much a repeat of the McCartney case - smear the victim as a fool or a vindictive person whose against the peace process. But be sure to cover it with a "Oh, isn't it terrible..."

But whatever you do, don't answer the question.
Why is she after Adams and not the rapist?

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why is she after Adams and not the rapist?

Who says she's not "after" the rapist?

If you were raped and someone helped cover it up, would you have no interest in bringing both facts to light?

maccored

the general public need to know some of the procedure - otherwise the ira would never hear of the issue - which makes the whole idea that only IRA men would know IRA things laughable.

maccored

the poor woman is angry at the republican movement, and who can blame her? Personally I think she's being manipulated by other people with other agendas.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who says she's not "after" the rapist?

If you were raped and someone helped cover it up, would you have no interest in bringing both facts to light?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who says she's not "after" the rapist?

If you were raped and someone helped cover it up, would you have no interest in bringing both facts to light?

How exactly did they 'cover it up'? A trial took place after these alleged incidents. Not a great 'cover up'. The trial that she ended prematurely btw.

oscarBravo

maccored wrote: »

Personally I think she's being manipulated by other people with other agendas.

Why?

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who says she's not "after" the rapist?

If you were raped and someone helped cover it up, would you have no interest in bringing both facts to light?

I'd imagine my primary concern would be getting the rapist convicted of his crime instead of conducting a trial by media of somebody else and ignoring the rapist himself completely.

Sand

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Haha, third rate stuff.
Anyone who has an opinion on community policing is arrogant and most likely a high ranking IRA member? Don't suppose you have any opinion on it at all yourself then...

My opinion on community policing was that it was essentially thuggery and intimidation - no different than a mafia "policing" areas and neighbourhoods it controls.

However, Adams opinion is not that community policing was in itself wrong. He believes it was a valid response to the situation as he saw it. His judgement is based on the technical and personal capabilities of the IRA to "police" particular crimes like sexual abuse or rape. The ability to determine the capabilities of the IRA to be more or less effective in certain crimes requires much more knowledge than simply knowing that community policing happened.

After all - what does Gerry Adams know about the men and women of the IRA who investigated these crimes? How does he feel qualified to demean their efforts? As a non member, he knows nothing about the IRA which is a deeply secretive organisation.

Yet he feels qualified to offer judgements on their ability to handle particular crimes despite having absolutely no qualification to do so. Why isn't an IRA commander offering a view instead of this guy?