Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Is the gist of the argument here now that people employed by the Irish Government were legitimate IRA targets, because the Govt "involved" itself by refusing to give specicial dispensation to the IRA and by not allowing IRA members break any laws they chose to?

Is that really the warped logic that is being peddled now?

Nobody is saying they were 'legitimate targets', no.

But if you are going to ignore the effect of Irish state security force actions but on the nationalist/republican community and indeed, on themselves, then I think that is a heavily partisan approach.
After all, the head of the Irish Prison Officers Union criticised the methods of some of the prison officers and management of Portlaoise and the negligence of the Minister of Justice Michael Noonan at the time. If that behaviour didn't have an affect on what happened then I think you are living in a bubble to be honest.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is saying they were 'legitimate targets', no.

But if you are going to ignore the effect of Irish state security force actions but on the nationalist/republican community and indeed, on themselves, then I think that is a heavily partisan approach.
After all, the head of the Irish Prison Officers Union criticised the methods of some of the prison officers and management of Portlaoise and the negligence of the Minister of Justice Michael Noonan at the time. If that behaviour didn't have an affect on what happened then I think you are living in a bubble to be honest.

Well if they were not legitimate targets, then was Brian Stack murdered? Bet you don't answer with a straightforward yes or no.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course they were involved - there was an armed bunch of thugs looking to subvert the democratically enacted constitution of the state and Oglaigh na hEireann and An Garda Siochana worked to mitigate that threat - that included co-operating with the British and securing, as far as was practical, the land border with the UK......

.......because that's what the citizens wanted. We didn't want to spend huge chunks of what little money we had building up a military capacity to fight NATO, we just wanted to get on with life.

You are ignoring the fact (for convenience) that the IRA had support from the community, for better or worse.
Oglaigh na hEireann deployed a 'specially contrived' Heavy Gang, that policed the whole community and didn't discriminate between members of the IRA and ordinary civilians. In other citizens of this country's view, THEY were an 'armed bunch of thugs' 'subverting democracy' to the point that Amnesty International got involved.

Would an independent historian factor that reality into their assessment of what happened I wonder?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if they were not legitimate targets, then was Brian Stack murdered? Bet you don't answer with a straightforward yes or no.

Yes he was.

Isn't that the information Austin Stack got at his meeting?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes he was.

Isn't that the information Austin Stack got at his meeting?

Ok then, shouldn't murderers be brought justice? And shouldn't our elected reps be doing everything they legally can as deputies of the people and as citizens to help bring them to justice?

.....and whose interests do you think a Dail deputy should put foremost, a murdered public servant's (and his family) or the murderer(s) and those that might support them?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are ignoring the fact (for convenience) that the IRA had support from the community, for better or worse.
Oglaigh na hEireann deployed a 'specially contrived' Heavy Gang, that policed the whole community and didn't discriminate between members of the IRA and ordinary civilians. In other citizens of this country's view, THEY were an 'armed bunch of thugs' 'subverting democracy' to the point that Amnesty International got involved.

Would an independent historian factor that reality into their assessment of what happened I wonder?

The IRA had support from the community? As SF are so fond of saying - evidence? Where was their mandate derived from?

......and while we're at it, you are now saying that in addition to the Guards and the Prison Service, that "Oglaigh na hEireann deployed a 'specially contrived' Heavy Gang" - evidence? And where's the evidence they 'policed' anything (hint: don't confuse the ATTCP mission with policing - legally and operationally they are hugely different)

....and I didn't mention "subverting democracy" - I mentioned "subverting the democratically enacted constitution" - again, you need to try and be more aware of the subtleties of the different arguments. We all, to a greater or lesser extent, subvert democracy - which is completely different to subverting the constitution.

Dyr

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course they were involved - there was an armed bunch of thugs looking to subvert the democratically enacted constitution of the state and Oglaigh na hEireann and An Garda Siochana worked to mitigate that threat - that included co-operating with the British and securing, as far as was practical, the land border with the UK......

.......because that's what the citizens wanted. We didn't want to spend huge chunks of what little money we had building up a military capacity to fight NATO, we just wanted to get on with life.

Is that the same constitution that laid claim to what was on the other side of the border they were securing?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Ok then, shouldn't murderers be brought justice? And shouldn't our elected reps be doing everything they legally can as deputies of the people and as citizens to help bring them to justice?

.....and whose interests do you think a Dail deputy should put foremost, a murdered public servant's (and his family) or the murderer(s) and those that might support them?

Of course murderers should be brought to justice.

But you are in denial about the issues here. The 'real' issues.

Yes, deputies should be doing everything they can but what they shouldn't be doing is selecting murders, killings to be concerned about.

We already know why these incidents have to be seen as a whole and why they have to be addressed in the context of how and why they happened during a conflict.
A Truth Commission is not envisaged by Adams to be for the purpose of exonerating anybody, he has already said that if a family wish to pursue a case that they have to have that opportunity as part of the process.

The IRA have said that this was a murder so I think the subtext here is that the Stacks would get justice they seek.

But it won't come from destabilising one-sided addressing of what happened.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

The IRA had support from the community?

Well, if you are again gonna ignore the ACTUAL reality, then I have no interest in pursuing the intellectual or constitutional niceties/subtleties with you.
I lived in and continue to live in, harsh reality with my feet firmly on the ground and my eyes and ears open.
The IRA had support, a lot of it. Quite a few of their former members are now in government in NI and politically active and elected in the south.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Then they were 'involved'. It's not that hard to accept what I am saying. Really.

The Heavy Gang gathered intelligence too, quite a bit of it. And their methods were draconian.
But comparisons to other forces are valid too.

And I am not 'obsessed' with them, in my opinion they contributed to a large degree to the environment where 'shots were fired in anger' and situations got out of hand. Reactionary violence was always going to happen.
Similarly the behaviour and methods of officers in prisons and the alleged negligence of the minister for Justice (that were criticised by prison officers, see earlier link) led to reactionary violence.

At the risk of starting howls of derision I would contend that it is amazing that there were not more casualties among the Irish security forces and if anything, it shows, a large degree of restraint among republican activists.

Take that any way you want, it is not intended to defend any action against the Irish security forces, it's just a realistic opinion and an attempt to understand what happened.

By your standards then, AGS should be legitimate targets for organised criminal gangs also.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody said they should 'invade'.
Paddy Hillery proposed that the UN send in a force in 1969
Hillery's laudable idea was to have an independent non partisan force in place to diffuse tensions as the situation reached boiling point.
Britain rejected the proposal.
The UN complied and said nothing, and criticised nothing
The armed forces of one of the 5 founding members of the UN then opened fire on innocent civilians on a human rights protest and the rest is tragic history.
Some Irish people knew what was about to happen but were ignored/brushed aside. To them and to me, the UN in an Irish context was as useful as a handshake from a wet fish.

Well as we've seen with Syria once a permanent member has a nose in the trough, it is difficult to get agreement, unless it's the US and they go ahead anyway!

We've seen far bigger wars ignored by the UN, but really when you say the UN, you mean the 5 permanent countries in it. It's weak but the alternative could be a lot scarier.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are ignoring the fact (for convenience) that the IRA had support from the community, for better or worse.
Oglaigh na hEireann deployed a 'specially contrived' Heavy Gang, that policed the whole community and didn't discriminate between members of the IRA and ordinary civilians. In other citizens of this country's view, THEY were an 'armed bunch of thugs' 'subverting democracy' to the point that Amnesty International got involved.

Would an independent historian factor that reality into their assessment of what happened I wonder?

They had some support, it was hardly widespread.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course murderers should be brought to justice.

But you are in denial about the issues here. The 'real' issues.

The real issue is that a public servant, in the republic of Ireland was murdered in cold blood because some of the prisoners wanted him dead.
It was a personal thing.
No TD, or anyone else for that matter should withhold information on any crime, least of all murder.
And no matter what way Sinn Fein try to spin it, that's the bottom line.

Jawgap

Bambi wrote: »

Is that the same constitution that laid claim to what was on the other side of the border they were securing?

Oh dear, can I suggest you read the post distinguishing national territory, from sovereignty and 'nation' from 'state' - important distinctions.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course murderers should be brought to justice.

But you are in denial about the issues here. The 'real' issues.

Yes, deputies should be doing everything they can but what they shouldn't be doing is selecting murders, killings to be concerned about.

We already know why these incidents have to be seen as a whole and why they have to be addressed in the context of how and why they happened during a conflict.
A Truth Commission is not envisaged by Adams to be for the purpose of exonerating anybody, he has already said that if a family wish to pursue a case that they have to have that opportunity as part of the process.

The IRA have said that this was a murder so I think the subtext here is that the Stacks would get justice they seek.

But it won't come from destabilising one-sided addressing of what happened.

Oh right 'prosecute them all or prosecute none'? Should that be the policy.

Why not just deal with the ones we have information on while the others are investigated?

.....and what if the Stacks want to see the person who shot their father, and the people who were accessories to his murder, stood up in front of a court of the land and tried? Should they get that? And should our Dail Deputies be doing everything legally possible to help them get that?

Btw, kind of noticeable that someone who posts in response to everything, skipped over this post

Jawgap wrote: »

The IRA had support from the community? As SF are so fond of saying - evidence? Where was their mandate derived from?

......and while we're at it, you are now saying that in addition to the Guards and the Prison Service, that "Oglaigh na hEireann deployed a 'specially contrived' Heavy Gang" - evidence? And where's the evidence they 'policed' anything (hint: don't confuse the ATTCP mission with policing - legally and operationally they are hugely different)

....and I didn't mention "subverting democracy" - I mentioned "subverting the democratically enacted constitution" - again, you need to try and be more aware of the subtleties of the different arguments. We all, to a greater or lesser extent, subvert democracy - which is completely different to subverting the constitution.

I'm guessing there's no evidence?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, if you are again gonna ignore the ACTUAL reality, then I have no interest in pursuing the intellectual or constitutional niceties/subtleties with you.
I lived in and continue to live in, harsh reality with my feet firmly on the ground and my eyes and ears open.
The IRA had support, a lot of it. Quite a few of their former members are now in government in NI and politically active and elected in the south.

I'd just like to know the basis for the statement "the IRA had support from the community"? Where's the evidence for it?

maccored

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd just like to know the basis for the statement "the IRA had support from the community"? Where's the evidence for it?

by the actual fact that they existed. how else do you think the IRA evaded capture if not for local communities? then again, being from the South and having no actual idea of what living in the north was like, you wouldnt know that

maccored

maccored wrote: »

by the actual fact that they existed. how else do you think the IRA evaded capture if not for local communities? then again, being from the South and having no actual idea of what living in the north was like, you wouldnt know that

Intimidation

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

By your standards then, AGS should be legitimate targets for organised criminal gangs also.

The security forces of a state should NEVER be targets in a true democracy.
Are they targets? Yes, sometimes they are.

K-9

Well I thought Francie was talking about South of the border.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Well as we've seen with Syria once a permanent member has a nose in the trough, it is difficult to get agreement, unless it's the US and they go ahead anyway!

We've seen far bigger wars ignored by the UN, but really when you say the UN, you mean the 5 permanent countries in it. It's weak but the alternative could be a lot scarier.

Yes, I regard the UN's usefulness to us as minimal.

I think had the UN come in or if Hillery's second proposal (I sense genuine humanity in his desperate attempts) a joint Irish/British force (a foretaste of the agreement that eventually brought resolution, oh the wasteful tragedy in the intervening years) had happened, we would be at a completely different place today.

billy few mates

blackwhite wrote: »

Is the gist of the argument here now that people employed by the Irish Government were legitimate IRA targets, because the Govt "involved" itself by refusing to give specicial dispensation to the IRA and by not allowing IRA members break any laws they chose to?

Is that really the warped logic that is being peddled now?

Apparently so... :rolleyes:
Luckily most people can see it for what it is, a smokescreen deployed by HQ to deflect attention from the murky past of dear leader. They throw in in a few obtuse references to 'the Heavy Gang' and (God help us) Paddy Hilary, the UN and with a bit of shifting logic on the part of the main cheerleader on here any discussion on the criminal behaviour of SF/IRA members becomes completely sidetracked and derailed.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

The real issue is that a public servant, in the republic of Ireland was murdered in cold blood because some of the prisoners wanted him dead.
It was a personal thing.
No TD, or anyone else for that matter should withhold information on any crime, least of all murder.
And no matter what way Sinn Fein try to spin it, that's the bottom line.

And the REALITY is that information WILL be withheld until the entire conflict is addressed with 'no hierarchy of victims'.

This has been said since the signing of the agreement - actually, it was said loudly and clearly during the negotiation of the agreement and the British and Irish government agreed to need for it and committed to set it up.

Dail deputies should be concerning themselves with the why's and were fors of why this has not happened 20 years after the signing of the agreement.

Jawgap

maccored wrote: »

by the actual fact that they existed. how else do you think the IRA evaded capture if not for local communities? then again, being from the South and having no actual idea of what living in the north was like, you wouldnt know that

So, no evidence then?

By your token the Dublin gangs must be supported by the local communities - they exist and they've yet to be captured?

.....then again, being from the North and having no actual idea of what living in the north inner city was like, you wouldn't know that

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh right 'prosecute them all or prosecute none'? Should that be the policy.

Why not just deal with the ones we have information on while the others are investigated?

.....and what if the Stacks want to see the person who shot their father, and the people who were accessories to his murder, stood up in front of a court of the land and tried? Should they get that? And should our Dail Deputies be doing everything legally possible to help them get that?

Btw, kind of noticeable that someone who posts in response to everything, skipped over this post

Will the Stacks get what they want the way the case is being pursued now?
Give us your assessment of their chances taking into account the reality of what we know?

I'm guessing there's no evidence?

The ability and strength of the IRA to carry out their operations is all you need to know.
Add to that the fact that when they conflict/war ended and they stood for election in their own communities they got elected.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are ignoring the fact (for convenience) that the IRA had support from the community, for better or worse.
Oglaigh na hEireann deployed a 'specially contrived' Heavy Gang, that policed the whole community and didn't discriminate between members of the IRA and ordinary civilians. In other citizens of this country's view, THEY were an 'armed bunch of thugs' 'subverting democracy' to the point that Amnesty International got involved.

Would an independent historian factor that reality into their assessment of what happened I wonder?

No, the IRA had support from 'an element' of the community, that's not the same thing as having a mandate or the support of the entire community. SF/IRA members did whatever they wanted to further their own personal, criminal and (more recently) political agendas...

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

No, the IRA had support from 'an element' of the community, that's not the same thing as having a mandate or the support of the entire community. SF/IRA members did whatever they wanted to further their own personal, criminal and (more recently) political agendas...

I neither said they had a mandate (revolutionary groups typically are restricted from holding referendums to guage public mood) nor that they had the support of the 'entire' community.

Please stop misquoting me, it isn't helpful.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Will the Stacks get what they want the way the case is being pursued now?
Give us your assessment of their chances taking into account the reality of what we know?

As long as Adams is interested more in protecting his political base than doing what's right the case will go nowhere.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The ability and strength of the IRA to carry out their operations is all you need to know.
Add to that the fact that when they conflict/war ended and they stood for election in their own communities they got elected.

Again, this type of logic suggests the criminal gangs enjoy the support of the inner city communities.

And yes people got elected (after the violence largely ended), but yet not in sufficient numbers to get into government, except in the glorified county council that is the Executive.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I neither said they had a mandate (revolutionary groups typically are restricted from holding referendums to guage public mood) nor that they had the support of the 'entire' community.

Please stop misquoting me, it isn't helpful.

Then clarify your assertion correctly by saying that they merely had the support 'of their supporters' from within a wider community in the same way as the Kinahans and the Hutches have their supporters from within their communities.

billy few mates

Where are Mary Loo, Pearce, O'Broin and some of the Secondary Shinners in all this?
The only one I've heard supporting dear leader throught his latest bout of embarrassment in all this has been Peadar Tobin...