Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

Wheeliebin30

Johndoe86 wrote: »

Are you referring to Maria Cahill? I actually do believe that she was raped but her hate for the IRA is because her grandfather was a leading provisional (dead at the time) and the IRA didn't kill her rapist. I'd put money on it that she wanted that kangaroo court

Oh dear.

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

If the GAA covered up for them what would you say ?

Disband the entire management of the organisation and start again.
Imprison the ringleaders of the cover up.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Disband the entire management of the organisation and start again.
Imprison the ringleaders of the cover up.

So why is GA still head of SF ?

marienbad

Johndoe86 wrote: »

Are you referring to Maria Cahill? I actually do believe that she was raped but her hate for the IRA is because her grandfather was a leading provisional (dead at the time) and the IRA didn't kill her rapist. I'd put money on it that she wanted that kangaroo court

Dreadful stuff , did you not pause for thought for a second as you typed this ?

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

So why is GA still head of SF ?

Was it two or three inquiries that found he had no case to answer?

I would be more interested in sacking or even imprisoning the police who as we know were more interested in getting Gerry than the crime committed here.

Adams made huge personal mistakes, of that there is no doubt.

Itssoeasy

Johndoe86 wrote: »

marienbad wrote: »

If the GAA covered up for them what would you say ?

Are you referring to Maria Cahill? I actually do believe that she was raped but her hate for the IRA is because her grandfather was a leading provisional (dead at the time) and the IRA didn't kill her rapist. I'd put money on it that she wanted that kangaroo court

Ah stop it please.

FrancieBrady

I asked a question a while back that was related to the thread topic nd I think only one person had a go. I'll ask again.
How many are in favour of full disclosure in relation to the conflict and whose responsibility is it to set it up?

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

A organisation that relied on secrecy and silence let an alledged non member into high ranking meetings in the 1970s ?

Jesus your last paragraph you'd swear he was the second coming. Gerry Adams isn't half the man John Hume is. I actually respect John Hume.

Hume was useful in the end but never forget he had to go on a solo run to do what he did. His party didn't favour it, prefering to not rock any boats and keep the comfy seats. The electorate showed them what they thought of that, when we finally got near to normal elections.

Jesus the disdain for John Hume is ridiculous. Francie let me guess Gerry the great did it all single handed did he ?
What normal elections ? Northern Ireland isnt a normal place in terms of election or government.

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Ah stop it please.

On a point of order here (saying as they are the in thing ATM ) she did ask the IRA to deal with it. She wouldn't go to what she, SF and almost every nationalist believed ( and indeed the inquiry into the Liam Adams case years later) was a partisan and sectarian Unionist controlled police force. Which was totally reformed and renamed in disgrace.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked a question a while back that was related to the thread topic nd I think only one person had a go. I'll ask again.
How many are in favour of full disclosure in relation to the conflict and whose responsibility is it to set it up?

Well Francie you've not answered several questions in this thread so I wouldn't be throwing stones.
It's the British and Irish governments to set it up in the north NOT the whole island of Ireland.
Also seeing as I'm answering your question what radio station and what show discussed the truth recovery commission today ?

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Jesus the disdain for John Hume is ridiculous. Francie let me guess Gerry the great did it all single handed did he ?
What normal elections ? Northern Ireland is a normal place in terms of election or government.

I have a lot of time for Hume actually. He made a brave leap, but he made it alone. His party were not behind him.
When your reps are being harassed and shot and you face misinformation campaigns and censorship, elections are not normal.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was it two or three inquiries that found he had no case to answer?

I would be more interested in sacking or even imprisoning the police who as we know were more interested in getting Gerry than the crime committed here.

Adams made huge personal mistakes, of that there is no doubt.

you already admit GA covered up child abuse ,So double standards then

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well Francie you've not answered several questions in this thread so I wouldn't be throwing stones.
It's the British and Irish governments to set it up in the north NOT the whole island of Ireland.
Also seeing as I'm answering your question what radio station and what show discussed the truth recovery commission today ?

So the Stormont House Agreement was a fiction? Oh dear you are in for a surprise so.
I have no idea why the family I know have been compiling files on there case in advance of the process laid out in the SHA.

I was in several different places this morning, as far as I know it was Martin Manseragh and it could have been Sean ORohrke. Not 100% though. The SHA is really a!l you need.

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

you already admit GA covered up child abuse ,So double standards then

Deliberately covering up child abuse is illegal and I would expect anyone who did it to face prosecution.
Adams made mistakes on how he handled this, has addressed all this. And we have gone over this.

Can you answer what I asked a few posts ago.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Deliberately covering up child abuse is illegal and I would expect anyone who did it to face prosecution.
Adams made mistakes on how he handled this, has addressed all this. And we have gone over this.

Can you answer what I asked a few posts ago.

He did deliberately cover up child abuse , He admitted that himself . Are you saying because he was not found guilty in a court of same it doesn't count ?

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

He did deliberately cover up child abuse , He admitted that himself . Are you saying because he was not found guilty in a court of same it doesn't count ?

No, I am not saying that.
As far as I know he didn't say he did it deliberately, it was because of the difficulty of what he was dealing with. A family situation. He didn't break the law, you'll have to explain why he isn't in jail if he did. Because I can't.
You can adopt a humane attitude to his decision-making or set the attack dogs. I have made my decision on it.

As I have already been rapped on the knuckles for being way off topic, I am not discussing this, unless it is relevant to the thread. So if you have any more questions on this open a thread dedicated to it.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I am not saying that.
As far as I know he didn't say he did it deliberately, it was because of the difficulty of what he was dealing with. A family situation. He didn't break the law, you'll have to explain why he isn't in jail if he did. Because I can't.
You can adopt a humane attitude to his decision-making or set the attack dogs. I have made my decision on it.

As I have already been rapped on the knuckles for being way off topic, I am not discussing this, unless it is relevant to the thread. So if you have any more questions on this open a thread dedicated to it.

As I said then double standards then

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

As I said then double standards then

Like committing to set up a much needed truth recovery process for victims and then welching on it because you have too much to hide?

Any invective about that?

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like committing to set up a much needed truth recovery process for victims and then welching on it because you have too much to hide?

Any invective about that?

I rarely if ever use invective Francie .

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

I rarely if ever use invective Francie .

Well any opinion at all would be relevant, no?

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well any opinion at all would be relevant, no?

On your truth recovery process ? Well I don't see too much point . I doubt we could even agree what words to use .

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

On your truth recovery process ? Well I don't see too much point . I doubt we could even agree what words to use .

So that would be a no.
And these families will be forgotten until there is some capital to be made out of another one that meets certain criteria. They must be the victim of only one side.

billy few mates

Read this forensically (if necessary) and see if you can spot the glaringly obvious reason why we can't have a 'truth' commission any time soon Francie...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_10_2013_cross_exam_gerry_adams.pdf

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So that would be a no.
And these families will be forgotten until there is some capital to be made out of another one that meets certain criteria. They must be the victim of only one side.

No it would not be a no Francie , it would be a no to a discussion on your terms and with your vocabulary

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Read this forensically (if necessary) and see if you can spot the glaringly obvious reason why we can't have a 'truth' commission any time soon Francie...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_10_2013_cross_exam_gerry_adams.pdf

Open another thread Billy, and tell us were he lied in that and then explain why he isn't in jail for it after two or three inquiries conducted by people who know how to forensically test statements and evidence?

Are you a yes or a no on the question I asked btrw?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like committing to set up a much needed truth recovery process for victims...

The Stormont House Agreement doesn't commit to setting up a truth recovery process. It may seem like a pedantic point, but those words don't appear in it.

I don't recall which of the SHA commitments you said you were referring to when you talk about a truth and recovery process, but if you're going to talk about the governments committing to something, it's only fair to be clear on what it is they committed to.

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

No it would not be a no Francie , it would be a no to a discussion on your terms and with your vocabulary

Ye what now?
I won't be anywhere near the terms.
So that's a yes?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Stormont House Agreement doesn't commit to setting up a truth recovery process. It may seem like a pedantic point, but those words don't appear in it.

I don't recall which of the SHA commitments you said you were referring to when you talk about a truth and recovery process, but if you're going to talk about the governments committing to something, it's only fair to be clear on what it is they committed to.

Okay, point taken. On my phone again, is it Information Retrieval?

Edit: went back there, it is modelled on the ICLVR. The ICIR to achieve the same thing, to provide families with information on how their loved one's died. SF where on board with this until the British decided they couldn't disclose fully after all, while expecting everyone else to.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked a question a while back that was related to the thread topic nd I think only one person had a go. I'll ask again.
How many are in favour of full disclosure in relation to the conflict and whose responsibility is it to set it up?

Yeah, I believe I was one of the people you asked.

But I realised who you were in a 'previous' incarnation and decided to step away from the thread......

FrancieBrady

I'm beginning to think that there are a lot of people who 'can't handle the truth' and would really prefer to leave some people behind on the road to recovery and normalisation.

Enda and Michael must realise there is a constituency out there/gallery to play to

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Open another thread Billy, and tell us were he lied in that and then explain why he isn't in jail for it after two or three inquiries conducted by people who know how to forensically test statements and evidence?

Are you a yes or a no on the question I asked btrw?

Oh sorry, I forgot your rules regarding burden of proof on all matters relating to SF/IRA members 'innocent unless jailed'....:D

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Oh sorry, I forgot your rules regarding burden of proof on all matters relating to SF/IRA members 'innocent unless jailed'....:D

As opposed to your way?
Guilt by journalist? Guilt by smear?
It's incredible that one of the inquiries had to point out almost 15 yrs after the end of the conflict, that Gerry Adams was not the subject of that trial, but he became the focus of both a flawed investigation (at the expense of the victims needs) and the trial. It is people like you and your insatiable need for one sided retribution that caused that.
So no thanks to your justice Billy, there was too much pain involved in getting a police and justice system that worked for everyone.

Adams made mistakes, ordinary human mistakes. You want the lynch mob, I don't see the need tbh.


Now any chance of dealing with the question related to the thread?

K-9

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Jesus the disdain for John Hume is ridiculous. Francie let me guess Gerry the great did it all single handed did he ?
What normal elections ? Northern Ireland isnt a normal place in terms of election or government.

Hume is being white washed out of history because SF can claim all the credit on the Nationalist side for the peace process.

The truth is both the IRA and British Government lost the war. They all came around to what Hume had been saying for decades.

K-9

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, I believe I was one of the people you asked.

But I realised who you were in a 'previous' incarnation and decided to step away from the thread......

Mod:
Cut the insinuations about previous accounts out please.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Hume is being white washed out of history because SF can claim all the credit on the Nationalist side for the peace process.

Didn't somebody on here say that the 'victors get to write the history', and as the SDLP lost heavily to SF that would be how it works, suck it up?

IMO the reality is different, Adams pays Hume his due all the time.
Note in this link, Hume is named first.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/humes-adams-statements
And no attempt at whitewashing here either:
http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/8349

I think there is a bit of over sensitivity on this. Seamus Mallon did a bit of 'what about me' crying a while back on it too.
The SDLP couldn't broker a deal, that is the bottom line. Hume realised that and went to talk to one of the real power brokers. His party didn't back him. It was a solo run. Fair play to him for that.

The truth is both the IRA and British Government lost the war. They all came around to what Hume had been saying for decades.

As shown in the letter I quoted earlier from Heath, and it is also shown if you read the demands of republicans since the civil rights era, everybody 'knew' what had to be done, and had been saying it for decades.
Except the Unionists, who were saying differently, even though Ian might have claimed differently in his great hindsight interview.

K-9

Well I would argue SF came around to Hume's thinking as they increasingly saw the futility of their campaign.

The tragedy is it took so long to get their and that's the fault of all sides involved in the Troubles.

Nobody has to suck anything up! Hume and the SDLP knew it would probably end up that way, as you say history teaches us that. Over time the extremes often adopt the moderates position and eventually become the mainstream party.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Well I would argue SF came around to Hume's thinking as they increasingly saw the futility of their campaign.

The tragedy is it took so long to get their and that's the fault of all sides involved in the Troubles.

Nobody has to suck anything up! Hume and the SDLP knew it would probably end up that way, as you say history teaches us that. Over time the extremes often adopt the moderates position and eventually become the mainstream party.

The Unionists repudiated any attempt to do what everyone knew had to be done. It was all there at Sunningdale, but nobody saw fit to include 'everybody'.

The Unionists with British backing brought Sunningdale down, nobody else did that.

If the SDLP 'knew' it would end up that way (I agree Hume foresaw the SDLP's demise just as Paisley saw the writing on the wall) what was Seamus Mallon whinging about a year or two ago about Sinn Fein being allowed to the table.
It was never going to work without them on board.

K-9

Even though I blame everybody, you go straight to automatic blame Unionists mode Francie!

No mention of how it was impossible to include the 1973 IRA in a Sunningdale agreement. We had a ceasefire before that and their demands were crazy, and they showed little signs of compromising.

Everybody knows the main reason Sunningdale failed, but a little introspection on your side wouldn't go amiss!

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Even though I blame everybody, you go straight to automatic blame Unionists mode Francie!

No mention of how it was impossible to include the 1973 IRA in a Sunningdale agreement. We had a ceasefire before that and their demands were crazy, and they showed little signs of compromising.

Everybody knows the main reason Sunningdale failed, but a little introspection on your side wouldn't go amiss!

I never said ever on here that SF or the IRA were blameless.

The IRA only existed because of what was going on on the island, neither they or SF were consulted about Sunningdale. It took everyone else another 30 odd years to include them, as equals.
That was something everyone knew had to happen even before the lid came off as I have shown here. Much rhetoric but little honesty or actual intent.

I think there is a fair element of whitewashing going on to say that it was SF who came around to Hume's way of thinking.
Both knew the same thing, that everybody had to be included. Hume acted on that eventually and made the leap.

K-9

I'd say that is about a grudging admission that I'll get, so I'll leave it there.

I'm kind of ignoring my own mod warning as well!

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say that is about a grudging admission that I'll get, so I'll leave it there.

I'm kind of ignoring my own mod warning as well!

Nothing grudging about it. I have always said there was blame on all sides.
I think though that a historian/analyst claiming that there wasn't one side that blocked every initiative to broker a settlement/agreement up until the GFA, would be laughed out of the room. There is still a significant rump who want the old days to continue - see: marches, flegs etc.
Real historians don't whitewash/run away from that because it is the politically correct thing to do 'du jour'. So to speak. You wouldn't get your PHd/masters if you tried as Jawgap would no doubt tell us.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing grudging about it. I have always said there was blame on all sides.
I think though that a historian/analyst claiming that there wasn't one side that blocked every initiative to broker a settlement/agreement up until the GFA, would be laughed out of the room. There is still a significant rump who want the old days to continue - see: marches, flegs etc.
Real historians don't whitewash/run away from that because it is the politically correct thing to do 'du jour'. So to speak. You wouldn't get your PHd/masters if you tried as Jawgap would no doubt tell us.

Glad to see you've mellowed and accepted that both sides were as bad as one another in the conflict, in your previous existence you were quite steadfast in your refusal to accept this fact.

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Glad to see you've mellowed and accepted that both sides were as bad as one another in the conflict, in your previous existence you were quite steadfast in your refusal to accept this fact.

Only somebody who was completely unaware of what went on (and you were Billy, that is a sad fact) would attribute the phrase 'as bad as one another' to the period. It flies in the face of the tragic facts that I have often posted.

As I said, and it relates directly to the subject of this thread, EVERYONE knew what had to be done, violence/conflict/ war is always a symptom of something that has been done/or hasn't been done.

Edward Heath like Enda Kenny and Theresa May today kno what has to be done, here is Heath in 1971 peddling the solution to Jack Lynch:

Ed Heath wrote:

As you know, our aim is still to discuss the way forward with representatives of all the communities. We
are committed to finding a way to give the minority there an active, permanent and guaranteed role in the
life and public affairs of Northern Ireland.

Tragically it took them far to long to do that.

Kenny now pays lip service to notions about the 'truth' on behalf of 'all', but like Heath before him he doesn't really mean that, he, like the cowards we typically elect will leave it to others to achieve that while he fumbles, he will leave it to men of the calibre of Adams, Hume, Trimble and indeed Paisley (who knew with clarity that the sectarian, bigoted game was up before he died, just like Jim Molyneaux -this is the worst thing that ever happened to us', i.e. The GFA) to resolve.
The Taoiseach and PM who finally resolves this will be swept along/or led by the initiatives of men like that rather than doing the leading themselves.
The tragic thing is that there are those who don't know the full detail of what happened, like you, who have a say in this.
That is what the IRA and SF are guarding against, if they do what you want without the other players doing the same, (full disclosure, ful information giving) then you and people like you, will never know the reasons why what happened - happened.
Listen carefully to Ian Paisley in the last months of his life, he more or less admits that it was the sectarian bigoted governance of the statelet that caused it, or was to 'blame and the government that shored it up, until it was brought to the table prepared to:

to give the minority there an active, permanent and guaranteed role in the
life and public affairs of Northern Ireland

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Only somebody who was completely unaware of what went on (and you were Billy, that is a sad fact) would attribute the phrase 'as bad as one another' to the period. It flies in the face of the tragic facts that I have often posted.

As I said, and it relates directly to the subject of this thread, EVERYONE knew what had to be done, violence/conflict/ war is always a symptom of something that has been done/or hasn't been done.

Edward Heath like Enda Kenny and Theresa May today kno what has to be done, here is Heath in 1971 peddling the solution to Jack Lynch:

Tragically it took them far to long to do that.

Kenny now pays lip service to notions about the 'truth' on behalf of 'all', but like Heath before him he doesn't really mean that, he, like the cowards we typically elect will leave it to others to achieve that while he fumbles, he will leave it to men of the calibre of Adams, Hume, Trimble and indeed Paisley (who knew with clarity that the sectarian, bigoted game was up before he died, just like Jim Molyneaux -this is the worst thing that ever happened to us', i.e. The GFA) to resolve.
The Taoiseach and PM who finally resolves this will be swept along/or led by the initiatives of men like that rather than doing the leading themselves.
The tragic thing is that there are those who don't know the full detail of what happened, like you, who have a say in this.
That is what the IRA and SF are guarding against, if they do what you want without the other players doing the same, (full disclosure, ful information giving) then you and people like you, will never know the reasons why what happened - happened.
Listen carefully to Ian Paisley in the last months of his life, he more or less admits that it was the sectarian bigoted governance of the statelet that caused it, or was to 'blame and the government that shored it up, until it was brought to the table prepared to:

Agreed, even Gerry Adams 'more or less' admitted there was bigotry and hatred in equal measures on both sides of the divide...

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Agreed, even Gerry Adams 'more or less' admitted there was bigotry and hatred in equal measures on both sides of the divide...

He didn't as far as I am aware say it was there in 'equal measure'. I am sure you, as I have done for you on a few occasions, can educate us on where and when he said it.

Yes all sides had and have hatred and bigotry, but not in equal measure and ONLY ONE side used that hatred and bigotry in governing the failed statelet, underpinned and enforced by another side, the British Government.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes all sides had and have hatred and bigotry,

Agreed, like I said earlier, it's not a competition, for every Loyalist outrage there's an equally abhorrent outrage on the Republican side. While the political aims and targeted outcomes may have been different the methods chosen to pursue them would have been broadly similar so it's fallacious to criticise one side without criticising the other.

Professor Moriarty

Andrown wrote: »

The forces in the republic tried to uphold the law of the republic that's it and they were fairly relaxed in doing so, well up until the late 80s anyway

I doubt it considering their colleagues were being murdered by the IRA, the IRA were robbing banks and assasinating people in the Republic and the IRA was sworn to overthrow the Republic.

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Agreed, like I said earlier, it's not a competition, for every Loyalist outrage there's an equally abhorrent outrage on the Republican side. While the political aims and targeted outcomes may have been different the methods chosen to pursue them would have been broadly similar so it's fallacious to criticise one side without criticising the other.

If ever we had an example of what the goal of the partitionist mind is, ^ this is it.

I'm grabbing the popcorn here as you show how the nationalists/republicans governed with hate and bigotry fo 70 years, until the lid came off the British supported failed statlet

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If ever we had an example of what the goal of the partitionist mind is, ^ this is it.

I'm grabbing the popcorn here as you show how the nationalists/republicans governed with hate and bigotry fo 70 years, until the lid came off the British supported failed statlet

Link to where I said that please...?

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Link to where I said that please...?

The conflict/war and the reasons for it does not come down to a count or even an assessment of the various tragic atrocities.
The atrocities were a symptom/result of what caused the conflict. And ANY reasonable assessment will show that it was 70 years of sectarian bigoted government that caused the conflict.
That was not equalled by nationalists and republicans...obviously. (well obvious to any one who knows the detail and history)

You are doing what partitionists always try to do, to hide their shame for ignoring it and standing by.