Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

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...

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

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

The case will go no where because the Irish government has failed to meet it's part of the bargain to set up a Truth recovery process.
They have been told this over and over and still take selective cases up painful and pointless cul de sacs, knowing full well that there will be no resolution and only doing it in an exploitative game of political football.
My original post/point, i.e. OP

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.

Criminal gangs enjoy support in the community. What level of support is open to debate.

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

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.

Maybe clarity would come if you stopped assuming stuff that is not in my posts? Like, 'they had a mandate' or 'they had the support of the 'entire' community'.
Just a thought.

BTW you keep saying that I am 'the main cheerleader' sent by 'HQ' to deflect.

There is something I said in the last few posts that is at complete variance to the opinion/policy of someone you think is 'my dear leader' and SF in general.

Do you, who claims to be informed, know what that is?

K-9

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.

You said the community, not a section or a significant element so it is a fair assumption.

Unless we are getting into semantics about blacked out vans and UN invasions!

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

You said the community, not a section or a significant element so it is a fair assumption.

Unless we are getting into semantics about blacked out vans and UN invasions!

Sorry to pull you up again.

FrancieBrady wrote:

You are ignoring the fact (for convenience) that the IRA had support from the community,

Adding the word 'entire' to what I said is a total misquote. That would be a fair assumption too, no?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Criminal gangs enjoy support in the community. What level of support is open to debate.

No level of support, in my experience of growing up there and still having immediate family there.

And you didn't say the IRA had some support, you were unequivocal on the point......

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are ignoring the fact (for convenience) that the IRA had support from the community, for better or worse.
.........

I accept that any support in the Unionist community was negligible to the point of non-existence, but maybe you'd care to define "the community" you are referring to?

If you are going to say they enjoyed majority support in the Nationalist community, where is the evidence for that?

K-9

Fair enough.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

No level of support, in my experience of growing up there and still having immediate family there.

And you didn't say the IRA had some support, you were unequivocal on the point......



I accept that any support in the Unionist community was negligible to the point of non-existence, but maybe you'd care to define "the community" you are referring to?

If you are going to say they enjoyed majority support in the Nationalist community, where is the evidence for that?

Did I say, the entire or whole community? No I didn't.
They had support from the community.

Which part of the community I think anyone with the slightest knowledge of NI would take it for granted that I was referring to the republican/nationalist community.

And before we go down another bolt hole I am not saying they had support from that 'entire' community either.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did I say, the entire or whole community? No I didn't.
They had support from the community.

Which part of the community I think anyone with the slightest knowledge of NI would take it for granted that I was referring to the republican/nationalist community.

And before we go down another bolt hole I am not saying they had support from that 'entire' community either.

Oh come on, someone said 'boarded up van' and you made hay from the fact that they didn't specify that only some windows were boarded up.....

.......now you're complaining because you posted about 'the community' and saying we shouldn't take your words so literally?

Tell you what, at the start of each of your posts put a little caveat to let readers know if you are speaking in general or specific terms

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh come on, someone said 'boarded up van' and you made hay from the fact that they didn't specify that only some windows were boarded up.....

.......now you're complaining because you posted about 'the community' and saying we shouldn't take your words so literally?

No, I am saying I was deliberately misquoted.
The word 'entire community' was used when I never referred to the 'entire community'.

I think it's a reasonable objection.

I think it is also reasonable to question the significance of the 'blacked out van' language being used when telling the story of this meeting, when the person he was going to meet, the IRA commander allowed himself to be identified. I asked the question, was he over egging the sinister element maybe?
It's a curious thing to do in my book, no particular biggie, just asking questions as anyone would.

Tell you what, at the start of each of your posts put a little caveat to let readers know if you are speaking in general or specific terms

Would it not be eminently simpler to just ask people to read what is being said without jumping to conclusions?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I am saying I was deliberately misquoted.
The word 'entire community' was used when I never referred to the 'entire community'.

I think it's a reasonable objection.

I think it is also reasonable to question the significance of the 'blacked out van' language being used when telling the story of this meeting, when the person he was going to meet, the IRA commander allowed himself to be identified. I asked the question, was he over egging the sinister element maybe?
It's a curious thing to do in my book, no particular biggie, just asking questions as anyone would.



Would it not be eminently simpler to just ask people to read what is being said without jumping to conclusions?

Of course it is - it's the SF way - "we're right, we're never wrong, you just misinterpreted us" - followed by minimisation and deflection.......

.......you're training is complete "young apprentice"

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course it is - it's the SF way - "we're right, we're never wrong, you just misinterpreted us" - followed by minimisation and deflection.......

.......you're training is complete "young apprentice"

You seem to have a real problem admitting you are simply wrong. I was misquoted, end of.

Let's mess around with something you wrote, see if we can alter it's meaning:



'you're excellent training is complete "young apprentice'

you're expert training is complete "young apprentice

you're training is wonderfully complete "young apprentice''

See what I did there; I added one word and changed the entire tone and meaning of your sentence.

Who is at fault for that, you or me?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You seem to have a real problem admitting you are simply wrong. I was misquoted, end of.

Let's mess around with something you wrote, see if we can alter it's meaning:



'you're excellent training is complete "young apprentice'

you're expert training is complete "young apprentice

you're training is wonderfully complete "young apprentice''

See what I did there; I added one word and changed the entire tone and meaning of your sentence.

Who is at fault for that, you or me?

Well, I quoted you directly without addition of embellishment. I think maybe in future take a more reasonable reading of what people post, then people will be more inclined to take a more reasonable reading of what you write.....if you are going to present semanticism as argument, don't be surprised if people reciprocate.

Dyr

One of the fall outs from this and the various other bun fests over the last few years is that the credibility of the office of the Garda Commisioner is damaged beyond repair, not just the credibility of whoever's bum is warming the seat at any given time.

Root and branch change required.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, I quoted you directly without addition of embellishment. I think maybe in future take a more reasonable reading of what people post, then people will be more inclined to take a more reasonable reading of what you write.....if you are going to present semanticism as argument, don't be surprised if people reciprocate.

eh, I didn't complain about you misquoting me.

FrancieBrady

Bambi wrote: »

One of the fall outs from this and the various other bun fests over the last few years is that the credibility of the office of the Garda Commisioner is damaged beyond repair, not just the credibility of whoever's bum is warming the seat at any given time.

Root and branch change required.

Or at least fixing the leaks.

billy few mates

If nothing else the (SFOS) Sinn Fein Online Snipers are to be commended for the effectiveness of their campaign of obfuscation and deflection in dealing with the issue at hand in social media.
A thread discussing the leader of a political party withholding information likely to lead to the capture of a suspect in the murder of a servant of the state completely derailed and bogged down in semantics and arguments over what constitutes a 'blacked out' van shows the effectiveness of deploying full time activists to stymie online discussion alongside the full time apologists who obstruct the judicial process.
Some of the other parties should consider this strategy if they ever become embroiled in a murderous conspiracy...

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

If nothing else the (SFOS) Sinn Fein Online Snipers are to be commended for the effectiveness of their campaign of obfuscation and deflection in dealing with the issue at hand in social media.
A thread discussing the leader of a political party withholding information likely to lead to the capture of a suspect in the murder of a servant of the state completely derailed and bogged down in semantics and arguments over what constitutes a 'blacked out' van shows the effectiveness of deploying full time activists to stymie online discussion alongside the full time apologists who obstruct the judicial process.
Some of the other parties should consider this strategy if they ever become embroiled in a murderous conspiracy...

There are 437 posts on the thread, about 20 of them concerned 'blacked out' windows.

In relation to the point about 'withholding information likely to lead to the capture of a suspect (I didn't know there was one, can you shed some light on this) in a murder, other people know the name of the man Stack met. Stack himself says he can identify him.
I am not sure what the problem is with continuing the investigation. Can you elaborate on that?

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

Which part of the community I think anyone with the slightest knowledge of NI would take it for granted that I was referring to the republican/nationalist community.

Sinn Fein didn't become the largest nationalist party until after the good Friday agreement.If you use sinn Feins vote as a surrogate for the support the IRA had within the nationalist community the IRA never had the support of majority within that community.

These days Gerry Adams is a bigger liability for SF than Enda Kenny is for FG which says alot. Sinn Fein has a history of underperforming in elections compared to what would be expected from opinion polls. Its stuff like the stack situation that does that and alienates alot of undecideds. Won't impact the converted like yourself. But the party similar to FF and FG need to start considering getting rid of the dinosaurs hanging around.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

Sinn Fein didn't become the largest nationalist party until after the good Friday agreement.If you use sinn Feins vote as a surrogate for the support the IRA had within the nationalist community the IRA never had the support of majority within that community.

These days Gerry Adams is a bigger liability for SF than Enda Kenny is for FG which says alot. Sinn Fein has a history of underperforming in elections compared to what would be expected from opinion polls. Its stuff like the stack situation that does that and alienates alot of undecideds. Won't impact the converted like yourself. But the party similar to FF and FG need to start considering getting rid of the dinosaurs hanging around.

I didn't say they had majority support, in fact if you read the posts I actually define that later.

They had support from the community.

One has to ask, what the point of all this is, the conflict/war happened. We need to accept that and come up with ways to stop it damaging the future.

As said in the OP, this way is just a waste of everyone's time and is seriously divisive.
It is in the process of disappearing from the airways and we will just sit around and wait for the next one to come along.

And I don't think this kind of victim exploitation will disappear at all with the emergence of a new generation of SF rep.
Because it is too easy/lazy for FG FF to make political capital out of these cases.

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

And I don't think this kind of victim exploitation will disappear at all with the emergence of a new generation of SF rep. Because it is too easy/lazy for FG FF to make political capital out of these cases.

It will disappear because when you don't have a former IRA man as your party leader the attacks become a bit ridiculous. It'd be the same as critising SF, FG, FF for something Michael Collins or Eamonn De Valera did back between 1919-22 before the different factions went their separate ways.

Its an open goal when you have a person who was involved in the murder of innocent people and covered up sex abuse as your leader. Look at Enda Kenny and the issues he has and he lead a far less eventful life.

Sinn Fein have a very easy way of getting rid of this open goal which is to get rid of Adams. But being leader for 33 years is a sign of weakness in a democratic society.

It would appear however toxic Adams can be to the with the wider public he seems integral to SF. It'll be a big challenge for the party to replace him without causing internal convulsions. Look at the UK conservatives post Thatcher, Labour post Blair, in a sporting context Man Untd post Ferguson. It'll be interesting to see how its managed when it eventually happens.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

It'd be the same as critising SF, FG, FF for something Michael Collins or Eamonn De Valera did back between 1919-22 before the different factions went their separate ways.

Are you implying here that Adams killed this man himself? That's a new one.

There will be families looking for answers for a long long time to come, that is the tragedy here.
SF reps will always be the lazy/easy way to score some cheap political points regardless of the generation they were born in.

Did you see the furore that kicked up when a young Louth Rep, didn't condemn in the way FG and FF thought they should have? Now that was 'ridiculous'.

billy few mates

PeadarCo wrote: »

Sinn Fein didn't become the largest nationalist party until after the good Friday agreement.If you use sinn Feins vote as a surrogate for the support the IRA had within the nationalist community the IRA never had the support of majority within that community.

These days Gerry Adams is a bigger liability for SF than Enda Kenny is for FG which says alot. Sinn Fein has a history of underperforming in elections compared to what would be expected from opinion polls. Its stuff like the stack situation that does that and alienates alot of undecideds. Won't impact the converted like yourself. But the party similar to FF and FG need to start considering getting rid of the dinosaurs hanging around.

And long may it continue...

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

Are you implying here that Adams killed this man himself? That's a new one.

No but and didn't want to imply Adams was directly involved in the murder. But given his status as a person who was heavily involved in the IRA I find it hard to believe he wasn't involved in the murder of innocent people. Whatever about the IRA they weren't stupid people. I don't think they would have let a person negotiate on their behalf unless that person had also committed crimes that would have earnt themselves along time in jail. They needed someone who wouldn't sell them out.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

No but and didn't want to imply Adams was directly involved in the murder. But given his status as a person who was heavily involved in the IRA I find it hard to believe he wasn't involved in the murder of innocent people. Whatever about the IRA they weren't stupid people. I don't think they would have let a person negotiate on their behalf unless that person had also committed crimes that would have earnt themselves along time in jail. They needed someone who wouldn't sell them out.

Horses for courses I suppose.

I think it was quite an astute move to have somebody lead the ballot box campaign who couldn't be touched as there was no evidence against him.

If Adams was in the IRA I think he may have left it very early on when the 'Armalite in one hand, a ballot box in the other' strategy started to emerge.

Again I ask, what does it matter at the end of day. The conflict/war happened whether he was in it or not.


To me I keep harping back to the core issue here, why is one party of conflict getting the major blame here when that party along with the IRA made it clear from the start what the position would be. They negotiated an agreement where both governments heard what they had to say, agreed with them, and committed to setting up a Truth recovery process as a result.
The Irish people were aware of all this too when they voted for the GFA.

20 years later, nothing, zilch, has been done to progress this tranche of the agreement. Yet both governments are seemingly immune from criticism for not doing what they committed to and SF and the IRA are lambasted for doing exactly what they said they would do.

Ridiculous?

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

To me I keep harping back to the core issue here, why is one party of conflict getting the major blame here when that party along with the IRA made it clear from the start what the position would be. They negotiated an agreement where both governments heard what they had to say, agreed with them, and committed to setting up a Truth recovery process as a result. The Irish people were aware of all this too when they voted for the GFA.

No one wants a truth commission. Every now and then someone will say they want one for a sound bite. The last people who want one at the moment are Sinn Fein with Jerry Adams as leader. It'd be this case times a thousand. It'd be political suicide in the republic even if no criminal charges were brought. That's if the party still has ambitions on government.

Most of the people in charge of the Irish and UK governments are no longer in positions of power or dead. Main stream unions parties avoided overt association with unionist para militaries. Sinn Fein with its current leadership have the most to lose. Adams is an intelligent man who'd be fully aware of the consequences of a truth commission.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

No one wants a truth commission. Every now and then someone will say they want one for a sound bite. The last people who want one at the moment are Sinn Fein with Jerry Adams as leader. It'd be this case times a thousand. It'd be political suicide in the republic even if no criminal charges were brought. That's if the party still has ambitions on government.

Most of the people in charge of the Irish and UK governments are no longer in positions of power or dead. Main stream unions parties avoided overt association with unionist para militaries. Sinn Fein with its current leadership have the most to lose. Adams is an intelligent man who'd be fully aware of the consequences of a truth commission.

Speculation.

Nothing could be more damaging than the current position.
SF and the IRA have repeatedly said they are willing to take part and there is absolutely no evidence to say they won't.
In fact the evidence suggest they will. Adams promised to deliver for the Stacks and he did. The IRA told the Stacks as much as they promised to tell.

Also, bear in mind that the IRA have satisfied the ICLVR in co-operating in finding the bodies of the Disappeared.

So contrary to what you speculate the weight of evidence suggests they will co-operate.

The evidence that two governments have abjectly failed in delivering on their commitments to an international agreement is quite strong.

Could it be because they are afraid that the IRA and SF will live up to their promise and people will see that they are genuinely interested in securing the peace and fear the upsurge in their support? All the two governments have to do to finish them off is call their bluff.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Speculation.

Nothing could be more damaging than the current position.
SF and the IRA have repeatedly said they are willing to take part and there is absolutely no evidence to say they won't.
In fact the evidence suggest they will. Adams promised to deliver for the Stacks and he did. The IRA told the Stacks as much as they promised to tell.

Also, bear in mind that the IRA have satisfied the ICLVR in co-operating in finding the bodies of the Disappeared.

So contrary to what you speculate the weight of evidence suggests they will co-operate.

The evidence that two governments have abjectly failed in delivering on their commitments to an international agreement is quite strong.

Could it be because they are afraid that the IRA and SF will live up to their promise and people will see that they are genuinely interested in securing the peace and fear the upsurge in their support? All the two governments have to do to finish them off is call their bluff.

What would be the point of a 'truth commission' while Gerry Adams is still at the helm of SF/IRA...?
The man has zero credibility, nobody believes a single word he says any more but you know that already...

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

What would be the point of a 'truth commission' while Gerry Adams is still at the helm of SF/IRA...?
The man has zero credibility, nobody believes a single word he says any more but you know that already...

You are speaking for 'everybody' again Billy.

What did he say about the Stack case that lacked credibility? He told Austin Stack what he would do and arrange for him, he did this according to Stack, who thanked him and criticised 3 Garda investigations in the process.

Stack subsequently changed his goals and 'demanded' more. Something he and everybody paying attention should have known Adams couldn't deliver on, because he has been saying it since 1998 or so.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are speaking for 'everybody' again Billy.

What did he say about the Stack case that lacked credibility? He told Austin Stack what he would do and arrange for him, he did this according to Stack, who thanked him and criticised 3 Garda investigations in the process.

Stack subsequently changed his goals and 'demanded' more. Something he and everybody paying attention should have known Adams couldn't deliver on, because he has been saying it since 1998 or so.

What bit of what he said about his brother raping his niece did you find credible...?

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

What bit of what he said about his brother raping his niece did you find credible...?

I found the evidence he gave in court that helped to convict the rapist very compelling.

Back to the Stack case, what credibility problem have you there? Did Adams do what he said he would?