Does anyone actually believe that Gerry Adams wasn't in the IRA?

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why do you believe it is uncontestable? It is so contestable that political commentators even coined a phrase for it. Sinn Fein’s Peace Dividend.

Words like uncontestable (sic) Have a specific meaning.

What?

SF outstripped the SDLP, completely decimated them in fact. They were NOT at zero when the GFA was signed.

It suits those who have a onesided view of events to portray it as the electorate rewarding SF for the IRA's decommissioning.

They casually and disingenuously ignore the fact that nobody, least of all, SDLP support, was immediately convinced that the violence was over. That belief took a long time to bed in.

The electorate in NI know that the SDLP were not behind the Hume-Adams talks at the start and that they forced him to do a solo run. They didn't forget that when the plaudits and jumping on bandwagons began.

If you believe that the view that Sinn Fein were rewarded electorally for ending the campaign of violence is a very one sided view, it is a view shared by the vast majority of observers of northern politics.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you believe that the view that Sinn Fein were rewarded electorally for ending the campaign of violence is a very one sided view, it is a view shared by the vast majority of observers of northern politics.

Yeh the same 'vast majority' that give credit to the SDLP for the GFA...when in fact they criticised Hume's initiative and forced him to do it as a solo project.

It's not hard to see where you got your education on these things from. Dig a bit deeper.

maccored

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh the same 'vast majority' that give credit to the SDLP for the GFA...when in fact they criticised Hume's initiative and forced him to do it as a solo project.

It's not hard to see where you got your education on these things from. Dig a bit deeper.

I thought it was hilarious that Trimble got a nobel prize for his part

tipptom

blanch152 wrote: »

Nasty disingenuous slandering of Mairia Cahill. Not surprised.

The veil slips again.

As if you give a F*ck about Maria Cahill.

Disingenuous doesn't even come close to you pretending you give a damn about a dissident republican and what she went through.

skallywag

maccored wrote: »

RTE started that lark

RTE had nothing to do with it, it was the law at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988–94_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions

Danzy

skallywag wrote: »

RTE had nothing to do with it, it was the law at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988–94_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions

One of the voice over people in the BBC went on to act in Coronation street.

skallywag

Danzy wrote: »

One of the voice over people in the BBC went on to act in Coronation street.

Now that's an interesting one! At he risk of derailing the thread, who was that exactly?

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you believe that the view that Sinn Fein were rewarded electorally for ending the campaign of violence is a very one sided view, it is a view shared by the vast majority of observers of northern politics.

Yeh the same 'vast majority' that give credit to the SDLP for the GFA...when in fact they criticised Hume's initiative and forced him to do it as a solo project.

It's not hard to see where you got your education on these things from. Dig a bit deeper.

Your analysis is easily deconstructed. If the rise in support for Sinn Fein is explained simply by “achieving” for their constituents and some sort of backlash against the SDLP what accounts for the 850% rise in support for SF in the south post GFA if not the “peace dividend” that you dismiss?

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Your analysis is easily deconstructed. If the rise in support for Sinn Fein is explained simply by “achieving” for their constituents and some sort of backlash against the SDLP what accounts for the 850% rise in support for SF in the south post GFA if not the “peace dividend” that you dismiss?

Hard work at ground level and the steady fall in the share of the vote enjoyed by the power share parties. Other things were happening btw, so maybe brush up on the context too?

SF simply grew the party after deciding to get involved with the ballot box. One of Gerry's initiatives, I believe.

There is tremendous bitterness about that among the usual suspects here and in the media and established parties, who like to attribute it to something else.
Hilariously biased and mis-informed.

Danzy

skallywag wrote: »

Now that's an interesting one! At he risk of derailing the thread, who was that exactly?

Terry Duckworth, he was Vera's son. Was in it for a lot of the 80s.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Your analysis is easily deconstructed. If the rise in support for Sinn Fein is explained simply by “achieving” for their constituents and some sort of backlash against the SDLP what accounts for the 850% rise in support for SF in the south post GFA if not the “peace dividend” that you dismiss?

Hard work at ground level and the steady fall in the share of the vote enjoyed by the power share parties. Other things were happening btw, so maybe brush up on the context too?

SF simply grew the party after deciding to get involved with the ballot box. One of Gerry's initiatives, I believe.

There is tremendous bitterness about that among the usual suspects here and in the media and established parties, who like to attribute it to something else.
Hilariously biased and mis-informed.

Biased and misinformed? From a thread full of people arguing over whether Gerry Adams was in the IRA or not and whether Sinn Fein benefited electorally from abandoning the armed struggle. I hate to use the cliche but this thread is comedy gold, as all threads where the republican contortionists try to argue black is white by the most convoluted Heath Robinson logic. I’m coming to the conclusion that most of ye are just having a laugh.

Sinn Fein support was falling in the south for almost a decade until a sudden “peace dividend” following the GFA when you say support for the power share parties was decreasing. This was the Bertie era of almost overall majorities. Even casually watching Reeling in the Years would tell you that.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Biased and misinformed? From a thread full of people arguing over whether Gerry Adams was in the IRA or not and whether Sinn Fein benefited electorally from abandoning the armed struggle. I hate to use the cliche but this thread is comedy gold, as all threads where the republican contortionists try to argue black is white by the most convoluted Heath Robinson logic. I’m coming to the conclusion that most of ye are just having a laugh.

Sinn Fein support was falling in the south for almost a decade until a sudden “peace dividend” following the GFA when you say support for the power share parties was decreasing. This was the Bertie era of almost overall majorities. Even casually watching Reeling in the Years would tell you that.

Here is what you are sying in a nutshell:
People who were against the IRA all the way through the conflict immediately rewarded SF after the GFA (at the expense and decimation of the SDLP) even though it was an incredibly fragile/fraught process, with no guarantees whatsoever that it was truly over. And recognising that during that process the IRA had broken the ceasefire.
That the electorate gave that amount of trust for the reason you stated, is just simply not credible, no matter what your selected commentators tell you.

Ask your self is that reason for a switch in support a 'credible' point of view.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Biased and misinformed? From a thread full of people arguing over whether Gerry Adams was in the IRA or not and whether Sinn Fein benefited electorally from abandoning the armed struggle. I hate to use the cliche but this thread is comedy gold, as all threads where the republican contortionists try to argue black is white by the most convoluted Heath Robinson logic. I’m coming to the conclusion that most of ye are just having a laugh.

Sinn Fein support was falling in the south for almost a decade until a sudden “peace dividend” following the GFA when you say support for the power share parties was decreasing. This was the Bertie era of almost overall majorities. Even casually watching Reeling in the Years would tell you that.

Here is what you are sying in a nutshell:
People who were against the IRA all the way through the conflict immediately rewarded SF after the GFA (at the expense and decimation of the SDLP) even though it was an incredibly fragile/fraught process, with no guarantees whatsoever that it was truly over. And recognising that during that process the IRA had broken the ceasefire.
That the electorate gave that amount of trust for the reason you stated, is just simply not credible, no matter what your selected commentators tell you.

Ask your self is that reason for a switch in support a 'credible' point of view.

Of course. Voters voting for SF to reward them and encourage them to, for God’s sake not return to violence. If you mine the election data you can see SF becoming less toxic for transfers in the south and northern PR elections.

ToddyDoody

What would Gerry Adams have been doing in the IRA?

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Of course. Voters voting for SF to reward them and encourage them to, for God’s sake not return to violence. If you mine the election data you can see SF becoming less toxic for transfers in the south and northern PR elections.

People do not do things like that by nature, not when the process was so fragile and could easily have degenerated back into conflict.

The plausible reason is that people simply saw who actually delivered for them and that took time as the GFA bedded in.(witness Unionist outrage that nationalists were getting everything. That realisation didn't go over nationalist heads either) My dad was an SDLP man and I know what his thinking was. He never believed that anyone would get the British to a table on equal terms, and was frustrated by the SDLP's efforts. He, had he lived, would have been one of the converts to SF, of that I have no doubt. Simply because they delivered that - equal status.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Of course. Voters voting for SF to reward them and encourage them to, for God’s sake not return to violence. If you mine the election data you can see SF becoming less toxic for transfers in the south and northern PR elections.

People do not do things like that by nature, not when the process was so fragile and could easily have degenerated back into conflict.

The plausible reason is that people simply saw who actually delivered for them and that took time as the GFA bedded in.(witness Unionist outrage that nationalists were getting everything. That realisation didn't go over nationalist heads either) My dad was an SDLP man and I know what his thinking was. He never believed that anyone would get the British to a table on equal terms, and was frustrated by the SDLP's efforts. He, had he lived, would have been one of the converts to SF, of that I have no doubt. Simply because they delivered that - equal status.

Well that is your take on it and that is fair enough. In my opinion it is more plausible that SF benefited from an electoral peace dividend for the reasons I have outlined on both sides of the border and were immediately rewarded by the electorate precisely because it was so fragile. Electorate success would encourage buy in to the peace process from hardliners wavering and SDLP voters were cognisant of that.
The electorate is always much more sophisticated than given credit for.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Well that is your take on it and that is fair enough. In my opinion it is more plausible that SF benefited from an electoral peace dividend for the reasons I have outlined on both sides of the border and were immediately rewarded by the electorate precisely because it was so fragile. Electorate success would encourage buy in to the peace process from hardliners wavering and SDLP voters were cognisant of that.

SF bought into the process from the start, the SDLP tacitly expelled Hume and made him make the talks a solo run.
The core SDLP simply didn't trust SF, but you are trying to make the case that they turned their back on the SDLP and immediately trusted and continue to trust SF.
Doesn't compute tbh.

The electorate is always much more sophisticated than given credit for.

Except when they are voting for SF. Plenty of the usual suspects on here have expressed that particular 'bewilderment'. :D

maccored

skallywag wrote: »

RTE had nothing to do with it, it was the law at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988–94_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions

Correct - but my point was that RTE was the first station to ban the voices of SF or senior republican figures. The British law came in and took affect on the bbc in 1988.

MikeSoys

was gerry not picked ..only because of 2 points..1. he was smart enough to be a crafty politician 2. no public info or video of his membership where he broke the law?

Sinbad_NI

MikeSoys wrote: »

was gerry not picked ..only because of 2 points..1. he was smart enough to be a crafty politician 2. no public info or video of his membership where he broke the law?

Actually 3. He was the boss.

Odhinn

maccored wrote: »

Correct - but my point was that RTE was the first station to ban the voices of SF or senior republican figures. The British law came in and took affect on the bbc in 1988.

...and british journalists immediately took measures to get around the ban.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not so, they didn't stand down with things as was. We had a Good Friday Agreement, (thanks in part to the armed struggle) which facilitated that. An agreement fought for by all sides except some dissidents, one of which was made a Senator by FG/Lab. So if you want to talk about people hanging on to the way it was before the GFA, talk to FG/Lab. The way it stands, FF and SF are the only main political parties that haven't cosied up to any dissidents.
So Gerry was a 'RA man?

Some other dissidents or ex - Provos are reminding us all of their handy work and expertise during the week then they kidnapped and tortured a Director of Quinn Insurance.
They broke his leg in two places, beat him within an inch of his life and removed a number of fingernails like they are savage animals. This a man, with 6 small children at home, who was just out-earning his crust of bread like most ordinary people in Ireland.

No mention of those lads, eh Matt, but Maria Cahill, a rape victim gets a mention.
The mask not only slips, it never really existed.

markodaly

ToddyDoody wrote: »

What would Gerry Adams have been doing in the IRA?

He was in charge of the annual Christmas party and was responsible for looking after the cash box. He dipped in and out of being a member of the Social Club Committee.

I hear the go-Karting outing he organised in the Spring of 1978 was great crack.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Some other dissidents or ex - Provos are reminding us all of their handy work and expertise during the week then they kidnapped and tortured a Director of Quinn Insurance.
They broke his leg in two places, beat him within an inch of his life and removed a number of fingernails like they are savage animals. This a man, with 6 small children at home, who was just out-earning his crust of bread like most ordinary people in Ireland.

No mention of those lads, eh Matt, but Maria Cahill, a rape victim gets a mention.
The mask not only slips, it never really existed.

Did you believe a fairy tale that crime would disappear if the IRA went away Mark?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you believe a fairy tale that crime would disappear if the IRA went away Mark?

Ah, Francie with another strawman.

No, crime is part of society, alas.

Ex paramilitaries types getting hired as violent goons to attack and torture a father of six is not 'normal' no matter how much straw you want to throw at it.

You are around that direction yourself, but I guess you think what happened on Tuesday night is a 'normal' part of everyday petty crimes that happen all around the country.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, Francie with another strawman.

No, crime is part of society, alas.

Ex paramilitaries types getting hired as violent goons to attack and torture a father of six is not 'normal' no matter how much straw you want to throw at it.

You are around that direction yourself, but I guess you think what happened on Tuesday night is a 'normal' part of everyday petty crimes that happen all around the country.

'Crime is normal...but this one isn't because I want to have a pop at something nebulous'.

Fattybojangles

Of course he was in it never done a tap though too much of a coward quite happy to send idealistic young men out to die though

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Crime is normal...but this one isn't because I want to have a pop at something nebulous'.

Ah christ Francie, grow up for once. We are not talking here about stealing a Mars bar.

A neighbor of yours was kidnapped, beaten, stabbed and tortured by hired ex-Provo goons and here you are trying to score points on the internet.

Have a go at your mate, MattBarrett as he brought up the idea of dissidents when he wanted to have a pop at a rape victim.
Or maybe, get off the net and try and help your border community, it sure seems like it needs it.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Ah christ Francie, grow up for once. We are not talking here about stealing a Mars bar.

What is it you are trying to say Mark? That nobody has ever been beaten up or viciously killed anywhere else in Ireland...not to mention elsewhere?

You did read a fairytale! :rolleyes:

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Ah christ Francie, grow up for once. We are not talking here about stealing a Mars bar.

A neighbor of yours was kidnapped, beaten, stabbed and tortured by hired ex-Provo goons and here you are trying to score points on the internet.

Have a go at your mate, MattBarrett as he brought up the idea of dissidents when he wanted to have a pop at a rape victim.
Or maybe, get off the net and try and help your border community, it sure seems like it needs it.

you may get on to the guards there markodaly - you obviously seem to have inside information other people dont

FrancieBrady

maccored wrote: »

you may get on to the guards there markodaly - you obviously seem to have inside information other people dont

I think Paul Williams gets an extra fiver everytime he can wedge the word 'paramilitary' into a sentence.

weldoninhio

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Nah, everyone knows he was in it up to his neck. He doesn't really have the toughness or hard exterior Martin had so its hard to visualise this seemingly mind mannered barman being so influential or feared but he obviously had something about him that maybe we didn't see.

I don't know who said it of him that there was "something of the night in Gerry Adams" meaning he was a dark and sinister figure. I agree with that, hes just off in every way. Psychopathic.

21% of all CEO's are psychopathic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2016/09/16/gene-marks-21-percent-of-ceos-are-psychopaths-only-21-percent/

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No veil to slip. I've posted on that numerous times. She is affiliated with FG, nasty maybe, but slander it is not. You use her and Jean McConville when discussing the weather ffs..

You have repeatedly slandered the woman over a brief time associated with dissidents when she was very vulnerable having been raped and abused by republicans associated with Sinn Fein and subjected to the trauma of a kangaroo court.

It makes for nauseating reading.

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

if they had no support they would have all been caught. use your head - people wouldn't have protected and hid them otherwise.

Oh yes - sure they were all forced to :rolleyes:

Just like the people going around torturing employees of QIH don't seem to be caught. Are you saying that the people of Fermanagh and Monaghan support the attack on Kevin Lunney?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You have repeatedly slandered the woman over a brief time associated with dissidents when she was very vulnerable having been raped and abused by republicans associated with Sinn Fein and subjected to the trauma of a kangaroo court.

It makes for nauseating reading.

By not using the word 'allegedly' in front of 'raped and abused' you have done a bit of slandering yourself.

Regardless of what you personally believe or what I personally believe about what happened, a man was prepared to go into a court and defend himself against these allegations.
Did somebody mention 'kangaroo courts' in the same sentence as they themselves assumed guilt? :rolleyes:

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Hold on, with absolutely no intention of diminishing what happened to Mairia Cahill....what part of referring to her as a dissident with regards to the GFA, or stating that she was stood as a senator by Labour is in any way slanderous? Those are both factual statements.

Blanch, you're a fierce one for pulling in certain names when it suits the agenda to put down SF, in fact I don't believe anyone has mentioned her as much as you on Boards. Don't stoop down to rank hypocrisy.

I suppose I'll be accused of 'defending' SF for pointing that out...

tipptom wrote: »

As if you give a F*ck about Maria Cahill.

Disingenuous doesn't even come close to you pretending you give a damn about a dissident republican and what she went through.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mairia-cahill-dissidents-2440794-Nov2015/

Mairia Cahill has fully explained her time with dissident republicanism - a matter of a few months - when she was vulnerable as a result of the way that Gerry Adams treated her, yet you have posters repeatedly coming on here and labelling her as a dissident for their own snide purposes.

Sinn Fein sympathisers try to deflect her cogent and accurate criticism of Sinn Fein by disingenuous references to her brief flirtation with dissident republicanism.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By not using the word 'allegedly' in front of 'raped and abused' you have done a bit of slandering yourself.

Regardless of what you personally believe or what I personally believe about what happened, a man was prepared to go into a court and defend himself against these allegations.
Did somebody mention 'kangaroo courts' in the same sentence as they themselves assumed guilt? :rolleyes:

I believe the woman was raped and abused. Do you?

So no need for allegedly.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF bought into the process from the start, the SDLP tacitly expelled Hume and made him make the talks a solo run.
The core SDLP simply didn't trust SF, but you are trying to make the case that they turned their back on the SDLP and immediately trusted and continue to trust SF.
Doesn't compute tbh.

Except when they are voting for SF. Plenty of the usual suspects on here have expressed that particular 'bewilderment'. :D

More revisionism.

Sinn Fein kept up support for punishment beatings, kangaroo courts, killings, bombings and other atrocities while pretending to be talking peace.

It was only as the IRA was falling apart that they came seriously to the table.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I believe the woman was raped and abused. Do you?

So no need for allegedly.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe blanch. A man is willing to go into court to defend the allegations against him.

If you had any real interest in human rights you would automatically use the word 'alleged' just as I use it when talking about the Dublin/Monaghan bombings for instance. British collusion there is an 'allegation' and as yet unproven.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/mairia-cahill-dissidents-2440794-Nov2015/

Mairia Cahill has fully explained her time with dissident republicanism - a matter of a few months - when she was vulnerable as a result of the way that Gerry Adams treated her, yet you have posters repeatedly coming on here and labelling her as a dissident for their own snide purposes.

Jesus. It's always Gerry's fault in blanch's wee world. Funny stuff.

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

Ah christ Francie, grow up for once. We are not talking here about stealing a Mars bar.

A neighbor of yours was kidnapped, beaten, stabbed and tortured by hired ex-Provo goons and here you are trying to score points on the internet.

Have a go at your mate, MattBarrett as he brought up the idea of dissidents when he wanted to have a pop at a rape victim.
Or maybe, get off the net and try and help your border community, it sure seems like it needs it.

The only credible hypothesis is that that crime was committed by ex-republicans and that they are being sheltered by the local communities in Fermanagh, Cavan and Monaghan.

Unless it was an alien abduction, there is no other believable explanation for what happened.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus. It's always Gerry's fault in blanch's wee world. Funny stuff.

You must hate the #metoo movement that actually believes women.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/mairia-cahill-demands-withdrawal-of-sick-gerry-adams-cookbook-37201134.html

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The only credible hypothesis is that that crime was committed by ex-republicans and that they are being sheltered by the local communities in Fermanagh, Cavan and Monaghan.

Unless it was an alien abduction, there is no other believable explanation for what happened.

Wots an 'ex-republican' when they are at home? :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You must hate the #metoo movement that actually believes women.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/mairia-cahill-demands-withdrawal-of-sick-gerry-adams-cookbook-37201134.html

I am willing to believe anybody blanch.

Ideally, that is why we have justice systems.
You just correctly derided kangaroo courts but have been spouting the outcome of one you held with yourself as judge and jury.

Hypocritical? Yep, you sure are.

maccored

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think Paul Williams gets an extra fiver everytime he can wedge the word 'paramilitary' into a sentence.

isnt that the lad who claims to be from the west of ireland, then claims to be 'local' to fermanagh etc etc - and he's really from Leitrim ....

JohnnyFlash

It’s threads like this that make me so thankful I’m not a Shinner. The defence of the indefensible, the moral emptiness, the tacit acceptance of criminality. Ghouls.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

Just like the people going around torturing employees of QIH don't seem to be caught. Are you saying that the people of Fermanagh and Monaghan support the attack on Kevin Lunney?

the Quinn attack isnt related to the PIRA and the conflict blanch152, no matter how much you wish it was

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

More revisionism.

Sinn Fein kept up support for punishment beatings, kangaroo courts, killings, bombings and other atrocities while pretending to be talking peace.

It was only as the IRA was falling apart that they came seriously to the table.

they built the fecken table along with Hume - jaysus talk about revisionism! You seem to be expert at that

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It’s threads like this that make me so thankful I’m not a Shinner. The defence of the indefensible, the moral emptiness, the tacit acceptance of criminality. Ghouls.

Ha ha...the big bad 'Shinners' are found guilty of the attack on Kevin Lunney in another kangaroo court. :D:D

You really couldn't make this stuff up.

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

the Quinn attack isnt related to the PIRA and the conflict blanch152, no matter how much you wish it was

maccored wrote: »

if they had no support they would have all been caught. use your head - people wouldn't have protected and hid them otherwise.

Oh yes - sure they were all forced to :rolleyes:

There are distinct parallels, brought up by you.

You claim that SF/IRA had support because the terrorists weren't caught because they were protected and hidden.

In all the attacks on QIH, the same applies.

Either the people of Fermanagh, Cavan and Monaghan secretly supported, protected and hid both the IRA and the QIH terrorists (and they are terrorists too) or neither.