Gardaí: Provo Army Council oversees PIRA & SF

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

No. That's not what the report said.
The army council of the IRA are still in position & they direct the IRA & Sinn Fein.
Now, if they were politically active in Sinn Fein, they would be legitimate members of a political party.
They are not.
That is the problem.

But the IRA no longer exist as an active organisation. It's pretty obvious to me that the people, membership would be heavily involved with SF.
I would imagine if things went awry up north and we saw a return to violence it would include many of the same people.
I don't see the point or need for an IRA when politically like minded people have Sinn Fein and it's peace time, is all.

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

The idea. I don't like the idea FG working for private profits above the tax payer. So I guess we vote based on gut. That said Harris had absolutely no business, nor did wee Harris or Varadkar inferring to the Irish public that the IRA still existed and controlled Sinn Fein. It's at best unprofessional.

I'm a taxpayer, I work for private profit.
I want a Govt working for me to make my private profit.
The day we get a Govt here that doesent work for people to make private profit is the day we close down ireland.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

But the IRA no longer exist as an active organisation. .

That is not what the PSNI/Gardai have said.

They have said that the IRA no longer exists as an active terrorist organisation.

Secret societies aren't illegal, only if they do something illegal. Controlling a political party from the outside may not be illegal, but it certainly is undemocratic.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'm a taxpayer, I work for private profit.
I want a Govt working for me to make my private profit.
The day we get a Govt here that doesent work for people to make private profit is the day we close down ireland.

Very important part here:

above the tax payer.

Putting the needs of private entities above those of the tax payer. Deals that don't favour the tax payer or give value for money and the like.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

That is not what the PSNI/Gardai have said.

They have said that the IRA no longer exists as an active terrorist organisation.

Secret societies aren't illegal, only if they do something illegal. Controlling a political party from the outside may not be illegal, but it certainly is undemocratic.

No it's not. You don't have to be elected to be part of forming a party's strategy or policy. Every single party would engage in such things bringing in advisors and the like.

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

Very important part here:



Putting the needs of private entities above those of the tax payer. Deals that don't favour the tax payer or give value for money and the like.

Again, I am one. A housing policy as SF are talking isn't in my interest, let alone feasible.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is not what the PSNI/Gardai have said.

They have said that the IRA no longer exists as an active terrorist organisation.

Secret societies aren't illegal, only if they do something illegal. Controlling a political party from the outside may not be illegal, but it certainly is undemocratic.

So if it isn't illegal, why can we not be told what form this 'control' takes then?


Again you run out of any logical reason why perfectly normal activity is something to worry about...unless of course you are worried about something else...losing control of power.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Again, I am one. A housing policy as SF are talking isn't in my interest, let alone feasible.

That's grand.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again you run out of any logical reason why perfectly normal activity is something to worry about...unless of course you are worried about something else...losing control of power.

Anonymous terrorists directing a political party, from outside the state?
I don't know why anyone would have an issue with that..........

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Anonymous terrorists directing a political party, from outside the state?
I don't know why anyone would have an issue with that..........

They are not... according to blanch and the AGS 'the IRA no longer exists as an active terrorist organisation'.

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

Anonymous terrorists directing a political party, from outside the state?
I don't know why anyone would have an issue with that..........

Impossible. No terrorists and MI5/Harris seem to know the players involved. Also their names would likely appear in party minutes or you could look at the SF Christmas Card mailing list.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are not... according to blanch and the AGS 'the IRA no longer exists as an active terrorist organisation'.

Still terrorists, maybe taking a sabbatical.
What do you call someone who kills someone else..... Oh a murderer, maybe that would be better.

If you believe that former terrorists can no longer be called terrorists, then lets call them murderers. Once you commit murder, you are always a murderer

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are not... according to blanch and the AGS 'the IRA no longer exists as an active terrorist organisation'.

"Not currently active" doesn't mean "gone away forever".

Stop twisting people's arguments. You have a reputation on here for that.

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

Still terrorists, maybe taking a sabbatical.
What do you call someone who kills someone else..... Oh a murderer, maybe that would be better.

If you believe that former terrorists can no longer be called terrorists, then lets call them murderers. Once you commit murder, you are always a murderer

So once a terrorist always a terrorist? Nelson Mandela? Is ML still a FF'er? Did anyone tell the IRA folk this during the GFA? Are the RUC still directing the PSNI or would that be different? Is Patrick Stewart a cast member of STTNG or Picard???? :rolleyes:

Agreed. If they murdered they'd be murderers. Former terrorists though. Like ex-Paras.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Still terrorists, maybe taking a sabbatical.
What do you call someone who kills someone else..... Oh a murderer, maybe that would be better.

If you believe that former terrorists can no longer be called terrorists, then lets call them murderers. Once you commit murder, you are always a murderer

blanch152 wrote: »

"Not currently active" doesn't mean "gone away forever".

Stop twisting people's arguments. You have a reputation on here for that.

And the boys pivot again to 'We think they might be 'terrorists' again.

Fabulous.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the boys pivot again to 'We think they might be 'terrorists' again.

Fabulous.

It's a farce which was redelivered five years later to do damage to the political rivals of FF/FG. Disgusting coming from the Garda head and sadly expected at this stage from the political leaders of the country.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

So once a terrorist always a terrorist? Nelson Mandela? Is ML still a FF'er? Did anyone tell the IRA folk this during the GFA? Are the RUC still directing the PSNI or would that be different? Is Patrick Stewart a cast member of STTNG or Picard???? :rolleyes:

Agreed. If they murdered they'd be murderers. Former terrorists though. Like ex-Paras.

Nelson Mandela turned to politics, legitimately.
As for the rest of your rambling!

If they were former terrorists, who had put illegality behind them, they would have disbanded the army council & taken up legitimate positions in political parties.

That's what former terrorists do.
The fact that they can't do that & still want to hold some power & control over a political party is not a good sign.

Until Sinn Fein rid themselves of this, they are always going to be seen with suspicion.

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

Nelson Mandela turned to politics, legitimately.
As for the rest of your rambling!

If they were former terrorists, who had put illegality behind them, they would have disbanded the army council & taken up legitimate positions in political parties.

That's what former terrorists do.
The fact that they can't do that & still want to hold some power & control over a political party is not a good sign.

Until Sinn Fein rid themselves of this, they are always going to be seen with suspicion.

But not any members of Sinn Fein who were in the IRA and signed up to the GFA? What should they do to be 'legitimate'?
That's your opinion. Mine is former terrorists, (or are you saying they are terrorists, the flip flopping is tough to follow) who were always engaged with SF, IMO, are now involved with SF and differing levels but no longer in the IRA. I don't see the problem or the news in that.
Agreed. But their DNA requires the association of former IRA members IMO. They should not rid themselves of what and who they stand for IMO.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

But not any members of Sinn Fein who were in the IRA and signed up to the GFA? What should they do to be 'legitimate'?
That's your opinion. Mine is former terrorists, (or are you saying they are terrorists, the flip flopping is tough to follow) who were always engaged with SF, IMO, are now involved with SF and differing levels but no longer in the IRA. I don't see the problem or the news in that.
Agreed. But their DNA requires the association of former IRA members IMO. They should not rid themselves of what and who they stand for IMO.

Members who are now members of Sinn Fein & were in the IRA, are legitimate members of a political party.
They are no longer part of a terrorist organization.
The members on their IRA army council are still members of an unauthorised organisation.
You see the difference?

I don't have an issue with someone who has turned to politics & put terrorism behind them.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Members who are now members of Sinn Fein & were in the IRA, are legitimate members of a political party.
They are no longer part of a terrorist organization.
The members on their IRA army council are still members of an unauthorised organisation.
You see the difference?

I don't have an issue with someone who has turned to politics & put terrorism behind them.

So the AC is, according to you, controlling a political party in the south and the AGS and PSNI know it. An Army Council is certainly illegal, yet no arrests by the PSNI and our Taoiseach is advocating that the party they are controlling be in government.

Sound like the plot from a novel...a far fetched ridiculous novel tbh.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the AC is, according to you, controlling a political party in the south and the AGS and PSNI know it. An Army Council is certainly illegal, yet no arrests by the PSNI and our Taoiseach is advocating that the party they are controlling be in government.

Sound like the plot from a novel...a far fetched ridiculous novel tbh.

Not at all Francis
Sounds very believable
I know you like to make it up to sound unbelievable.
The army council have always been around, of course they don't want to lose their positions.
They are in charge & that's the way they like it.

BTW, that's not according to me, it's according to security services

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

Members who are now members of Sinn Fein & were in the IRA, are legitimate members of a political party.
They are no longer part of a terrorist organization.
The members on their IRA army council are still members of an unauthorised organisation.
You see the difference?

I don't have an issue with someone who has turned to politics & put terrorism behind them.

I do. However how can you be a member of an army council when there's no army?
Is Drew Harris still in the RUC? I'd say not.

Me neither. I welcome it. It's a pity our current care taker government don't respect that or the GFA.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Not at all Francis
Sounds very believable
I know you like to make it up to sound unbelievable.
The army council have always been around, of course they don't want to lose their positions.
They are in charge & that's the way they like it.

BTW, that's not according to me, it's according to security services

That Leo is a moral coward in allowing this...I agree.

More and more of the public are calling bull**** on this bad novel BB...carry on.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

I do. However how can you be a member of an army council when there's no army?
Is Drew Harris still in the RUC? I'd say not.

Me neither. I welcome it.

Do you not believe the security services in this state?

The Army Council exist.

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

Do you not believe the security services in this state?

Like they exist? Yes. I've seen them about. I know one of their member quite well. Really nice chap.
Do I believe they are above reproach and don't suffer from all the strengths and weaknesses that other organisations do? No.

EDIT:

The Army Council exist.

No they don't. They can't. There are people who were former army council likely engaged with SF, sure. If that's what Harris meant he should have clarified instead of providing too much sugar for the babas in FG.

McMurphy

bubblypop wrote: »

Anonymous terrorists directing a political party, from outside the state?
I don't know why anyone would have an issue with that..........

Especially Leo.

This side of his mouth>>> Sinn Fein are controlled by the IRA army council.
This side of his mouth<<<<Sinn Féin need to govern the country.

Leo has detailed knowledge of a political party being controlled by an illegal operation, and is advocating they're running the country.

You couldn't make it up. :pac:

dxhound2005

Bowie wrote: »

If that's what Harris meant he should have clarified instead of providing too much sugar for the babas in FG.

There's the conspiracy theory again. And you should be grateful for it. In fact as I said before it looks more like a SF conspiracy now. Because they were the ones who gained popularity from the subject being raised in Templemore.

I don't think it was a conspiracy on either side. Someone would have to be so devious as to imagine the journalists conspired with FG and the Commissoner. Or that they conspired with SF. Can people not just see that it was a perfectly legitimate question to ask, when Mary Lou was going for Taoiseach? And timing of the newspaper poll was coincidental.

James Brown

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There's the conspiracy theory again. And you should be grateful for it. In fact as I said before it looks more like a SF conspiracy now. Because they were the ones who gained popularity from the subject being raised in Templemore.

I don't think it was a conspiracy on either side. Someone would have to be so devious as to imagine the journalists conspired with FG and the Commissoner. Or that they conspired with SF. Can people not just see that it was a perfectly legitimate question to ask, when Mary Lou was going for Taoiseach? And timing of the newspaper poll was coincidental.

No it's not and don't be so dishonest as to make such a claim.
'If that's what he meant he should have clarified', is that the conspiracy theory? You're talking through your balaclava.
A limp attempt to use a post as a jumping off point for a SF rant. You could have just posted your rant you know?

We've seen media bias. It was in print for all to see. I don't know what conspiracy theory you are alluding to. Nobody has suggested Harris, in cahoots with Varadkar and the press all conspired to attack SF. And suggesting anyone did so you can debunk it is pathetic.

It's a non-story used to scaremonger.

dxhound2005

Bowie wrote: »

We've seen media bias. It was in print for all to see. I don't know what conspiracy theory you are alluding to. Nobody has suggested Harris, in cahoots with Varadkar and the press all conspired to attack SF. And suggesting anyone did so you can debunk it is pathetic.

Next thing you will be telling me that nobody said that the journalists had no right to ask the question. Or that nobody said that the Commissioner should just have kept his mouth shut when he was asked. The conspiracy theory has been going all through the thread. Which is that it was a set up to damage Sinn Fein.

FrancieBrady

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Next thing you will be telling me that nobody said that the journalists had no right to ask the question. Or that nobody said that the Commissioner should just have kept his mouth shut when he was asked. The conspiracy theory has been going all through the thread. Which is that it was a set up to damage Sinn Fein.

What's so hard to believe?
It literally involves two people to get that story on the front page...the GC and a journalist primed to as the right question.

Did you see the two docs over the last two nights and the amount of people involved there to make sure of an outcome?

I don't know if it was a conspiracy or not, but if you wanted to suggest it, it isn't beyond credibility by any means.