Gerry Adams Maze Escape convictions quashed - time for quid pro quo?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF are not responsible for republicanism. They are responsible for their party.

They have been honest about what they think should happen and I happen to agree.
Waiting forty years to get one side to admit they did wrong is torturous and counterproductive. The only way is everybody commit to a Truth process.

Nothing else is going to work, that I can see.

Come on SF can't have one foot in and one foot out. SF know 'good republicans.'

They vary from Des Long to Slab Murphy to Brian Gillan. All 'associated' with SF. But unelected.

Personally I can't fathom why SF don't do a clean out. Especially when Republicans attack republicans. Or are you saying SF only have control when others 'allow' them to?
How does it work.

Because I only vote for people who I think are being honest. Not those who are protecting others and not telling the truth. Simple as.

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

This IMC??

In November 2007, the Independent Monitoring Commission's John Grieve, stated that "We do believe that those involved ... included people who are members or former members, or have associations with members or former members, of the Provisional IRA."[7]

The full paragraph:

The International Monitoring Commission (IMC) said the 21-year-old was beaten to death by people who had been “associated with the PIRA at a local level, including as members of the organisation”.

However, the Commission said the murder was “contrary to the instructions and strategy of the leadership of PIRA.

The murder was contrary to the interests of PIRA and to those of Sinn Féin. We are aware of no evidence linking the leadership of PIRA to the incident.''

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Come on SF can't have one foot in and one foot out. SF know 'good republicans.'

They vary from Des Long to Slab Murphy to Brian Gillan. All 'associated' with SF. But unelected.

Personally I can't fathom why SF don't do a clean out. Especially when Republicans attack republicans. Or are you saying SF only have control when others 'allow' them to?
How does it work.

Because I only vote for people who I think are being honest. Not those who are protecting others and not telling the truth. Simple as.

who I think are being honest

They are 'honest' if they tell me what I want to hear, you mean.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

who I think are being honest

They are 'honest' if they tell me what I want to hear, you mean.

Rubblish there is such a thing as body language and tone of voice.
I look at all those.
I like honest people I would vote for Des Long before Adams for instance.
Whose claims have been backed up by numerous sources. It was all over Kieran Conway's book. Republicans hated Adams.

Are you telling me that SF cannot be seen to be honest? Do we have to wait 40 years like the way Gerry had to wait for his verdict?

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Rubblish there is such a thing as body language and tone of voice.
I look at all those.
I like honest people I would vote for Des Long before Adams for instance.
Whose claims have been backed up by numerous sources. It was all over Kieran Conway's book. Republicans hated Adams.

Are you telling me that SF cannot be seen to be honest? Do we have to wait 40 years like the way Gerry had to wait for his verdict?

What lies did MLMD tell...she clearly (to me) didn't have the info ...and when it was presented to her, she didn't double down, deny or equivocate, she immediately accepted she was wrong. And she was wrong.

John Hutton

Mc Guinness always claimed he left the IRA after he was convicted and jailed in the early 70s.

The IRA apologised for civilian deaths numerous times including in 2002 a general apology.

So that's that then if Cameron's apology is the last word the Brits need.

The reality is is that the SF naysayers, for better or worse, have lost this battle of history and ideas. In twenty years the provos will be looked at the same as the anti treaty IRA were after a few years of Dev in power.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The full paragraph:

The International Monitoring Commission (IMC) said the 21-year-old was beaten to death by people who had been “associated with the PIRA at a local level, including as members of the organisation”.

However, the Commission said the murder was “contrary to the instructions and strategy of the leadership of PIRA.

The murder was contrary to the interests of PIRA and to those of Sinn Féin. We are aware of no evidence linking the leadership of PIRA to the incident.''

I was wondering would you play that card. The key is "contrary to the interests of PIRA" . I have no doubt no-one rang Gerry and asked permission to beat another boy to death. Like Robert McCartney or any of the other random killings and beatings since the "Peace Process" it is "contrary to the interests" of Adams and Co so the standing orders to murder all round are withdrawn. The local lads however retain the right to kill or maim anyone who stands up to them or upsets them. And sure easy enough to deny it or say it wasn't "authorised" (cos if it was in the interests of PIRA there would be no problem at all . ) Its not as if there is a register of members in the companies office and anyone can check who is a member. Like all thug criminal outfits, Kinihan gang , Hutch gang , Gucci gang, Sinn Fein/ IRA you cant keep an eye on all the lads all the time - and sure if you spill their pint what do you expect. Poor Mary Lou was "horrified and surprised" when Jonathan Dowdall was caught torturing some bloke. You cant really watch them all can you?

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

I was wondering would you play that card. The key is "contrary to the interests of PIRA" . I have no doubt no-one rang Gerry and asked permission to beat another boy to death. Like Robert McCartney or any of the other random killings and beatings since the "Peace Process" it is "contrary to the interests" of Adams and Co so the standing orders to murder all round are withdrawn. The local lads however retain the right to kill or maim anyone who stands up to them or upsets them. And sure easy enough to deny it or say it wasn't "authorised" (cos if it was in the interests of PIRA there would be no problem at all . ) Its not as if there is a register of members in the companies office and anyone can check who is a member. Like all thug criminal outfits, Kinihan gang , Hutch gang , Gucci gang, Sinn Fein/ IRA you cant keep an eye on all the lads all the time - and sure if you spill their pint what do you expect. Poor Mary Lou was "horrified and surprised" when Jonathan Dowdall was caught torturing some bloke. You cant really watch them all can you?

Sorry...that made zero sense to me. And it's too late to be deciphering it.

ShatterAlan

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Gerry Adams Maze convictions quashed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52646688

No doubt this will be a tremendous propaganda coup for SF. Justice and so on against the British establishment. But I believe much better use could be made of it.

I cannot help thinking that his may be a chance for Republicanism to make thier own gesture towards restoring justice for the likes of Paul Quinn and Maria Cahill. And many others.

I believe now is the time for quid pro quo from Republicanism on such issues.

I mean isn't it time republicanism came clean rather than absolving itself and making excuses for horrific actions - where the victims of republicanism have yet to get justice?

I was watching a programme about Albert Speer - of Nazi fame.

I was struck by how a lot of the self-absolution and tricks of the mind to avoid guilt could also be applied to SF. For example Gerry Adams said he was never in the IRA, plays the line that any death is terrible. But at the same time justified death for the republican conflict.

In my view I think this is opportunity for SF to take another step towards growing up and getting its own house in order.
Rather than having poor Mary Lou having to lie and play the party line when it comes to awkward questions on the past. She seems to struggle with it from a conscious point of view. But Gerry Adams has claimed it was not his conscious that such things happened. And it was the British responsibility at the end of the day.

Campaigns of colonial occupation and oppression are always met with resistance. That resistance isn't like some Hollywood fairytale along the lines of Red Dawn. They are messy, vicious, brutal affairs where innocent civilians are the ones who suffer the most at the hands of both occupier and resistor alike. To think otherwise is naive. It is how the occupier crushes the will of the civilian population and it is how the resistor protects itself by eliminating spies and collaborators but also how to scare the populace into either supporting them or being ambivalent but never to go against them.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So to shorten your post: Because the British have been proven to have acted wrongly (after 40 years...again!)you want SF to tell you stuff that chimes with your narrative of events and only your narrative?

So a SF supporter comes in to say something broadly in favor of SF, and the other SF supporters clap.

What's the idea, people quibble with the specifics, and then we have a back and forth which revolves around people being biased either in favor or against SF? Quibbling with the specifics is a complete waste of time anyway when Adams was in the IRA yet none of his supporters admit that (they just wink at the camera like sleeveens).

I think it's healthier if we don't discuss this at all. I mean it would be healthier still if it was discussed thoroughly and openly, but there's no hope of that. All discussion involving the IRA (no not that IRA or the other IRA, but that IRA. Yeah, that one. Also the other IRA. You can throw in the more recent IRA too) becomes entirely schizophrenic .

You have civilians, pretending to be soldiers, who pretend they weren't pretending to be soldiers, who have allegiance to a government that doesn't exist, get elected to a government they don't recognize, who use the name of organisations they have really no historical connection to. How are we meant to discuss that rationally? We aren't, and the SF cabal definitely aren't interested in it. Let's just move on.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

So a SF supporter comes in to say something broadly in favor of SF, and the other SF supporters clap.

What's the idea, people quibble with the specifics, and then we have a back and forth which revolves around people being biased either in favor or against SF? Quibbling with the specifics is a complete waste of time anyway when Adams was in the IRA yet none of his supporters admit that (they just wink at the camera like sleeveens).

I think it's healthier if we don't discuss this at all. I mean it would be healthier still if it was discussed thoroughly and openly, but there's no hope of that. All discussion involving the IRA (no not that IRA or the other IRA, but that IRA. Yeah, that one. Also the other IRA. You can throw in the more recent IRA too) becomes entirely schizophrenic .

You have civilians, pretending to be soldiers, who pretend they weren't pretending to be soldiers, who have allegiance to a government that doesn't exist, get elected to a government they don't recognize, who use the name of organisations they have really no historical connection to. How are we meant to discuss that rationally? We aren't, and the SF cabal definitely aren't interested in it. Let's just move on.

'Move on' to where?

Incidentally, I don't know if Adams was in the IRA or not, and I don't care. I have long been of the opinion that it may have been a tactical move not to be so as not to spend long periods in jail when there was an important role to play outside.
Now we see the lengths they went to get him in jail, that sounds like a masterstroke of tactical planning.

John Hutton

RandomName2 wrote: »

So a SF supporter comes in to say something broadly in favor of SF, and the other SF supporters clap.

What's the idea, people quibble with the specifics, and then we have a back and forth which revolves around people being biased either in favor or against SF? Quibbling with the specifics is a complete waste of time anyway when Adams was in the IRA yet none of his supporters admit that (they just wink at the camera like sleeveens).

I think it's healthier if we don't discuss this at all. I mean it would be healthier still if it was discussed thoroughly and openly, but there's no hope of that. All discussion involving the IRA (no not that IRA or the other IRA, but that IRA. Yeah, that one. Also the other IRA. You can throw in the more recent IRA too) becomes entirely schizophrenic .

You have civilians, pretending to be soldiers, who pretend they weren't pretending to be soldiers, who have allegiance to a government that doesn't exist, get elected to a government they don't recognize, who use the name of organisations they have really no historical connection to. How are we meant to discuss that rationally? We aren't, and the SF cabal definitely aren't interested in it. Let's just move on.

If you have any actual evidence that Adams was in the IRA perhaps you should report it to the police?

The only criminal activity Adams was ever convicted of was the two attempts he made to escape from Long Kesh. And now, those convictions have been rescinded and the criminals were those who jailed him.

Adams has a clear legal history now with no convictions, an innocent man, vindicated after a ten year legal campaign

No doubt he will get a big cheque too, (nice time to get it too as he retires) and so will an approximate 200 or so other (mainly) nationalist and Republican prisoners.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Move on' to where?

People who vote SF have long made their peace with the criminal activities that its older members got up to. They really don't care about the details, so there's not a huge amount of point discussing them. It's particularly unedifying when discussion of the details ends up with SF supporters getting moany about victims families, whipping out the 800 years card, or straight up lying. It's not something I want to be party to, and anyone with a shred of decency shouldn't want to either.

SF is a major political force, and with the coming recession are probably going to rise in popularity. The only middle ground that both sides can meet on is discussing the political manifesto and current actions of the party. I think they are also somewhat disingenuous about their manifesto, but that's at least an area that can be discussed.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Incidentally, I don't know if Adams was in the IRA or not, and I don't care.

This is what being honest sounds like

John Hutton wrote: »

If you have any actual evidence that Adams was in the IRA perhaps you should report it to the police?

The only criminal activity Adams was ever convicted of was the two attempts he made to escape from Long Kesh. And now, those convictions have been rescinded and the criminals were those who jailed him.

Adams has a clear legal history now with no convictions, an innocent man, vindicated after a ten year legal campaign

This is what being disingenuous sounds like, and no good conversations can come out of it.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

People who vote SF have long made their peace with the criminal activities that its older members got up to. They really don't care about the details, so there's not a huge amount of point discussing them. It's particularly unedifying when discussion of the details ends up with SF supporters getting moany about victims families, whipping out the 800 years card, or straight up lying. It's not something I want to be party to, and anyone with a shred of decency shouldn't want to either.

SF is a major political force, and with the coming recession are probably going to rise in popularity. The only middle ground that both sides can meet on is discussing the political manifesto and current actions of the party. I think they are also somewhat disingenuous about their manifesto, but that's at least an area that can be discussed.

There isn't a single place in the world where this hasn't happened. Including here.
It isn't a callousness or evil, it is a case of coming to terms with a conflict/war that hurt two communities hugely.

I never said the IRA did things that were justified...my view is that NONE of it was justified but it happened anyway.
It is also not my view that there were not ordinary acts of criminality and those acts should be treated as such.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

People who vote SF have long made their peace with the criminal activities that its older members got up to. They really don't care about the details, so there's not a huge amount of point discussing them. It's particularly unedifying when discussion of the details ends up with SF supporters getting moany about victims families, whipping out the 800 years card, or straight up lying. It's not something I want to be party to, and anyone with a shred of decency shouldn't want to either.

SF is a major political force, and with the coming recession are probably going to rise in popularity. The only middle ground that both sides can meet on is discussing the political manifesto and current actions of the party. I think they are also somewhat disingenuous about their manifesto, but that's at least an area that can be discussed.



This is what being honest sounds like



This is what being disingenuous sounds like, and no good conversations can come out of it.

Their very existence was criminal ffs. Looking to judge an organisation that saw itself as freedom fighters in a war of survival on the same basis you would the average man on the street today is a nonsense. They stood for the nationalist community when their supposed democratic system wouldn't.
The general non-SF member public voted SF and likely they previously voted FG or FF in other elections. And proof of that is how the tide turns each election.

John Hutton

RandomName2 wrote: »

People who vote SF have long made their peace with the criminal activities that its older members got up to. They really don't care about the details, so there's not a huge amount of point discussing them. It's particularly unedifying when discussion of the details ends up with SF supporters getting moany about victims families, whipping out the 800 years card, or straight up lying. It's not something I want to be party to, and anyone with a shred of decency shouldn't want to either.

SF is a major political force, and with the coming recession are probably going to rise in popularity. The only middle ground that both sides can meet on is discussing the political manifesto and current actions of the party. I think they are also somewhat disingenuous about their manifesto, but that's at least an area that can be discussed.



This is what being honest sounds like



This is what being disingenuous sounds like, and no good conversations can come out of it.

It is an amazing display of hypocrisy when people decry illegal activities, cite the rule of law, condemn kangaroo courts yet readily have their own kangaroo courts where they summarily convict Adams of crimes of which the regular courts have not even tried and the police have no evidence of.

If one is truly for the rule of law then you cannot call Adams a criminal (or any other innocent person) as this is for the courts to determine.

Should you have any evidence that he or anyone else has broken the law it should be reported to the police.

gormdubhgorm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Campaigns of colonial occupation and oppression are always met with resistance. That resistance isn't like some Hollywood fairytale along the lines of Red Dawn. They are messy, vicious, brutal affairs where innocent civilians are the ones who suffer the most at the hands of both occupier and resistor alike. To think otherwise is naive. It is how the occupier crushes the will of the civilian population and it is how the resistor protects itself by eliminating spies and collaborators but also how to scare the populace into either supporting them or being ambivalent but never to go against them.

And so you are justifying the oppressed becoming the oppressor in other words?

Another poster put it way better than I would have 'civilians pretending to be soldiers, pretending not be soldiers, representing states they don't recognise'.
Mad when you think of it.

As I said maybe some SF supporters get a kick out of this. But I believe Republican's are missing a trick.

And the Adams news means it is chance to be more open and honest. Speak in a normal open manner. Otherwise it remains like a Hollywood fairy-tale where it is double speak, half-truths, and excuses.
That does republicanism a disservice and the ROI electorate.
It helps no one, to move on.

It is actually an insult to the signatories of the proclamation of independence as I said earlier. Who said they would cherish all the children of the nation equally.
How can that be done when Republicans cannot be even honest among themselves? Never mind honesty with others outside republicanism?

From the tone of a lot of the posts in this thread it appears many have really bought into 'republican speak' themselves and are unwilling or unable to move beyond it. They must stick to the party line.
It must be a torturous on the mind. But each to thier own.
I hope the 'day will come' where most republicans no longer have to be disingenuous and speak in riddles and half truth.
The British may have done a lot of things wrong, but they have shown they can move on. Why can't republicans?

Fuascailteoir

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

And so you are justifying the oppressed becoming the oppressor in other words?

Another poster put it way better than I would have 'civilians pretending to be soldiers, pretending not be soldiers, representing states they don't recognise'.
Mad when you think of it.

As I said maybe some SF supporters get a kick out of this. But I believe Republican's are missing a trick.

And the Adams news means it is chance to be more open and honest. Speak in a normal open manner. Otherwise it remains like a Hollywood fairy-tale where it is double speak, half-truths, and excuses.
That does republicanism a disservice and the ROI electorate.
It helps no one, to move on.

It is actually an insult to the signatories of the proclamation of independence as I said earlier. Who said they would cherish all the children of the nation equally.
How can that be done when Republicans cannot be even honest among themselves? Never mind honesty with others outside republicanism?

From the tone of a lot of the posts in this thread it appears many have really bought into 'republican speak' themselves and are unwilling or unable to move beyond it. They must stick to the party line.
It must be a torturous on the mind. But each to thier own.
I hope the 'day will come' where most republicans no longer have to be disingenuous and speak in riddles and half truth.
The British may have done a lot of things wrong, but they have shown they can move on. Why can't republicans?

Does it count as moving on when dragged kicking and screaming through the courts

gormdubhgorm

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

Does it count as moving on when dragged kicking and screaming through the courts

At least was movement and an end result. Justice was given and no one else was killed after the kicking and screaming bit.

I just would like to SF to take a queue from the British and do the right thing, as well.
Be the real liberator of thier own people. Do right by them, give them justice.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

And so you are justifying the oppressed becoming the oppressor in other words?

Another poster put it way better than I would have 'civilians pretending to be soldiers, pretending not be soldiers, representing states they don't recognise'.
Mad when you think of it.

Mad. when you think that is exactly how the state you live in came about.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mad. when you think that is exactly how the state you live in came about.

Again you are deflecting. But Des Long is honest and transparent. Dan Breen was honest and transparent.
Why has SF become double talking sleeveens?

Who speak of social justice on the one hand.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mary-lou-mcdonald-fianna-fail-1728796-Oct2014/

But go against it on the other.

The party against homelessness. But also have members/supporters who have caused homelessness through republican intimidation. Who are protected against the rule of law.

Example: Maria Cahill said suffered homelessness because of Republican intimidation.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mairia-cahill-homeless-in-debt-1748503-Oct2014/

Also SF is the party who is supposed to be against the 'greedy' property developers and so on. Better housing for all and so on.

But we need only look at proud republican (turned property developer) Tom McFeely to see more Republican hypocrisy. He even was willing to be a British citizen to avoid bankruptcy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/10/tom-mcfeely-hunger-striker-property-bankrupt

https://www.thejournal.ie/priory-hall-whats-happening-1067402-Sep2013/

https://extra.ie/2019/09/17/business/irish/e50m-cost-of-redeveloping-priory-hall-is-five-times-original-estimate

I am reminded of this:

"For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it fame
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it fame
For what flowed Irelands blood in rivers,
That began when Brian chased the Dane,
And did not cease nor has not ceased,
With the brave sons of '16,
For what died the sons of Róisín, was it fame
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it greed
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it greed
Was it greed that drove Wolfe Tone to a paupers death in a cell of cold wet stone?
Will German, French or Dutch inscribe the epitaph of Emmet?
When we have sold enough of Ireland to be but strangers in it.
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it greed
To whom do we owe our allegiance today
To whom do we owe our allegiance today
To those brave men who fought and died that Róisín live again with pride?
Her sons at home to work and sing,
Her youth to dance and make her valleys ring,
Or the faceless men who for Mark and Dollar,
Betray her to the highest bidder,
To whom do we owe our allegiance today
For what suffer our patriots today
For what suffer our patriots today
They have a language problem, so they say,
How to write "No Trespass" must grieve their heart full sore,
We got rid of one strange language now we are faced with many, many more,
For what suffer our patriots today"

None what very recently happened was in the distant past it is all recent 21st century SF.
So how do you excuse it?
What is the mental trick you will use?
To me it is hypocrisy at it's worst.

Again I repeat SF have a chance to give something back, stop being sleeveen's.
And be decent human beings.
The British are doing it as in the Adams case. It should be SF's turn.
Make a real statement of intent to the ROI electorate.

John Hutton

Tom McFeely was savaged by SF at the time particularly in their newspaper An Phoblacht to the extent McFeely rang up threatening them. Even a basic google will tell you this.

If one wants to talk about McFeely you should direct your attention to Anthony McIntyre who was employed by him as a foreman. Anthony McIntyre of course loaths SF and was involved in the Boston tapes disaster.

John Hutton

Like Kelly was a Marxist Leninist so no, he probably wouldn't be a fan of modern SF

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Again you are deflecting. But Des Long is honest and transparent. Dan Breen was honest and transparent.
Why has SF become double talking sleeveens?

Who speak of social justice on the one hand.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mary-lou-mcdonald-fianna-fail-1728796-Oct2014/

But go against it on the other.

The party against homelessness. But also have members/supporters who have caused homelessness through republican intimidation. Who are protected against the rule of law.

Example: Maria Cahill said suffered homelessness because of Republican intimidation.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mairia-cahill-homeless-in-debt-1748503-Oct2014/

Also SF is the party who is supposed to be against the 'greedy' property developers and so on. Better housing for all and so on.

But we need only look at proud republican (turned property developer) Tom McFeely to see more Republican hypocrisy. He even was willing to be a British citizen to avoid bankruptcy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/10/tom-mcfeely-hunger-striker-property-bankrupt

https://www.thejournal.ie/priory-hall-whats-happening-1067402-Sep2013/

https://extra.ie/2019/09/17/business/irish/e50m-cost-of-redeveloping-priory-hall-is-five-times-original-estimate

I am reminded of this:

"For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it fame
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it fame
For what flowed Irelands blood in rivers,
That began when Brian chased the Dane,
And did not cease nor has not ceased,
With the brave sons of '16,
For what died the sons of Róisín, was it fame
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it greed
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it greed
Was it greed that drove Wolfe Tone to a paupers death in a cell of cold wet stone?
Will German, French or Dutch inscribe the epitaph of Emmet?
When we have sold enough of Ireland to be but strangers in it.
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it greed
To whom do we owe our allegiance today
To whom do we owe our allegiance today
To those brave men who fought and died that Róisín live again with pride?
Her sons at home to work and sing,
Her youth to dance and make her valleys ring,
Or the faceless men who for Mark and Dollar,
Betray her to the highest bidder,
To whom do we owe our allegiance today
For what suffer our patriots today
For what suffer our patriots today
They have a language problem, so they say,
How to write "No Trespass" must grieve their heart full sore,
We got rid of one strange language now we are faced with many, many more,
For what suffer our patriots today"

None what very recently happened was in the distant past it is all recent 21st century SF.
So how do you excuse it?
What is the mental trick you will use?
To me it is hypocrisy at it's worst.

Again I repeat SF have a chance to give something back, stop being sleeveen's.
And be decent human beings.
The British are doing it as in the Adams case. It should be SF's turn.
Make a real statement of intent to the ROI electorate.

Transparent?

The files containing what was done during the conflicts that saw the birth of this very state were LOCKED UP until a few years ago, until everyone involved was dead.

Transparent he says

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Transparent?

The files containing what was done during the conflicts that saw the birth of this very state were LOCKED UP until a few years ago, until everyone involved was dead.

Transparent he says

Yet again slippery deflection taking my point out of context. I mean men like Breen and Longs involvement in the IRA of various guises.
They are/were honest and upfront. Has that level of honesty disappeared from Republicanism? To the extent that not only are lives still cheap in the 21st century for SF. The of main importance is sleeveen use of word play. It now seems paramount with core SF and supporters. Honesty has vanished.

It is all about alternate motives, protect the core of SF who support the current leadership from any wrongdoing, at all costs. Sleeveen'ism not real Republicanism anymore.

Maybe I am too naive to expect SF to do the decent thing? As seen by this thread it all a game and a laugh to many. Sad to see particularly in the current global crisis. I would question if many have a conscious at all?

It is not about doing the morally right thing even in the 21st century even in this current climate. Instead is about staunch SF supporters playing with words, double speak. And acting the sleeveen. It is fairly upsetting.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yet again slippery deflection taking my point out of context. I mean men like Breen and Longs involvement in the IRA of various guises.

They could talk about it without fear of being thrown in jail.
Jesus, would you get real gormdubh.

You and others want a onesided process...it IS NOT going to happen.


The only way it will work if everyone is around the table (Being dragged into court and told what the right thing to do was, is not being 'transparent btw) in a transparent TRUTH recovery process.

Call for that and quit with the onesided nonsense.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They could talk about it without fear of being thrown in jail.
Jesus, would you get real gormdubh.

You and others want a onesided process...it IS NOT going to happen.


The only way it will work if everyone is around the table (Being dragged into court and told what the right thing to do was, is not being 'transparent btw) in a transparent TRUTH recovery process.

Call for that and quit with the onesided nonsense.

Both men are/were honest about thier republicanism unlike many republicans associated with SF today.

You already said that you think that the murderers of Paul Quinn should go to jail for example. But I get the impression you only say this because you know they are far too well protected in Republican circles/community. Ditto the rape of Maria Cahill - well protected.
You seem to have a large disdain for the Irish legal system north or south. You come out with the outlandish comment that the legal system is not transparent. Ridiculous on many levels and an insult to the state in which you reside.

If SF are going to go into 'senior hurling' in DE they have to prove it to the ROI electorate.
Some comrádaí have to be given up to the authorities. No matter how 'connected' thier families are.
If they are real republicans they would 'take one for the team'.

You say the process is onesided against SF. But in my opinion it is clearly weighted against the ROI and the British government. While SF do very little but play up to Health, Housing and so on in the ROI, to get votes. And then use it as a platform to turn to partition question. Which was rarely focused on during the election.

The British give justice (like in Adams case) and what do SF do in return?
Nothing, faic.
As an Irishman I am ashamed that they call themselves Irish, if that is the tactic.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Both men are/were honest about thier republicanism unlike many republicans associated with SF today.

How do you know they are being honest?

You already said that you think that the murderers of Paul Quinn should go to jail for example. But I get the impression you only say this because you know they are far too well protected in Republican circles/community. Ditto the rape of Maria Cahill - well protected.

If SF are going to go into 'senior hurling' in DE they have to prove it to the ROI electorate.
Some comrádaí have to be given up to the authorities. No matter how 'connected' thier families are.
If they are real republicans they would 'take one for the team'.

You say the process is onesided against SF. But in my opinion it is clearly weighted towards the ROI and the British government. While SF do very little but play up to Health, Housing and so on in the ROI .to get votes. And then use it as a platform to turn to partition question. Which was rarely focused on during the election.

The British give justice (like in Adams case) and what do SF do?
Nothing, faic.
As an Irishman I am ashamed that they call themselves Irish, if that is the tactic.

'The British' have not given justice to Adams or the Bloody Sunday victims yet.
The token soldier still has to stand trial and a court ruled in Adams favour...They have not delivered anything to Adams or the others.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you know they are being honest?

'The British' have not given justice to Adams or the Bloody Sunday victims yet.
The token soldier still has to stand trial and a court ruled in Adams favour...They have not delivered anything to Adams or the others.

At least there is some on going process. I do not see SF doing anything even for thier own people who have suffered at thier supporters/members hands.
It is sickening. SF slowly chip away at the British getting justice and so on.
Fair play.

But the only thing at is being chipped away for the likes of Paul Quinn's family or Maria Cahill is thier faith in human decency, and justice. SF and those within and around SF well know who these people are. But protect them.

If that is the type of Republic SF are going to bring into the ROI. It is a sad day in the history of the state if the electorate ever put them in government.

"Building an Ireland of equals" indeed.....

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

At least there is some on going process. I do not see SF doing anything even for thier own people who have suffered at thier supporters/members hands.
It is sickening. SF slowly chip away at the British getting justice and so on.
Fair play.

But the only thing at is being chipped away for the likes of Paul Quinn's family or Maria Cahill is thier fate in human decency, and justice. SF and those within SF well know who these people are. But protect them.

If that is the type of Republic SF are going to bring into the ROI it is a sad day in the history of the state if the electorate ever put them in government.
"Building an Ireland of equals" indeed.....

Maira Cahills alleged abuser turned up in court as did all the others alleged to defend themselves.
What is it you want there?

The IMC, PSNI know who killed Paul Quinn, SF and the IRA were not involved...what do you require there?