[BBC News] Chuckies take ball; Go home

Sand

Actually this now means that the Chuckies are rolling back on their commitments to the GFA agreement. Does that mean the murderers released under it can be rearrested and made serve the remainder of their terms?

I dont know honestly if thats what it legally means. Thats what it should mean, as the releases were dependant on ceasefires of the organisations they joined.

But given the haphazard fudged wording of everything relating to this deal I wouldnt be surprised if it wasnt legally possible to re-arrest these "community activists".

Either way, the governments should stay strong and maybe let it be leaked that theyre investigating the preperations that would be required to return the IRAs early release crinimals to jail to serve the remainder of their sentence. That and maybe entertain the possibility of the CAB launching the mother of all audits on anyone linked with the IRA, especially the Army Council. Remind the IRA why its in their interests to play nice.

true

Why are the chuckies not playing ball ? Is it too profitable to smuggle and steal ? Now they have all their members out of prison in the North are they just regrouping? Some watchtowers along the border have been dismantled, and the RUC has been replaced with the PSNI, with a far less effective special branch. Do the chuckies think they have got as much as they can and its time for the guns + bombs to come out? Lets hope not.

Did the presidents controversial remark a week ago encourage the chuckies at all ?
After all, if some of the chuckies enemies could be compared to the Nazis by the very President of Ireland, who could blame the chuckies for resuming their armed struggle ?
Perhaps the chuckies would have felt they had less of a mandate if the President had compared the Nazis to the provo. IRA instead?

m1ke

How can both governments be expected to pussy foot around the issue of criminality. The level of professional crime the IRA are involved with extends beyond just the bank robbery(and if you think they didn't commit the bank robbery you are simply a fool) - they run most of the organised crime(drug dealing, smuggling, racketeering etc...) on this island and give out the scraps to everyone else. Added to this the brutal punishment beatings on a regular basis.

Instead of acting in a more conciliatory manner as one does in a peace process, the IRA's actions simply confirm that their interests and institutional cohesion are served by a network of illegal activities that sustain their survival. The pillars of their organisation are 1)The political wing 2)The paramilitary wing 3)The economic wing(crime, fund raising). Without this pillar of activity(their economic base) the organisations dealing in soft power(SF) and hard power(paramilitary) support would become eroded.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Mighty_Mouse

<DEIRL>1. Tell the IRA they have vindicated the suspicious stance of the Unionists
2. Tell them they have let down the people who voted for the agreement.
3. Tell them that should they return to violence the GFA is null and void and every criminal we let out in good faith during the past 7 years is going back to finish their sentences.<DEIRL>

1. David, how in the name of god can you say the unionist stance is vindicated? They had no intentions of sharing power even with the IRA offering to announce disbandment.

2. I accept that if the IRA returns to war, then they can't not be part of the problem. But surely you must admit that the people who have let this agreement down time and time again for the last 6-7 years has not been republicans? Please in your bitter hatred of republicans at least accept the failings of the british & irish governments and most of all unionism.

3. What agreement? Where's the new agreement implemented? We have no power-sharing, no democracy (hence process towards complete social equality, right to express nationalism freely), no police force worth mentioning, continued opposition to fair investigations of colusion, continued oppression of catholics for marches, continued loyalist activity. I mean WHAT F.cuking agreement? All republicans are asking for is that the bloody agreement be fully implemented!

As for prisoner release's. Do you honestly think that republicans are really motivated by prison, seeing as they have been willling to take the chance of going there throughout the history of our nation.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Slutmonkey57b

Again, the republicans start to whinge that it's all "somebody else's fault" that they're threatening to start killing us again.

The Irish people voted, in a democratic referendum, that the IRA had no business threatening to kill us anymore. It's time SF and/or the IRA started getting it through their heads that being on ceasefire for the past few years is NOT something we should be thanking them for - it's our simple human rights not to be subject to vigilante justice. They should be thanking us for talking to them at all as opposed to spitting at them in the street for being murdering scumbags.

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The Unionists have never had any real intention in sharing power with SF. All the extra add-ons/bolt-ons/clarifications/demands/conditions have proved this.

billy the squid

gandalf wrote:

Actually this now means that the Chuckies are rolling back on their commitments to the GFA agreement. Does that mean the murderers released under it can be rearrested and made serve the remainder of their terms?

I would hazard a guess that they would be left free in the faint hope that the IRA might come back to the table. It would probably take another canary wharf type incedent to have them re-arrested again.

Slutmonkey57b

Note: I have no time for the unionists whinging that it's "all the republican's fault" either. Both sides are equally stupid. But the idea that the unionists had "no intention" of sharing power could have easily been proven true had the republicans done what the people of Ireland asked them to do - namely give up the guns. By not doing that they have effectivly handed the unionists all the excuse they need to stall things.

I repeat:
Both sides are equally stupid.

gandalf

To be honest here neither side in this are blameless. They are both like a nervous child who has outgrown his comfort blanket but is unwilling to let it go.

I am sick and tired of our time being taken up by people who cannot sort their own differences out like adults, I am sick and tired of our politicians having this problem used as an excuse to distract them from running this state and sorting out real problems like our pathetic health service and an infrastructure that is holding back our economy.

The really sad thing is that the Northern Irish Nationalist/Republicans have more in common with the Unionists up there than the majority of citizens of this country (with the exception of the apologists down here of course!).

As far as I am concerned there was an agreement in place, the IRA have now broken it (in multiple occurances) and therefore the people released based on this agreement should be re-imprisioned.

true

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Note: I have no time for the unionists whinging that it's "all the republican's fault" either. Both sides are equally stupid.

By republicans I take it Slutmonkey57b means the republican terrorists / IRA ?
Fianna Fail are republicans but nobody is blaming them , and rightfully so in fairness.

People who think it's "all the republican's fault" are not necessarily unionists.
I think everyone in these islands ( except Sinnn Fein / IRA), as well as abroad, wanted the provos to prove decommissioning by at least showing a photo or two, never mind actually giving up some guns, anti-tank missiles or semtex, but they refused to.

oscarBravo

In other threads I asked the question: what do the IRA want weapons for? The question was usually deflected with the non-answer that they have offered to decommission.

Now that the offer has been withdrawn and replaced with a thinly-veiled (nay, barely-veiled) threat, I reiterate the question: what do the IRA want with their weapons?

A Dub in Glasgo

The weapons are a bargaining tool to trade off for implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. They always have been in this process.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The weapons are a bargaining tool to trade off for implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. They always have been in this process.

That's a rather blasé way of glossing over the real significance of the weapons. If you subsititute "threat of terrorism" for "weapons" in your first sentence, you begin to get a picture of what civilised people find distasteful about the IRA and their apologists.

A Dub in Glasgo

Maybe blasé to your good self but it is the truth. The truth is not nice sometimes and we do not live in a cotton wool wrapped world. The GFA effectively enshrined the principle of quid pro quo.

Blub2k4

A bit of proof regarding the robbery would have been nice. But it seems every one here is happy to believe the RUC with regards to this. Maybe if they applied the knowledge they have, which seems pretty certain if they deem it weighty enough to tell all and sundry, to secure a few convictions. Then come back and tell us the IRA are involved.
Normal standards of proof dont seem to apply in a post 9-11 world.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Maybe blasé to your good self but it is the truth. The truth is not nice sometimes and we do not live in a cotton wool wrapped world.

I have this funny, idealistic, cotton-wool-wrapped concept of "negotiation" where various considerations are offered in various amounts, in exchange for various other considerations. Like haggling over a horse, say. There's give and take on both sides. Usually the outcome is both parties grumbling about being ripped off, but inwardly rather pleased at the outcome.

You seem to be comfortable with the "truth" of a world where negotiation means one party saying to the other: "I'm taking your horse, and in return I won't kill you and your family." To most right-thinking people, negotiations that involve the threat of force are nothing more than armed robbery.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The GFA effectively enshrined the principle of quid pro quo.

In my naive little world, "quid pro quo" doesn't involve threatening to kill, destroy and maim if I don't get my way. But hey, what do I know?

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote:

Now that the offer has been withdrawn and replaced with a thinly-veiled (nay, barely-veiled) threat, I reiterate the question: what do the IRA want with their weapons?

Maybe to defend the threat from the much larger armed loyalists who are still armed and no sign of disarming and would kill innocents at the drop of a hat.
PSNI/Army have too much blood on their hands to be effective against them ?
A nationalist living up there would give you a better answer rather than the likes of us living cosily in the south.

Mighty_Mouse

bigger than the Unionists and just disarm

They did.Fair and square under agreed terms...........as for "complete disarment". Its the old how long is a piece of rope thing.
What they did offer is disbandment, personally i think that check-mates the decommissioning problem

They could easily back them into a corner

come david. your a smart guy. Do you honestly think the goal post would of actually stopped moving long enough to get powersharing?

So why was the release of the McCabe murderers such a stumbling block?

Full implementation of the GFA was the stumbling block. the McCabe IRA guys was part and parcel of full and complete implementation.

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

the McCabe IRA guys was part and parcel of full and complete implementation.

Not that old chessnut again...
You or anybody else have never been able to show that those guys were not excluded from the GFA.

cdebru

m1ke wrote:

How can both governments be expected to pussy foot around the issue of criminality. The level of professional crime the IRA are involved with extends beyond just the bank robbery(and if you think they didn't commit the bank robbery you are simply a fool) - they run most of the organised crime(drug dealing, smuggling, racketeering etc...) on this island and give out the scraps to everyone else. Added to this the brutal punishment beatings on a regular basis.

Instead of acting in a more conciliatory manner as one does in a peace process, the IRA's actions simply confirm that their interests and institutional cohesion are served by a network of illegal activities that sustain their survival. The pillars of their organisation are 1)The political wing 2)The paramilitary wing 3)The economic wing(crime, fund raising). Without this pillar of activity(their economic base) the organisations dealing in soft power(SF) and hard power(paramilitary) support would become eroded.

have you any proof for any of this other than you read it in the sunday indo
were are the republicans who have been convicted of drug smuggling name some please.This is touted on a regular basis that the IRA are in volved in drug smuggling /dealing but where in the last 30 years has any IRA or suspected IRA member been convicted of involvement in drug dealing


I don't know wether the IRA did or didn't rob the northern bank and I can gaurantee the only way you could know for a fact that they did is if you were one of the gang involved
what I do know is that they issued a P o Neil signed statement saying they did not rob the bank
the leadership of the republican movement have said whoever did rob the bank are criminals
Now the whole peace process is threatened because people are insistiing that it was the IRA but can offer no proof to back up their claims six weeks after the robbery they cant even find the van

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

Now the whole peace process is threatened because people are insistiing that it was the IRA but can offer no proof to back up their claims six weeks after the robbery they cant even find the van

(1) if there is a police/Garda hunch as to who is involved six weeks is not a long time for an on-going investigation-you dont seriously expect them to name names when they are still investigating the matter??
If your house was robbed or some other crime was committed against you-you would hardly expect the Gardaí to name names in public and therby allowing the prime suspects an opportunity to escape-now would you?

This mantra that names should be named is silly.

(2) The other problem I see with your position is that the vast majority of people in the Republic of Ireland have respect for the opinion of the Gardaí in the matter and when they can point the finger, people will listen and the government certainly have to listen.
So you have the respected Gardaí and the vast majority of politicians pointing the finger at an organisation-and that organisation denies it -then you have a credibility gap.
Of course the opinion of the Gardaí is going to hold more weight and rightly so.

(3)The finger pointed at the IRA has obviously annoyed Ahern given that he is of the view that the Republican political leadership is or in his view *should* be ofay with what is going on in the military grouping.

Interestingly it seems, that the Republican political leadership has noticed this and has seen the need for the first time to distance themselves completely as opposed to partially from the IRA.
Now of course theres also loads of speculation as to whats going on within that movement but a total divorce as has been hinted at by Adams and McGuinness yesterday leaves the released IRA prisoners in a very vulnerable position.
Thats because if that group go back to "war" their licenced release will run the risk of being withdrawn and theres not a thing SF can do about it without making a nonsense of their new policy of being separate.

I'd imagine thats not going to go down well at grass roots republican level.

m1ke

On drug dealing:
The one's convicted are cut free from the organisation if found, they're on their own. Sometimes their own members are executed after kangaroo trials if suspected of drug dealing - does this add to their legitimacy? Absolutely not... their organisation acts as a lubricant to perpetuate criminality at all levels, whether consciously(in the lower ranks) or unconciously(at the to leadership level, these people obviously need to be able to PLAUSIBLY DENY offences.

On proof:
I can say I know beyond resonable doubt they did it(reasonable doubt is more then a good enough reason when dealing with an organisation that has killed thousands of people in these last few years).

These are some of the reasons: Firstly, two democratically elected governments have said so on the advice of 2 separate networks of intelligence... the level of public scrutiny and the structure of our democracies and international relations with the UK make it extremely unlikely that they're cooperating in lying here. I find it much more likely that a criminal paramilitary organisation with a long track record of lying is the one accountable here, it lacks all the normal safe gaurds that peaceful democracies have when coming to decisions. Secondly, it fits with their previous actions. Thirdly, they have the motive, method and ability to carry this out, where probably no one else has. Fourthly, because P O'Neill says something doesn't mean its true - past statements have been bare faced scum sucking lies.... such as the denial of the murder of garda mccabe. It doesn't take an einstein to figure this one out.


On what the IRA say:
These people actually believe in their head that they're at war... that is what makes them different from the rest of us. Therefore, whatever they say is coloured by their own definitions(where we see murder, they see just cause etc..). Don't believe a word of what they say and people like cdebru need to stop being bare faced apologists for these actions.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

(1) if there is a police/Garda hunch as to who is involved six weeks is not a long time for an on-going investigation-you dont seriously expect them to name names when they are still investigating the matter??
If your house was robbed or some other crime was committed against you-you would hardly expect the Gardaí to name names in public and therby allowing the prime suspects an opportunity to escape-now would you?

This mantra that names should be named is silly..

I did not ask for names merely if the whole peace process is going to collapse
what is the basis of this hunch
if as you suggest it is very early in the investigation and since no one has been arrested no money recovered no van no weapons why name the IRA as the definite culprits why not wait till you have the evidence

Earthman wrote:

(2) The other problem I see with your position is that the vast majority of people in the Republic of Ireland have respect for the opinion of the Gardaí in the matter and when they can point the finger, people will listen and the government certainly have to listen.
So you have the respected Gardaí and the vast majority of politicians pointing the finger at an organisation-and that organisation denies it -then you have a credibility gap.
Of course the opinion of the Gardaí is going to hold more weight and rightly so..

of course the gardai do not have jurisdiction in the 6 counties so what they are basing their view on we dont know
perhaps it is based on what the PSNI have told them and that brings us nowhere
as for politicians what the majority of them think is irrelevant their job is not to investigate crime

Earthman wrote:

(3)The finger pointed at the IRA has obviously annoyed Ahern given that he is of the view that the Republican political leadership is or in his view *should* be ofay with what is going on in the military grouping.

Interestingly it seems, that the Republican political leadership has noticed this and has seen the need for the first time to distance themselves completely as opposed to partially from the IRA.
Now of course theres also loads of speculation as to whats going on within that movement but a total divorce as has been hinted at by Adams and McGuinness yesterday leaves the released IRA prisoners in a very vulnerable position.
Thats because if that group go back to "war" their licenced release will run the risk of being withdrawn and theres not a thing SF can do about it without making a nonsense of their new policy of being separate.

I'd imagine thats not going to go down well at grass roots republican level.

I could be wrong but as far a i know most of those licences have expired they dont run forever unless the prisioner had been convicted of murder

secondly they apply to individuals so unless an individual involves him/herself in the conflict again they stay free they cannot be returned to prison because a group they were formally involved with do A b or C

cdebru

m1ke wrote:

On drug dealing:
The one's convicted are cut free from the organisation if found, they're on their own. Sometimes their own members are executed after kangaroo trials if suspected of drug dealing - does this add to their legitimacy? Absolutely not... their organisation acts as a lubricant to perpetuate criminality at all levels, whether consciously(in the lower ranks) or unconciously(at the to leadership level, these people obviously need to be able to PLAUSIBLY DENY offences.

On proof:
I can say I know beyond resonable doubt they did it(reasonable doubt is more then a good enough reason when dealing with an organisation that has killed thousands of people in these last few years).

These are some of the reasons: Firstly, two democratically elected governments have said so on the advice of 2 separate networks of intelligence... the level of public scrutiny and the structure of our democracies and international relations with the UK make it extremely unlikely that they're cooperating in lying here. I find it much more likely that a criminal paramilitary organisation with a long track record of lying is the one accountable here, it lacks all the normal safe gaurds that peaceful democracies have when coming to decisions. Secondly, it fits with their previous actions. Thirdly, they have the motive, method and ability to carry this out, where probably no one else has. Fourthly, because P O'Neill says something doesn't mean its true - past statements have been bare faced scum sucking lies.... such as the denial of the murder of garda mccabe. It doesn't take an einstein to figure this one out.


On what the IRA say:
These people actually believe in their head that they're at war... that is what makes them different from the rest of us. Therefore, whatever they say is coloured by their own definitions(where we see murder, they see just cause etc..). Don't believe a word of what they say and people like cdebru need to stop being bare faced apologists for these actions.

so basically you can offer no proof to back up your allegations not one name
in over 30 years you cant find one IRA member or suspected member involved in drug dealing /smuggling

you obviously have a poor grasp of reasonable doubt and i feel sorry for any one accused of anything if you were in a jury
generally proof is needed before you form reasonable doubt

as for intelligence networks all i can say is WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IRAQ


as for the IRA statement the one denying the killing of gerry mccabe was issued quickly the one denying the bank robbery came weeks after the event
the IRA could not retract from that statement
also the leadership of sinn fein have said it was the work of criminals and that they hope they face due process

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

what is the basis of this hunch
if as you suggest it is very early in the investigation and since no one has been arrested no money recovered no van no weapons why name the IRA as the definite culprits why not wait till you have the evidence

Well you see, you are asking for information privileged to the investigation.
Obviously there is information , good enough for the Gardaí amongst others to run with which organisation is involved.
That was passed onto Ahern and his minister for justice and that is what has him annoyed-because he believes and with good reason that Republican leaders *should* be aware of whats going on amongst their Army.
Clearly Adams yesterday copped that the Taoiseach had good reason to believe this so started on this complete divorce position(as opposed to just a separation prior to yesterday)
So clearly Adams has acted (belatedly) to try and undo the damage caused by the Taoiseachs legitimate reasons for thinking the way he does.
Whether it will work though-I think it unlikely.
Adams and McGuinness saying they dont know who is in the IRA and what they are up to, just wont wash with the ordinary man/woman on the street.

of course the gardai do not have jurisdiction in the 6 counties so what they are basing their view on we dont know

They are aware that the missing van crossed the border from the South into the North and to think that they don't monitor the movement/associations of senior republicans in the South who may have the capability to do this would be naive.
Of course we do not know the details of their investigation. Like any crime investagation, it is young yet.
One thing I can say though is that, they wouldnt point to an organisation without good reason. They are experienced and must have a reason.
To suggest otherwise is to question their credibility in the matter and there one would be on thin ice given what most people think of the IRA's credibility.

secondly they apply to individuals so unless an individual involves him/herself in the conflict again they stay free they cannot be returned to prison because a group they were formally involved with do A b or C

That would just require one signature on one new piece of legislation both North and South of the border.

How difficult do you think would it be for a government to convince the Dáil to do that in the event of an IRA return to war?
Do you think the Dáil would oppose forcing them to serve out the remainder of their sentences when the organisation that they belong to and many killed and bombed for, returned to what it "knows best".

Do you think westminister would be any slower to do likewise?
I doubt it.
SF would be reaping an electoral minefield too especially in the South despite its denials of links.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Well you see, you are asking for information privileged to the investigation.
Obviously there is information , good enough for the Gardaí amongst others to run with which organisation is involved.
That was passed onto Ahern and his minister for justice and that is what has him annoyed-because he believes and with good reason that Republican leaders *should* be aware of whats going on amongst their Army.
Clearly Adams yesterday copped that the Taoiseach had good reason to believe this so started on this complete divorce position(as opposed to just a separation prior to yesterday)
So clearly Adams has acted (belatedly) to try and undo the damage caused by the Taoiseachs legitimate reasons for thinking the way he does.
Whether it will work though-I think it unlikely.
Adams and McGuinness saying they dont know who is in the IRA and what they are up to, just wont wash with the ordinary man/woman on the street.

They are aware that the missing van crossed the border from the South into the North and to think that they don't monitor the movement/associations of senior republicans in the South who may have the capability to do this would be naive.
Of course we do not know the details of their investigation. Like any crime investagation, it is young yet.
One thing I can say though is that, they wouldnt point to an organisation without good reason. They are experienced and must have a reason.
To suggest otherwise is to question their credibility in the matter and there one would be on thin ice given what most people think of the IRA's credibility.

That would just require one signature on one new piece of legislation both North and South of the border.

How difficult do you think would it be for a government to convince the Dáil to do that in the event of an IRA return to war?
Do you think the Dáil would oppose forcing them to serve out the remainder of their sentences when the organisation that they belong to and many killed and bombed for, returned to what it "knows best".

Do you think westminister would be any slower to do likewise?
I doubt it.
SF would be reaping an electoral minefield too especially in the South despite its denials of links.

you of course ignored the question which is if the evidence is not ready why make the allegation against the IRA why not wait at least untill you could make arrests or present the evidence on which the allegation is made

if they could provide evidence then there could be no dispute
of course you overlook the possibility that thew PSNI have moved the spotlight from themselves also we came very close to a deal a few weeks ago
that would have led to a sinn fein minister for justice or policing perhaps that would be motive enough for senior PSNI officers to blow the peace process out of the water

if they monitored senior republicans and they had some association with this van why have they not been arrested

perhaps the gardai are frightened by dermot aherns statement that sinn fein could be in government in the 26 counties soon the possibility of martin ferris as minister for justice might be a motive for the gardai who would have no great love for the republican movement to agree with this allegation


as for the men already released your living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that is even a possibility


and finally the IRA are unlikely to return to wholesale war would would put their necks on the line for an organization that was prepared to wind up a couple of weeks ago the governments know that that is why they are being so pushy with republicans

m1ke

you obviously have a poor grasp of reasonable doubt and i feel sorry for any one accused of anything if you were in a jury
generally proof is needed before you form reasonable doubt

A typical text book provo response. Overlook the amazing body of facts and intriguing coincidences. It's a simplistic stand you're taking that is designed to take advantage of people who can't stand reading more than a one sentence explanation. Oh and by the way, it is not possible to try the provos with a jury because they'd simply murder/intimidate any members on it - that's the sort of people we're dealing with and that's why we have the Special Criminal Court and dormant legislation that allows the state to do things like bring back internment as a safegaurd against the threat the PIRA have made against Irish peoples lives. They don't deserve any sort of normal civil treatment because they're working at the highest level to destroy it.

as for intelligence networks all i can say is WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IRAQ

Lets discount every single bit of intelligence for the rest of time on this basis... oh wait i'm being sarcastic. Nevertheless, this a useless apples and organes analogy with no significance.... i'm not going to debate it because its a side argument.

as for the IRA statement the one denying the killing of gerry mccabe was issued quickly the one denying the bank robbery came weeks after the event
the IRA could not retract from that statement
also the leadership of sinn fein have said it was the work of criminals and that they hope they face due process

Oh no the statement about mccabe was issued too quickly and couldn't be retracted :~~~ boo ****ing hoo.... it's still murder, and you're still making a bare faced excuse for it.

cdebru

m1ke wrote:

A typical text book provo response. Overlook the amazing body of facts and intriguing coincidences. It's a simplistic stand you're taking that is designed to take advantage of people who can't stand reading more than a one sentence explanation. Oh and by the way, it is not possible to try the provos with a jury because they'd simply murder/intimidate any members on it - that's the sort of people we're dealing with and that's why we have the Special Criminal Court and dormant legislation that allows the state to do things like bring back internment as a safegaurd against the threat the PIRA have made against Irish peoples lives. They don't deserve any sort of normal civil treatment because they're working at the highest level to destroy it..

what evidence this is the third time i have asked
what coincidences
I have already said I dont know who robbed the bank maybe it was the IRA maybe it wasn't I am prepared to wait for some evidence before I rush to judgement

I was not talking about a jury trial involving the provos since I doubt you are a judge the only way you could be involved would be in a jury
any jury

m1ke wrote:

Maybe that was lack thereof in surely? Nevertheless, this a useless apples and organes analogy with no significance.... i'm not going to debate it because its a side argument..

no you suggested that two intelligence networks could not be wrong I gave you an example of were more than 2 were wrong

m1ke wrote:

Oh no the statement about mccabe was issued too quickly and couldn't be retracted :~~~ boo ****ing hoo.... it's still murder, and you're still making a bare faced excuse for it.

i never made any excuse for it i was merely pointing out that the reason given by the IRA for the mix up as to wether or not they were involved in the killing of gerry mccabe could not be used in this case as the IRA did not issue an denial for at least 3 weeks




the basic point is with regards to the North things are not always as they seem sometimes it is better to wait see what happens before rushing to judgement

and lastly Iam not a provo