Sinn Féin - IRA split?

Sparks

swiss wrote:

So when stating an opinion, make sure people know it's an opinion. When stating fact, back it up with proof when asked.

Of course, there is also the point that if someone says that Adams et al are not members of the Army Council, that they would be stating an opinion rather than fact, because we don't have a list of the members of the Army Council and thus cannot verify that Adams is not a member.

And to go further, since we have no list of members of the Provisional IRA, we cannot state that the statement from "P. O'Neill" is in fact, an IRA statement because we can't verify it was written by them.

In other words, it's rather hard to talk about an illegal terrorist organisation with any degree of confidence in details, not because people are demonstrating the similarities between opinions and rectal cavities, but because any proof regarding such organisations would result in the arrest and sentencing of the people involved...

true

Mad Cyril wrote:

The Protestant community are not the IRA's enemy. In fact, many protestants have been members of the organisation throughout the years.

Regarding your second point, no they have not, not in the last troubles.

Regarding your first point, why then did the IRA murder Protestant workmen in the minibus just because these were workmen in the 70's ? Why bomb Enniskillen in the 80's ? Why ambush part time and retired Protestants security force personell along the border and shoot them in the back / put bombs under their cars ?

Sand

Just like the previous security "incidents" blamed on the provos this happens at a time when Bertie and Tony desperately want to kick for touch on the peace process as they don't like the way that the elections in the north have stacked the cards. Damn, if i was conspiracy theorist....

Just like the McCabe killing - Gerry Adams actually stated that whoever carried out the McCabe murder was an enemy of the peace process, now hes fecking campaigning for their release - and the Colombia Three, who SF denied even knowing until it was pointed out they included the SF Cuban representitive.

I mean, do they even keep a database of whose allowed to speak in their name?

So when stating an opinion, make sure people know it's an opinion. When stating fact, back it up with proof when asked.

Sure thing,

Gerry Adams

Convicted IRA bomber Dolours Price, described Gerry Adams as her commanding officer at the time of her involvement in a 4 car bomb on London, March 8th, 1973 at a republican event in February 2001 – Irish Echo Newspaper Corp, March 2001.

His father was a IRA member convicted for shooting RUC officers.

He was interned in 1971, but was senior enough in some republican organisation to be released in July 1972 to take part in secret talks between the IRA and NI Secretary Whitelaw. He was 23 years old. He did not become president of SF for another 11 years.

Has refused to confirm or deny his IRA membership, claiming he could get 10 years for it.

The fact that he was negotiating on behalf of the IRA long before he became president of Sinn Fein tells its own story. Price confirms his status as a IRA commander.

Martin McGuiness, Derry:
2nd in command of the IRA in Derry from the early 70s. Travelled as part of the IRA delegation that secretly met with NI secretary Whitelaw in 1972.

Imprisoned several times in the Republic in connection with IRA activities but has always denied he ever became Chief of Staff for the IRA, despite many claims to the contrary. Renowned for promising informers who had fled IRA threats that they would be safe if they returned and had a little chat with the boys.

Persuaded Frank Hegartys mother to get him home to Belfast with a promise of safety – within two weeks he was abducted, tortured, murdered and dumped in Castlederg, Country Tyrone.

Again, senior enough to negotiate on behalf of the IRA long before he became as involved in Sinn Fein. Mr Hegartys mother can attest to the value of his word.

Now, if Irish1 would like to back up his statements where he has declared that he *knows* Adams and co arent on the Army Council with some backup of his own, Id be much obliged. Id settle for a list of the Army Council where he can show me Adams or McGuinness's names arent on it.

Actually as Sparks also noted, can Irish1 prove that P O Neill is indeed mouthpiece of the IRA and is allowed to speak in their name? If he cant, why should we accept anything in statements signed by P O Neill?

Villain

Sand wrote:

Just like the McCabe killing - Gerry Adams actually stated that whoever carried out the McCabe murder was an enemy of the peace process, now hes fecking campaigning for their release - and the Colombia Three, who SF denied even knowing until it was pointed out they included the SF Cuban representitive.

I mean, do they even keep a database of whose allowed to speak in their name?



Sure thing,



The fact that he was negotiating on behalf of the IRA long before he became president of Sinn Fein tells its own story. Price confirms his status as a IRA commander.



Again, senior enough to negotiate on behalf of the IRA long before he became as involved in Sinn Fein. Mr Hegartys mother can attest to the value of his word.

Now, if Irish1 would like to back up his statements where he has declared that he *knows* Adams and co arent on the Army Council with some backup of his own, Id be much obliged. Id settle for a list of the Army Council where he can show me Adams or McGuinness's names arent on it.

Actually as Sparks also noted, can Irish1 prove that P O Neill is indeed mouthpiece of the IRA and is allowed to speak in their name? If he cant, why should we accept anything in statements signed by P O Neill?

Sand your posting articles that relate to the 1970's, how does this have anything to do with the IRA army counil of today?? FF were meant to have been involved in gun running in the past does that mean they are today?? Your logic here is crazy.

I have stated that I know they are not on the army council because I have not seen a single shred of evidence to prove otherwise and I happen to believe the leaders of the party I support, perhaps you may want more proof, but I thought accusations had to proven by those who make them, I mean how I can prove your wrong when you haven't proven your right??

As for P O'Neill I really don't care what his statements say.

So give us some proof instead of going back 30 years ago when there was no peace process.

true

You cannot compare elements in Fianna Fail , with a smaller group like Sinn Fein / IRA. Haughey and Blaney are not at the top of the Fianna Fail organisation today, nor are democratic governments of the 21st century sympathetic to terrorists. McGuinness and Adams were very senior people in the republican movement 30 years ago : in this hi-tech surveillance age I believe the intelligence authorities know who is on the army council as well.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Mods I really think these people shouldn't be allowed to post such comments without proof, it's not as if their posting these comments by saying "IMHO......"

They are posting their comments as if they are facts, and if the Taoiseach of our state can't say who is on the army council I don't see how these people can say.

Uh huh, heres a catch though.

We don't know who is on the IRA council. They won't tell us or expose themselves.

A number of years ago both Adams and Mc Guinness denied membership of the IRA and we're now in position to know Mc Guinness for example was in a senior position in the IRA and had for example foreknowledge of the assasination of Mountbatten.

So what we have here is a situation wereby we are aware that Sinn Fein and the IRA are connected in some manner, and senior members of Sinn Fein were in the IRA.

So your petutlant whinging about the seperation between the IRA and SF is suprious. Yes we don't know who is on the council, but then;

We know you've lied about being on ceasefire (call me nuts any organistion which comes up with the Padreo Peo form of punishment isn't really on ceasefire.

And we know that you've lied about the membership of senior Sinn Fein members in the IRA.

So this yeah prove it attitude reeks. We don't know, we suspect, so therefore because you've been proven liars before we must be suspicious of everything you say

Cork

irish1 wrote:

Bertie is going on assumptions and we all know that "assumptions are the mother of all f**k ups"

Irish1 - Punishment beatings are a criminal act.

They go on. Bertie is not assuming that the IRA ae engaged in criminality - He knows it.

Such criminality has to end & I wish SF well in their efforts to get the IRA to end it's criminality.

SF should be soley involved in democratic politics. It should not be linked to an armed illegal grouping.

But SF cannot have links to an illegal group engaged in criminality. I think that same would go for other political partys if they had links to the criminal underworld.

Villain

True,
I wsa simply using the FF gun running story as an example to show how stupid Sand's logic was.

MyCroft,
McGuinness never denied he was a member for of the IRA, and btw I don't support the IRA in any way.

Cork,
I agree totally that punishment beatings are a criminal act, I was referring to the taoiseachs remarks about SF known the robbery was going to happen, he couldn't stand that claim up. Gerry Adams also stated this week that all punishments were wrong but nobody would post that because they can't bash it.

mycroft

MyCroft,
McGuinness never denied he was a member for of the IRA, and btw I don't support the IRA in any way.

And it finally was admitted his role as a senior member of the Derry Brigade. The fact that senior members of the party you support, have been and still could be on the IRA council. The fact that they've lied about their level of involvment in the past means we must be suspicious about their claims about their level of involvment with the council and the make up of the council

Cork,
I agree totally that punishment beatings are a criminal act, I was referring to the taoiseachs remarks about SF known the robbery was going to happen, he couldn't stand that claim up. Gerry Adams also stated this week that all punishments were wrong but nobody would post that because they can't bash it.

Brilliant so they're wrong, but SF can't do anythng to stop it. Remind me why they're in the peace process again?

Villain

Because they represent the Majority of nationalists in the North, I though that was obvious.

true

irish1 wrote:

True,
. Gerry Adams also stated this week that all punishments were wrong but nobody would post that because they can't bash it.

So Gerry Adams said it was wrong. Big deal. Certain people also said the "killing" ( not murder , murder only happens to nationalists ) of Jean McConville was wrong, but when pressed , said it was not a crime.

So Gerry Adams says punishment beatings are wrong. Does he mean they should never be carried out ? Are they just wrong because they should not have to be carried out in the first place. Maybe, in the twisted logic of Sinn Fein / IRA, punishment beatings are wrong, they are regrettable because it shows certain elements of society are not afraid enough of Sinn Fein / IRA ?

If you sup with the devil you need a long spoon.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Because they represent the Majority of nationalists in the North, I though that was obvious.

Yes that is correct.

However it's readily becoming apparent that when it comes to the peace process it's rapidly becoming clear that either sf don't have any power or infulence over the IRA, or don't object to their criminal activity

Villain

true wrote:

So Gerry Adams said it was wrong. Big deal. Certain people also said the "killing" ( not murder , murder only happens to nationalists ) of Jean McConville was wrong, but when pressed , said it was not a crime.

So Gerry Adams says punishment beatings are wrong. Does he mean they should never be carried out ? Are they just wrong because they should not have to be carried out in the first place. Maybe, in the twisted logic of Sinn Fein / IRA, punishment beatings are wrong, they are regrettable because it shows certain elements of society are not afraid enough of Sinn Fein / IRA ?

If you sup with the devil you need a long spoon.

I would take it he meant they should not be carried out, thats just my opinion based on the interview I heard.

monument

The only visual split I’ve seen so far is between SF, and the IRA - from Adams saying SF will no longer interpreted IRA statements, to calls for the governments to talk to the IRA directly…

All I have to say to the SF bashers is well done lads, you lot have forced what is effectively a PR clean up for SF, making the two organization appear more separate.

Well done!

Victor

irish1 wrote:

Mods I really think these people shouldn't be allowed to post such comments without proof, it's not as if their posting these comments by saying "IMHO......"

They are posting their comments as if they are facts, and if the Taoiseach of our state can't say who is on the army council I don't see how these people can say.

In fairness: "The dogs on the street know." - Martin McGuinness

true

monument wrote:

The only visual split I’ve seen so far is between SF, and the IRA - from Adams saying SF will no longer interpreted IRA statements, to calls for the governments to talk to the IRA directly…

Ah, so if you have only seen a small visual split, this is consistant with the two organisations being virtually the same : one a political wing, one a "military" wing ?

monument wrote:

All I have to say to the SF bashers is well done lads, you lot have forced what is effectively a PR clean up for SF, making the two organization appear more separate.

Are those who do not agree with Sinn Fein / IRA "bashers" ? To use words against an organisation which has used stronger weapons against its enemies ( AK 47s, semtex , baseball bats, whatever ) merits being called a basher ?

I think it would take a lot to clean up an organisation that refuses to condemn the murder of a mother of ten as a crime. If the two organisations "appear" more seperate, will that make them more seperate ?
Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein , has always said they were seperate anyway : how could they appear more seperate ?

monument

My point still stands; the SF bashers are just doing their normal work, which ends with SF gaining.

And ‘SF bashers’ would be the people who only really got up in a huff when SF started to make real political gains, the people who bash SF for their own political gain and don’t give a flying f about the north.

true

monument wrote:

My point still stands; the SF bashers are just doing their normal work, which ends with SF gaining.

And ‘SF bashers’ would be the people who only really got up in a huff when SF started to make real political gains, the people who bash SF for their own political gain and don’t give a flying f about the north.

You have not answered my points, Monument. I would imagine the people were equally "up in a huff" as you say when SF/IRA were shooting people in the back, and bombing innocent civilians, and wrecking our economies.

I do not "bash" anyone for my own political gain : I am not a politician.
I do however, happen to care a lot about the North, for lots of reasons, not least because I know a lot of people there from both religions very well, and who happen to get on quite well as it happens. I have spent quite a bit of time there.

iguana

....

mycroft

monument wrote:

My point still stands; the SF bashers are just doing their normal work, which ends with SF gaining.

And ‘SF bashers’ would be the people who only really got up in a huff when SF started to make real political gains, the people who bash SF for their own political gain and don’t give a flying f about the north.

Actually lets take sinn fein and some of the non peace process issues.

Sinn Fein played an important part of the anti iraq war movement. Yet when bush summoned them for the summit in the north two years ago they scampered off to attend. When challenged on this (and I have talked to Justin Moran about this) they pretty much dismissed any argument that this was just poo poo ing and acting all high and mighty and meanwhile SF had to ignore the the kiddy table and go speak to the adults. This is my opinion about the attitude of senior members of SF who had been moraly outraged about the Iraq war but saw no problem with meeting bush. A president who's head would explode if you tried to explain that last year that mc aleese was the president of ireland, ahern was the taoiseach (kind like a pm, boss) but also bertie was president of europe (non elected) Bush couldn't give a flying f*ck about ireland and SF caved at the first chance about showing some backbone to bush.

Sinn Fein's much vaunted talked about fighting against privatisation in the north, fell into the way side when hospitial privatisation came up and Sinn Fein voted for it. Again SF voted for it, and then justified it as it was important to ensure the continuation of the peace process.

In sligo SF an "anti bin charge party" voted for bin charges on the Sligo CC. Quietly....

My contempt for SF is the level of duplicity in the organisation. When challenged on political decisions they site the peace process as a "greater good" a process in which they can't even condemn the cold blooded murder of a mother as a crime, and yet will happily sell out their "morals" if george bush needs them to fall in for a photo op.

My contempt for SF is on so many levels. Their inability to truly condemn violence, while at the same time engaged in political decisions which run contray to their alledged politics and justifying it as "necessary for the peace process" a process in which they'll decline to define murder as a crime, or do anything to really sort out punishment beatings.

i feel they are poltical opportuntists who have easily shrunk off their "ethics" for political gains.

pork99

irish1 wrote:

Because they represent the Majority of nationalists in the North, I though that was obvious.

And it's appalling that they do.

NI is an economic basket case which cannot exist without outside subsidies. It's appalling that the basic political division in NI now is between two philosophies of parasitism, the DUP whose "vision" for the future is to be subsidised by the British state and SF, who look to the Republic replace the UK as the "sugar daddy".

monument

true wrote:

You have not answered my points, Monument.

I'm waisting too much time here in point to point replies....

true wrote:

I would imagine the people were equally "up in a huff" as you say when SF/IRA were shooting people in the back, and bombing innocent civilians, and wrecking our economies.

You would think so, but the real nose in the media and by public figures only started after SF started to make real political gains.

true wrote:

Ah, so if you have only seen a small visual split, this is consistant with the two organisations being virtually the same : one a political wing, one a "military" wing ?

“This is” is not a question.

true wrote:

Are those who do not agree with Sinn Fein / IRA "bashers" ? To use words against an organisation which has used stronger weapons against its enemies ( AK 47s, semtex , baseball bats, whatever ) merits being called a basher ?

I’ve answered part of what I think can be classed as a ‘SF basher’ (of course there always people with other motives then I’ve listed).

true wrote:

I think it would take a lot to clean up an organisation that refuses to condemn the murder of a mother of ten as a crime.

A statement, not a question, and not something I disagree with.

true wrote:

If the two organisations "appear" more seperate, will that make them more seperate ?

Do I need to answer that? What age are you?

true wrote:

Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein , has always said they were seperate anyway : how could they appear more seperate ?

I never said any thing about them being more “seperate”, that’s why I wasn’t going to reply to that.

mycroft wrote:

i feel they are poltical opportuntists who have easily shrunk off their "ethics" for political gains.

So, they fit in with the rest of the parties better then I’d have ever thought.

On principles, there’s no real difference between the ‘party line’ of Labour, FF, FG, or the PDs.

true

mycroft wrote:

. boss)
i feel they ( Sinn Fein ) are poltical opportuntists who have easily shrunk off their "ethics" for political gains.

Not to mention financial gains. Many of the "volunteers" seem to have done well for themselves in border counties etc

pork99

monument wrote:

So, they fit in with the rest of the parties better then I’d have ever thought.

On principles, there’s no real difference between the ‘party line’ of Labour, FF, FG, or the PDs.

Except Labour, FF, FG, or the PDs aren't associated with an organised criminal gang which carries out armed robberies on a regular basis, shoots unarmed detectives in the face etc

fester

mycroft wrote:

However it's readily becoming apparent that when it comes to the peace process it's rapidly becoming clear that either sf don't have any power or infulence over the IRA, or don't object to their criminal activity

That's what it boils down to alright.

When McGuinness was asked did he think the IRA lied to him when they said they didn't commit the robbery, McGuinness's response was:
"such a lie would be of such a magnitude that I think the IRA would know that that would be a really huge thing between the leadership of Sinn Fein and themselves. I think it would being things to a critical crossroads. And ultimately I think there would be massive reverberations from that."

To me, this sounds like a threat of farther partitions between SF and IRA. It don;t sound like the words of a man who knew the robbery would take place. It sounds like the words of a man who doesn’t have any influence over the IRA.

true

Can you really believe the words of a man who has held high office in both Sinn Fein and the provos, when both organisations have been caught out time and time again eg over the Adare murder. Its not as if they own the high moral ground.

pork99

'I don't think they are going back to outright war but rather will adopt a policy of destabilisation in Northern Ireland. The IRA cannot afford to allow Northern Ireland under direct rule from London to be stable and prosperous. At the same time they cannot go back to bombing Britain because that puts them in the same camp as Bin Laden. But they may consider a policy of street disorder, winding things up in the loyalist marching season.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1407049,00.html

mycroft

monument wrote:

So, they fit in with the rest of the parties better then I’d have ever thought.

On principles, there’s no real difference between the ‘party line’ of Labour, FF, FG, or the PDs.

Yeah but they don't have their own private army and supporters who shoot people in the ankles.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

supporters who shoot people in the ankles.

Thats a very sweeping accusation and complete nonsense, I'm really get sick of some of the posts in this forum, and the mods don't seem to see anything wrong.

People can't discuss SF without throwing wild accusations around.

jman0

They therefore must also believe that British and Irish intelligence services are grossly, in fact, monumentally incompetant.

It would be no small feat of both Adams and McGuinness to regularly elude the intelligence services both sides of the border to attend or rendevous with other IRA Army Council members with impunity. Particularly since both are such high profile politicians and in the public eye.

Also it would be quite incredible of other IRA Army Council members to apparently trust their personal security by meeting with either Adams or McGuiness, knowing that they are public faces and are surely under the observation of security services. It would be amazingly incredible that the IRA would take it on faith that Adams and McGuinness have (always) eluded their shadows.

Think about it.