Put up or shut up

Stabshauptmann

I think you can see the logical road of causality that goes from one sentence to the other as clearly outlined in my posts, but wish to ignore it because you either cant deal with a conflict of your own logic (perhaps you have been the subject of indoctrination) or you do not wish to acknowledge that you purposefully misrepresented your views to us.

Again I will go through it, all in one post for your reading benifit.
You said it was

LOL you really should think about what your saying, imagine there was a huge robbery in dublin last night by a criminal gang (like the €250,000 robbed from an post last month) and Bertie stated that he knew people who had prior knowledge of this, but wouldn't give this information to the gardai because the gang would go out and kill people etc!!!

So to condense, it makes you laugh ie is laughable (to you) that Bertie would appease criminals just because they threaten to use violence. That is the same as saying that violence and the threat of violence achieves nothing because it wouldn’t change anybody else’s actions when dealing with them, thus violence and the threat of violence achieves nothing.

But you readily admit that violence and the threat of violence can achieve things

I wouldn't laugh at it because whether we like it or not [the IRA] did acheive certain things

So how can that be?
How can violence and the threat of violence achieve things for the IRA and at the same time be of such little concern that a perceived threat of the same magnitude, ie a return to war, make you laugh. It is as if you are saying, why should Bertie care whether or not the IRA returns to war, sure it will make no difference!

No don’t say that there is no such threat, when replying to the original post you took it for the point of debate to exist.

Stabshauptmann

sceptre wrote:

Well, I'd rather you didn't (and I'm obviously typing this as an ordinary user rather than a moderator) but then again, I haven't posted anything along the lines of "the dogs in the street know damn well who robbed the Northern Bank" either.

Having said that, there's obviously a crucial difference (and not because the prevailing rule of internationally recognised law would recognise one as a crime and the other as not (this isn't the discursive part btw)) in that the accusation of one would be as an individual and the other as an organisation (and obviously in our criminal system a loosely bound organisation won't be in the dock for any crime). Also pre-knowledge of a crime isn't the same thing as being part of a conspiracy to commit that crime but you all knew that already.

Sorry but Im just annoyed that I had such an indept discussion (which I believed was civil and productive) only for to find in the next thread that logic that was out right rejected when used against a poster is now the corner stone of their arguements.
As a fellow poster who enjoys reasonable discussion Im sure you can understand my frustration.

Stabshauptmann

Em, Ive been cathching up on some posts that I missed and ppl are still inferring guilt on Adams for not sueing anybody, in post number 51 in this thread I laid out defamation law (libel and slander) and you will see why Adams wouldnt win a libel case, its nothing to do about wether or not it is true but who said it.
Bertie hasnt accused Adams of being on the army council, if he had it might be a different case.

Cork

I think that if only used their special relationship with the IRA to end criminality and decommission. But Adams is more like the child in the liga ad.

It would be more in their line even to acknowlegde there is a problem with the IRA.

Make no mistake about IRA - IRA punishment beatings have not gone away.

But IF SF cannot even see punishment attacks as a problem then SF itself has a problem.

Calling on Bertie to arrest him was a gaffe. Why could he not outline efforts SF has made to get the IRA to either decommission or end criminality.

Forget the nonsense that some shinners have of defining what constitutes a crime.

Necromancer

Necromancer wrote:

Bertie hasnt accused Adams of being on the army council, if he had it might be a different case.

But the Sunday indo did and continues to do so-wheres that law suit gone?

irish1 wrote:

Well how about we start with Bertie himself he did not say they are the same he said "I have stated on a number of occasions that the assessment of the Irish Government is that Sinn Féin and the IRA are opposite sides of the one coin." (taken from http://www.gov.ie/debates-98/24feb98/sect1.htm)

You are clutching at non existant straws if you dont realise that, thats Berties diplomatic but none too subtle way of saying they are related.
How else could one judge that statement in tandem with him saying that the Republican leadership were aware of the planning of the robbery while they were negotiating with him.
Theres no other way to interpret his feelings on the matter.

BuffyBot

But the Sunday indo did and continues to do so-wheres that law suit gone?

And in light of the thread title being "Put up or shut up" it does raise an interesting point, doesn't it..

Villain

Earthman wrote:

You are clutching at non existant straws if you dont realise that, thats Berties diplomatic but none too subtle way of saying they are related.
How else could one judge that statement in tandem with him saying that the Republican leadership were aware of the planning of the robbery while they were negotiating with him.
Theres no other way to interpret his feelings on the matter.

Ah but you said

T'wud be interesting if you could find me an FF/FG/Labour member of the Dáil who when speaking of SF and the IRA suggested they werent the same.

Being related and being the same are two very different things. You asked for evidence and I supplied it.

Villain

Necromancer wrote:

So to condense, it makes you laugh ie is laughable (to you) that Bertie would appease criminals just because they threaten to use violence. That is the same as saying that violence and the threat of violence achieves nothing because it wouldn’t change anybody else’s actions when dealing with them, thus violence and the threat of violence achieves nothing.

But you readily admit that violence and the threat of violence can achieve things


So how can that be?
How can violence and the threat of violence achieve things for the IRA and at the same time be of such little concern that a perceived threat of the same magnitude, ie a return to war, make you laugh. It is as if you are saying, why should Bertie care whether or not the IRA returns to war, sure it will make no difference!

No don’t say that there is no such threat, when replying to the original post you took it for the point of debate to exist.

Ok look what I laughed at was the fact that people believed our Justice system could be ignored because of fear of the IRA.

I don't believe the IRA would return to war just because Gerry Adams is arrested. I haven't much time here but to sum up, I don't believe fear should stop the Justice system from arresting Adams if there is eveidence that he broke the law or is a member of an illegal organisation. Just because I said IRA did achieve things by violence IN THE PAST doesn't mean I believe they would achieve anything in the present circumstances if they returned to war. Times thank god have changed.

sceptre

Necromancer wrote:

Sorry but Im just annoyed that I had such an indept discussion (which I believed was civil and productive) only for to find in the next thread that logic that was out right rejected when used against a poster is now the corner stone of their arguements.
As a fellow poster who enjoys reasonable discussion Im sure you can understand my frustration.

Send me a link by PM (I'm not too sure which thread you mean) and I'll have a look at it.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Ah but you said

Being related and being the same are two very different things. You asked for evidence and I supplied it.

But you didnt show me any TD from those parties that said they werent the same.
Thats what I asked...
So you didnt supply what I asked at all.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

But you didnt show me any TD from those parties that said they werent the same.
Thats what I asked...
So you didnt supply what I asked at all.

Now who's clutching at straws??

You saw what Bertie said and there is no proof that they are the SAME.

true

irish1 wrote:

Also did anyone watch the Prime Time special on the Northern Bank robbery??

I know it was only a recsonstruction but it didn't appear that hard to carry out, you just needed one person on the inside or former employee e.g. security guard or cleaner etc, yes cleaner, every area has to be cleaned!!, and then people to obduct the two employees and another few to drive the truck.

The hardest part of this robbery is the aftermath, i.e. laundering the money.

Any well organised criminal gang could have done this.

Eh, and some people to threated the families of the two bank employees.
Its obvious the gang had up to date information from someone on the inside.
When I saw one of the bank employees on the telly, with an ear-ring in his ear,( the Glasgow Celtic supporter ), and who could hardly put two words together properly, I realised how standards had slipped in banking. I remember the time it was a respectable carreer when you left school. I am not saying this particular guy was the inside guy - it could just as easily have been a Rangers fellow with an ear-ring from the Shankhill employed in the bank.

true

Necromancer wrote:

Innocent untill proven guilty except where we know who did it, we just cant prove it?
As I said to true re: inconsistancy, can I apply the same standards to Jean McConville, can I simply say she was an informer without any evidence simply because I know she was? Of course not. Neither can you say, oh well we know the IRA did it.

The two cases are slightly different, Necromancer. With Jean McConville, who "knows" she was an informer? Just the IRA thugs who realised they needed a better excuse for abducting, torturing and murdering and burying her in an unknown location the mother of ten than just her going to the aid of a dying soldier at the side of the road. Oh, and you, you know. If she was a spy with a radio, why did Grizzly not produce the Radio at the time, with a big grin on his face , at a press conference ?

With Sinn Fein / IRA, the Irish government inc virtually all parties, the UK govt. inc virtually all parties, the US envoy , and the IMC all say them same about Sinn Fein / IRA. None of them are calling for Grizzly and / or his friends to be abducted, tortured , murdered and buried on a beach until coastal erosion exposes his remains decades later. This is despite many in Sinn Fein / IRA have been responsible for many crimes over the years.
There is a big difference, dont you think , Necromancer.

If Grizzly was innocent, he would sue. Bad and all as the majority of people in Northern Ireland are, his standing would not remain unemblemished if they though / if it was proved he was a member of the "army council ." He cannot use that as an excuse. The reason he does not sue, and the reason he lost his temper recently , is because he knows the authorities are right.

cdebru

true wrote:

Eh, and some people to threated the families of the two bank employees.
Its obvious the gang had up to date information from someone on the inside.
When I saw one of the bank employees on the telly, with an ear-ring in his ear,( the Glasgow Celtic supporter ), and who could hardly put two words together properly, I realised how standards had slipped in banking. I remember the time it was a respectable carreer when you left school. I am not saying this particular guy was the inside guy - it could just as easily have been a Rangers fellow with an ear-ring from the Shankhill employed in the bank.

your not saying it was him your implying it was

why because he had a celtic jersey and an ear ring that somehow diminishes his competence as a bank employee
it seems this is the second thread you have now revealed your sectarian atitudes on in a week
as for his intelligence dont take into account that this man had been through a terrifying ordeal or that he would not be used to appearing on national television or that he already knows that people like you are pointing the finger at him because of his religion
the management in the bank employed him and promoted him
but because he is a catholic who supports celtic and lives in a nationalist area
you call into question
1 his intelligence
2 his honesty

and you long for a better time when working class people did not get a job in the bank let alone catholic working class people

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Now who's clutching at straws??

You saw what Bertie said and there is no proof that they are the SAME.

I never spoke of proof, I am speaking of opinions... and in terms of opinion theres a whole shed full of well packed bales that contradicts yours.
I mean you are providing your opinion that they are not the same yet there is a considerable majority in the Dáil who think otherwise including Bertie when you get used to Bertiespeak which he is on this topic anyway getting less and less guarded about
you are still avoiding/not answering my question by the way-let me ask you again, can you point to many/any of the td's of the 3 main parties saying they are not the same?
I was never asking you to provide a list of membership,I'm merely pointing out the fact that the vast majority of T.D's dont agree with your opinion on the matter anfd therein lies the problem for SF.

Theres plenty of evidence where t.d's/ministers are saying they believe they are the same
Of course if you want more forthright unmistakeable language-You can always ask Willie O' Dea

As regards the others in the Dáil
Enda Kenny said:

“In terms of the way forward for the peace process, this report from the Independent Monitoring Commission very much reflects the sentiments of Fine Gael’s Private Members’ Motion earlier this week in which we, along with the vast majority of parties in the Dáil, sent a clear message to Sinn Féin and the IRA that all their paramilitary and criminal activity must be permanently ended if further progress is to be achieved.”

He also said :

"Sinn Féin has become accustomed to their mandate being disproportionately heard because it comes to us through a megaphone at the end of a gun."

Theres nothing ambigous in that statement.
As for Pat Rabbitte... here is an example of his thinking on the matter

The Labour leader, Pat Rabbitte, said that it was make-your-mind-up time for Sinn Féin on criminality.
He said that after the publication of the report, no reasonable person could be left in any doubt as to the responsibility of the IRA for the Northern Bank robbery, or the extent to which senior members of Sinn Féin were involved in sanctioning this and earlier robberies.

{Sarcasm}But then shur lets ignore what most of the T.D's and their leaders think shur isn't it immaterial, they're only elected representatives after all... {/Sarcasm}

true

Originally Posted by true
"Its obvious the gang had up to date information from someone on the inside.
When I saw one of the bank employees on the telly, with an ear-ring in his ear,( the Glasgow Celtic supporter ), and who could hardly put two words together properly, I realised how standards had slipped in banking. I remember the time it was a respectable carreer when you left school. I am not saying this particular guy was the inside guy - it could just as easily have been a Rangers fellow with an ear-ring from the Shankhill employed in the bank."

cdebru wrote:

your not saying it was him your implying it was

LOL. No, cdebru, I said it could just have easily been a rangers fellow with an ear-ring. Please learn to read.

cdebru wrote:

why because he had a celtic jersey and an ear ring that somehow diminishes his competence as a bank employee

No, but his appearance in an interview on the TV before Xmas showed me how standards have changed.

cdebru wrote:

it seems this is the second thread you have now revealed your sectarian atitudes on in a week

I do not have a sectarian attitude : please refrain from calling everyone who does not share your bigoted attitude sectarian.

cdebru wrote:

as for his intelligence dont take into account that this man had been through a terrifying ordeal or that he would not be used to appearing on national television or that he already knows that people like you are pointing the finger at him because of his religion

I never would have know on the interview I saw of him his religion until he bragged about his Celtic loyalties. A persons intelligence , contrary to your opinion, is not affected by an ordeal or by anyone "pointing a finger at him."
I never heard or saw anyone pointing the finger at him, did you ?

cdebru wrote:

the management in the bank employed him and promoted him
but because he is a catholic who supports celtic and lives in a nationalist area
you call into question
1 his intelligence
2 his honesty

No, I did not. I only commented on what came across in the interview at Xmas, which was his ( clean-cut ? ) appearance and ( articulate ? ) speech.

cdebru wrote:

and you long for a better time when working class people did not get a job in the bank let alone catholic working class people

Wrong again cdebru I said was "I remember the time it was a respectable career when you left school.". I know many catholic working class people who got a career in banking in the 50's, 60's, 70's and so on. I am not unfamiliar with this community or this profession. So what is your point, cdebru? I think the least you should do is say sorry, cdebru, for accusing me of having a sectarian attitude.

Villain

Earthman

I don't care what the members of the Dail think, because I have not seen any evidence to show that SF and IRA are the same, they have links to each other, yes, but they are not the same. Even Bertie didn't go as far as to say they are the same. I'd live you to go up north and tell the majority of nationalists ( who voted for SF) that SF and the IRA are the same.

How can we take anything from our politicans as true, I mean 2 weeks ago Mary Harney said Martin Ferris is on the IRA army council, then McDowell said this week that members of the IRA army council were well known poeple who were on the TV.

BUT when questioned by Enda Kenny in the Dail 2 weeks ago Bertie Ahern said and I quote

I do not know the current makeup of the IRA army council

So come on how can we accept what members of the Government say when they are all saying different things???

irish1

irish1 wrote:

BUT when questioned by Enda Kenny in the Dail 2 weeks ago Bertie Ahern said and I quote I do not know the current makeup of the IRA army council

So come on how can we accept what members of the Government say when they are all saying different things???

Why didnt Enda Kenny press Ahern further? And ask him who he believes is on the Army council of the IRA.
I'd say Harney,Kenny McDowell and the other non SF deputies are all of one mind, they just handle the information differently.
You are quoting for me an example of Bertiespeak again,I mean I do not know the current make up of the Army council of the IRA either.
The security forces on either side of the border don't, but you can bet that they know who is meeting who and how often and in response to whatever event.

What Bertie said could be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, its typical Bertiespeak and unchallengeable because it was said under Dáil privilege.

I mean for instance, Bertie could have strong information to suggest who three of say seven of the members are yet it would still be valid of him to say he doesnt know its current make up.
Other politicians dont have to be as rigid if they dont feel like it and thats their entitlement.

I'm surprised you are taking Bertiespeak as being definitive-it can only be definitive when its categorical and that line you quoted me was neither definitive or categorical.

His accusation that Republicans must have been aware of the planning of the robbery whilst negotiating with him is very categorical though and is what has píssed him off. I doubt you will find too many non SF T.D's that oppose his view on that given the speeches in the Dáil the other night.

That quite frankly should be the disturbing thing for you as an SF supporter, ie the wealth of respectable opinion pointing the finger at SF and perfectly happy to use the term SF/IRA as one term because they believe it to be so.
But apparently it's not as you go on to say regarding the majority of Dáil deputies opinions on the matter...

I don't care what the members of the Dail think...

Now thats dangerous territory to be on as you are implying that their opinion is worthless because it doesnt agree with yours or SF's

Furthermore if you dont care what they think, whats the point of this thread in the first place? Wouldnt it be appropriate at this stage to turn your question on its head and say well why dont you put up or shut up about their opinions and let them get on with it as you dont care and their opinions dont matter as such

Villain

I don't care what they think because their main concern is the next election, not the peace process. I have seen no proof that shows SF leaders knew in advance of he robbery, Gerry Adams said that Bertie couldn't stand up that accusation, does that not worry you??

Cork

irish1 wrote:

So come on how can we accept what members of the Government say when they are all saying different things???

It is called democratic politics. People are entitled to have differant views. But really there was massive support for the motion which called on republicans to end criminality and paramilitarism.

This motion will probably fall upon deaf ears. But all partys (except SF/IRA) north and south are in 100% agreement on the need to end criminality and paramilitarism.

It is now up to the provisional movement to act.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I don't care what they think because their main concern is the next election

As I said here before that would be plausable were it not for the fact that the next election is nearly 2 and a half years away-hardly text book timing for a campaign if its aim is as you say...

Gerry Adams said that Bertie couldn't stand up that accusation, does that not worry you??

It would if he stopped saying it and apoligised
Then I'd question Aherns judgement but as he hasnt retracted or apologised and as he's part of an overwhelming majority of T.D's singing from the same sheet,I'd be more worried if I was on the receiving end of that level of conviction about something unsavoury than anything else.
I'm not thankfully.
The Republican movement shouldnt be concerned though as you have said as a supporter that you don't care what the rest of the T.D's say.
Besides if its all smoke and mirrors as you're suggesting...shur the public are bound to see through that and all will be ok yes?
Thus this thread is immaterial

stevenmu

Earthman wrote:

Well we haven't seen the file so therefore we cant say whether they were his own conclusions or that of the Gardaí.
We can say that he has put it on record though that the information in front of him points to the fact that the IRA were involved and that the republican leadership must have been aware of this.

but no names have been mentioned in relation to who carried out the robbery-so whoever goes on trial, their trial would not be prejudiced.

every jury would have an opinion on the IRA-thats immaterial it would have no effect on the judgement in a case where people are being tried.
The judgement would have to be based on the evidence against them....
and the evedence would have to stand up.

If anyone does go to trial they will undoubtedly be an alleged member of the PIRA, their defence will argue that they're being assumed guilty by association. They'll also be able to argue that any evidence provided is invalid because they were just telling the PSNI what they wanted to hear. You only have to look at this thread here to see how peoples opinions have been affected already. Many on the thread seem absolutely convinced of the PIRA's guilt. Granted many would be convinced of that irrespective, they are the most obvious suspects after all, but I'm pretty sure that people would be a lot less sure of themselves if it wasn't for the PSNI, Garda and Government statements (altough I can't of course prove that )

Earthman wrote:

Well I have to take issue with you there.
Should they have actively encouraged an agreement when they are of the opinion based on the facts before them (to which they have privileged access) when they saw what they believed a huge breach of faith by republicans?
The public has the right to know why, the government have said what they have said and it has been explained by them.
They didnt take the decision lightly or otherwise they would have a lot of egg on their faces.
Should they have sat there tight lipped yet in the background tell SF that theres going to be no more agreement without an end to Republican criminality and leave the public in the dark as to what is go-ing on?

Doubtless they will tell you that doing so would have been to again fudge the issue of criminality and thats not something they want to do given they think its getting more Rife not less Rife.

I would think that they should have carried on negotiating with Sinn Fein untill they were proven guilty in a court of law as our Justice systems requires. Alternatly they could have delayed negotiations on the basis that PIRA/SF were suspects. Instead they are being summarily declared guilty and are being punished as a result. If it can happen to them, what's to stop it happening to you or me ?

stevenmu

oscarBravo wrote:

This entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the IRA were not involved in the robbery. At the very least, that's as unsafe an assumption as that they were involved, and on balance of probability I'd say a great deal less safe.

In probability terms the PIRA probably did carry out the robbery and SF probably did know about it. I've seen studies say that approximatly 25% of all drivers on the road at any one time are under the influence of drink or drugs, should the Gardaí pull over every 4th car on the basis that the driver is probably committing a crime ?

The fact is that the PSNI are assuming PIRA carried out the robbery and have put themselves in a position where, politically, it's almost impossible for them to find that somebody else did it. And the evidence they have seems to be shaky at best, all the searches they've carried out so far seem to have turned up nothing. So either their evidence isn't particularly good or else they're carrying out random searches of prominent republicans (a huge civil rights violation btw). Either way it says to naybody on the outside looking in, that a professionally done crime will almost certainly be blamed on PIRA with little or no effort directed at anyone else.

What would happen happen if Al Qaeda decided to attack the US embassy/consulate in NI and didn't own up to it, who would get blamed ?

sceptre

stevenmu wrote:

In probability terms the PIRA probably did carry out the robbery and SF probably did know about it. I've seen studies say that approximatly 25% of all drivers on the road at any one time are under the influence of drink or drugs, should the Gardaí pull over every 4th car on the basis that the driver is probably committing a crime ?

If they really think that 1 in 4 drivers is high on something (that sounds a bit wacky - what studies?) I'd rather they pulled them all over. Frequently. With helicopters in the sky so they can check out the guys who do a u-turn as soon as they see the checkpoint. So anyhoo, what were you going to say if one of us said no?

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

Ok look what I laughed at was the fact that people believed our Justice system could be ignored because of fear of the IRA.

But we have decades of evidence of British forces doing just that, ignoring the law of the land. You dont laugh at collusion, rather dont you complain/condemn it? Is collusion and SAS murders a laughing matter? It just different sides of the same coin, one side has appeasement where the law is over looked and the other extra judicial killings and war crimes. Both are examples of Juctice being over looked because of fear of the IRA.

I don't believe the IRA would return to war just because Gerry Adams is arrested.

Hence I used the words "percieved threat". I told you not to change your arguements and to say no threat existed, that wasnt the point. Your point was how such threats should be dealt with.

I haven't much time here but to sum up, I don't believe fear should stop the Justice system from arresting Adams if there is eveidence that he broke the law or is a member of an illegal organisation.

Yes, why not simply arrest adams, destroy all trust built up over the last 16 years and put the main voice for peace and politics within the IRA in jail? Lets just return to the way things were because that was great fun, a real laughing matter.

Just because I said IRA did achieve things by violence IN THE PAST doesn't mean I believe they would achieve anything in the present circumstances if they returned to war. Times thank god have changed.

No Im sorry but as Ive said to two other posters in this thread already you cannot hold double standards. If violence has the potential to achieve things the the threat of violence, percieved or real, cannot be ignored. By holding onto the threat of violence the IRA has focred British and Irish governments and security forces to turn a blind eye to criminality. To say other wise is to ignore the facts. To say its wrong that either side would do what it has is something to debate but that it has happened should be obvious.

stevenmu

sceptre wrote:

If they really think that 1 in 4 drivers is high on something (that sounds a bit wacky - what studies?) I'd rather they pulled them all over. Frequently. With helicopters in the sky so they can check out the guys who do a u-turn as soon as they see the checkpoint. So anyhoo, what were you going to say if one of us said no?

The only one I could find right now is at IrishHealth.com it's not what I mentioned above but it's not very far off.

It was meant as a rhetorical question. I never would have thought that people would believe that we should all be stopped "frequently" by Gardaí, as we go about our daily business, and be forced to prove that we are currently innocent of crime. And I thought operation crossover was a bad idea.

"Ihre Papieren Bitte" ? :eek:

oscarBravo

stevenmu wrote:

In probability terms the PIRA probably did carry out the robbery and SF probably did know about it.

Interesting - I'll come back to this shortly.

stevenmu wrote:

I've seen studies say that approximatly 25% of all drivers on the road at any one time are under the influence of drink or drugs, should the Gardaí pull over every 4th car on the basis that the driver is probably committing a crime ?

Your maths are faulty, but the broad answer is yes, along the same line of reasoning put forward by Sceptre. I'll come back to this also.

stevenmu wrote:

The fact is that the PSNI are assuming PIRA carried out the robbery and have put themselves in a position where, politically, it's almost impossible for them to find that somebody else did it.

You've made the same assumption yourself, above. On what evidence do you base it? As to it being politically impossible for them to nick someone else, I don't necessarily buy that. Occam's Razor tells me that if a police force publicly indicate the direction their investigation is taking, it's probably because they have evidence that points in that direction. Your point about political impossibility implies that the initial announcement was politically motivated.

stevemnu wrote:

And the evidence they have seems to be shaky at best, all the searches they've carried out so far seem to have turned up nothing. So either their evidence isn't particularly good or else they're carrying out random searches of prominent republicans (a huge civil rights violation btw). Either way it says to naybody on the outside looking in, that a professionally done crime will almost certainly be blamed on PIRA with little or no effort directed at anyone else.

Alternatively, they're following what leads they have but the perpetrators have covered their tracks extremely well. It's conceivable that there is compelling evidence to suggest who is responsible for a crime without that evidence being comprehensive enough to secure a conviction.

stevenmu wrote:

What would happen happen if Al Qaeda decided to attack the US embassy/consulate in NI and didn't own up to it, who would get blamed ?

I would imagine the answer would depend on where the evidence points.

stevenmu wrote:

I never would have thought that people would believe that we should all be stopped "frequently" by Gardaí, as we go about our daily business, and be forced to prove that we are currently innocent of crime.

Out of context, I certainly wouldn't believe that, no. In context, however, you suggested that one in four drivers are under the influence of drugs - I'm assuming you're talking about drugs that affect judgement and/or responses, as opposed to paracetamol etc. - and if that were truly the case, I'd certainly expect something to be done about it, and I'd happily submit to random spot-checks under the circumstances.

Villain

Necromancer wrote:

But we have decades of evidence of British forces doing just that, ignoring the law of the land. You dont laugh at collusion, rather dont you complain/condemn it? Is collusion and SAS murders a laughing matter? It just different sides of the same coin, one side has appeasement where the law is over looked and the other extra judicial killings and war crimes. Both are examples of Juctice being over looked because of fear of the IRA.

I posted LOL, being sarcastic, I am talking about the current situation not about the past, IMO it is wrong to ignore the justice because of fear. Our Justice system should be above fear.

Necromancer wrote:

Hence I used the words "percieved threat". I told you not to change your arguements and to say no threat existed, that wasnt the point. Your point was how such threats should be dealt with.

I didn't change my argument, I said I don't believe the IRA will return to war, that doesn'ty mean there is any threat.

Necromancer wrote:

Yes, why not simply arrest adams, destroy all trust built up over the last 16 years and put the main voice for peace and politics within the IRA in jail? Lets just return to the way things were because that was great fun, a real laughing matter.

I think most of that trust is gone anyway because of Bertie's statments to the media, by arresting Gerry and allowing due process to take place Gerry would be able to respond and defend himself and then the Justice system could decide whether or not to confict. Because remember he would have to be found guilty before he could be sent to jail.

Necromancer wrote:

No Im sorry but as Ive said to two other posters in this thread already you cannot hold double standards. If violence has the potential to achieve things the the threat of violence, percieved or real, cannot be ignored. By holding onto the threat of violence the IRA has focred British and Irish governments and security forces to turn a blind eye to criminality. To say other wise is to ignore the facts. To say its wrong that either side would do what it has is something to debate but that it has happened should be obvious.

I believe Jutice is more important, criminalty has to be tackled now, I don't believe the government's should wait until the IRA has decommisioned before it tackles crime.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

As I said here before that would be plausable were it not for the fact that the next election is nearly 2 and a half years away-hardly text book timing for a campaign if its aim is as you say...

The next election is always on the minds of the main party's whether it be 4 years or 4 months away, and don't forget we have 2 by-elections comming very soon.

Earthman wrote:

It would if he stopped saying it and apoligised
Then I'd question Aherns judgement but as he hasnt retracted or apologised and as he's part of an overwhelming majority of T.D's singing from the same sheet,I'd be more worried if I was on the receiving end of that level of conviction about something unsavoury than anything else.
I'm not thankfully.
The Republican movement shouldnt be concerned though as you have said as a supporter that you don't care what the rest of the T.D's say.
Besides if its all smoke and mirrors as you're suggesting...shur the public are bound to see through that and all will be ok yes?
Thus this thread is immaterial

Well I think the Irish times poll that I posted in another thread not so long shows what the public think and it's not quite what you may think, if you can't find it let me know and I'll dig it up, in the mean time I better go do some work

irish1

irish1 wrote:

The next election is always on the minds of the main party's whether it be 4 years

Don't be so silly-if you were to apply that then politicians couldnt say anything at all about any other politician even straight after the election because theres another one in 5 years.
As I say, more than two years out from an election seems a pretty strange time fo the big 3 parties to be singing this particular tune-if their motive is to damage SF.
They could for instance start saying in public that Ahern is on the take because its FF form for to be on the take.
Ahern would never sue as too many of his peers/general public think the same...

Well I think the Irish times poll that I posted in another thread not so long shows what the public think and it's not quite what you may think,

What? This poll ?

Of course people think SF should still be involved in negotiations regarding Government in NI based on their mandate alone there.
With 47% thinking the IRA did the robbery vs 19% thinking they didnt, thats 2 and a half times more people convinced that they did than thinking that they didnt. Now with the majority of Dáil deputies singing from the same hymm sheet as Ahern as regards views on SF knowledge of it, then one would suggest from that the importance of SF being seen to take moves to counter the opinion.

and don't forget we have 2 by-elections comming very soon.

They're hardly great stomping grounds for SF though are they? so to follow your theory I would think it even more extraordinary than I do allready if Ahern decided to bring up all this SF knowledge of the robbery business just to help FF campaign chances against SF in those two constituencies.

As I said it's more than likely a lot more to do with how píssed off he is at what he believes is an SF breach of faith in that he believes they knew of the robbery plans whilst negotiations on a new agreement up north were on-going.