McDowell names Adams and McGuinness as members of IRA Army Council.

bonkey

[QUOTE=Meh "People are afraid of Gerry Adams because he is a leader of the IRA" is a statement of fact (three facts to be exact about it), [/quote]

Not that has been proven in any meaningful sense, no.

In this case, an admission by Adams and/or the IRA, or a legal finding is about the only thing I can see which could prove that statement.

Think about it. No matter how credible the sources you choose to put your faith in...would their word be sufficient in a court of law to say that Adams was beyond reasonable doubt indeed a leader of the IRA? If not, then how can it be a fact?

You may choose to believe it to be a fact...but thats your opinion.

Also, Gerry Adams' own legal advice appears to disagree with you here -- Gerry didn't mention anything about your "opinions and facts are the same thing, no really" theory when he was explaining why he didn't sue.

You mean Gerry's apparent legal advice.

Here you are stating that its a fact that the man is a leader of the IRA, and therefore (by implication) has been lying through his teeth about said position for some time now (to put it mildly), and yet when he comes out and makes a statement like this....his word is beyond reproof to you?

jc

Meh

bonkey wrote:

Not that has been proven in any meaningful sense, no.

In this case, an admission by Adams and/or the IRA, or a legal finding is about the only thing I can see which could prove that statement.

Think about it. No matter how credible the sources you choose to put your faith in...would their word be sufficient in a court of law to say that Adams was beyond reasonable doubt indeed a leader of the IRA? If not, then how can it be a fact?

It's a statement of fact (the fact in question may be either true or false) as opposed to a statement of opinion.

You mean Gerry's apparent legal advice.

Here you are stating that its a fact that the man is a leader of the IRA, and therefore (by implication) has been lying through his teeth about said position for some time now (to put it mildly), and yet when he comes out and makes a statement like this....his word is beyond reproof to you?

OK, so he's lying about his legal advice. Where does that leave us?

cdebru

Meh wrote:

It's a statement of fact (the fact in question may be either true or false) as opposed to a statement of opinion.?

a statement of fact means what it is if the fact is wrong then it is not a statement of fact

Meh wrote:

OK, so he's lying about his legal advice. Where does that leave us?

that is not what he said he asked why you choose to believe what adams says as proof of your arguement yet your arguement is that the man is a liar

Meh

cdebru wrote:

a statement of fact means what it is if the fact is wrong then it is not a statement of fact

No, it is a false statement of fact. This may help, look at meaning 5

that is not what he said he asked why you choose to believe what adams says as proof of your arguement yet your arguement is that the man is a liar

If Adams is telling the truth about his legal advice, then he's contradicting Necromancer. If he's lying, then...well, he's a liar and we can't trust his denials of being on the IRA Army Council. I'm quite happy to concede that he's lying about his legal advice if you really want to push it.

But you can't have it both ways -- either he is contradicting Necromancer or he is not telling the truth about his legal advice. Pick one or the other.

cdebru

Meh wrote:

No, it is a false statement of fact. This may help, look at meaning 5.

no it doesn't
a fact is a truth

if is is false then it never was a fact it can only be a fact when it is a truth

in your opinion it might be true but that does not make it a fact

Meh wrote:

If Adams is telling the truth about his legal advice, then he's contradicting Necromancer. If he's lying, then...well, he's a liar and we can't trust his denials of being on the IRA Army Council. I'm quite happy to concede that he's lying about his legal advice if you really want to push it.

But you can't have it both ways -- either he is contradicting Necromancer or he is not telling the truth about his legal advice. Pick one or the other.

that is not the question the question was why when you are insisting that adams is a liar are you so prepared to use adams statement as the truth to back up your claims that necromancer is wrong.
it seems to be you that wants it both ways adams tells the truth when it backs up your case but he is a liar the rest of the time

Meh

cdebru wrote:

no it doesn't
a fact is a truth

if is is false then it never was a fact it can only be a fact when it is a truth

The dictionary disagrees with you there.

that is not the question the question was why when you are insisting that adams is a liar are you so prepared to use adams statement as the truth to back up your claims that necromancer is wrong.
it seems to be you that wants it both ways adams tells the truth when it backs up your case but he is a liar the rest of the time

OK, I'll explain it again: There are two possibilities here:

1. Adams was telling the truth about his legal advice. In which case he is contradicting Necromancer
2. Adams was not telling the truth about his legal advice. In which case we can't trust anything he says

I don't know which one of these options is the actual true one, but one of them must be true. So it cannot be the case both that Adams is telling the truth and Necromancer is right. You are going to have to choose one and only one of those possibilities. I'm not suddenly insisting that Adams is telling the truth here and nowhere else -- all I'm saying is that if he is telling the truth here, then Necromancer is wrong.

It's entirely possible that Adams is lying and Necromancer is right, in which case I will gladly concede the point (and presumably you and Necromancer will concede the thread).

Do you understand now, or do I have to explain it again?

cdebru

Meh wrote:

The dictionary disagrees with you there.?

no it doesn't try here

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact

"
Fact has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as in “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong” (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis."




"a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth "


in what way do you think this means that a fact does not have to be true

I can state something as if it was a fact

for instance
the world is flat

it sounds like a fact but it is not a fact no matter how hard i try to make it a fact or how much i believe it to be true it is not true and it is not a fact

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

Surely as a Sinn Fein suporter you believe that the Army Council is the legal government of this country and therefore their official policies of disappearing people are those of the state you believe you live in?

i'm not a sinn fein supporter

i do not believe the iRA is the legal goverment of this country

i know what state i live in and as far as i know they do not disapear people


I am a republican but i am not tied to any political party i criticise sinn fein when i think they deserve it
I dont believe everything the Irish indo says about them nor micheal mcdowell
i dont believe everything adams or mcguinness say


and as usual when anti republicans run into trouble with their arguement they try bring up jean mcconville for your information and just to save you the bother of trying to get the better of me by mentioning jean mcconville

i think it was a crime
i think it was probably sectarian
and i think who ever did it brought shame on republicanism
as did the people who tried to cover it up


now can you tell me about the UDF

monument

Sleepy wrote:

monument: let me clarify: I think this Island would be better off were every member of a paramilitary association killed. Since they all consider it glorious to die "for the cause", I can't see why they'd have such a big problem with it. The paramilitaries no longer have a role on this Island. Whilst I can identify with the defenderist roots of the Provos, they have turned into little more than a mafia with a few vague political aims.

Sure, I'm a hard-liner when it comes to law and order. I believe in the death penalty. I thought it was a good thing when the General was killed. If someone wants to act outside the law, I don't believe they deserve it's protection.

Right. Is it safe to say you are not retracting your comments re your support for mass murder?

Sleepy

cdebru wrote:

now can you tell me about the UDF

I'll concede that I didn't know the full details of the organisation, but the fact remains that there was a UDF (in the sense of an extremist/elite wing of the UDA and that the words have been daubed in murals in Unionist areas. And to be fair, the unionist paramilitaries have always been pretty affected by Pythonesque "splitterism".

monument: it's fair to say that I believe justice would be served were every active member of all paramilitary groups in the North to be shot, yes.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

monument: it's fair to say that I believe justice would be served were every active member of all paramilitary groups in the North to be shot, yes.

'Justice' and 'executing people who are active members of paramilitary groups' are strange concepts to be used together. True colours showing perhaps?

You would have a much bigger problem if the governments agreed to your blood lust. Would you go after their families next?

Villain

Sleepy wrote:

monument: it's fair to say that I believe justice would be served were every active member of all paramilitary groups in the North to be shot, yes.

SHOT?? not jailed but shot???

Would that be after a trial even??

What about members down south would you like to see all them shot as well?

Sleepy

yes irish1, I would. The cure for cancer is to kill the cells.

True colours, Glasgow? I don't quite follow you. If someone sees no wrong in planting a bomb where it will kill innocent civilians under the guise of an "economic target", I see nothing wrong with them being shot. If someone thinks they have the right to kneecap teenagers that cause trouble in an area that the person themselves have ensure the police force can't enter, I see nothing wrong in shooting that person. Where's the point in killing the families of those involved? Unless they're members themselves, they too are victims of the paramilitary.

Villain

Sleepy wrote:

yes irish1, I would. The cure for cancer is to kill the cells.

True colours, Glasgow? I don't quite follow you. If someone sees no wrong in planting a bomb where it will kill innocent civilians under the guise of an "economic target", I see nothing wrong with them being shot. If someone thinks they have the right to kneecap teenagers that cause trouble in an area that the person themselves have ensure the police force can't enter, I see nothing wrong in shooting that person. Where's the point in killing the families of those involved? Unless they're members themselves, they too are victims of the paramilitary.

Thats not Justice Sleepy thats murder! and a crazy idea.

Plus IMHO death by gunshot would be to easy for some people involved e.g. the people who planted the Omagh bomb. Jail for life would be better.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

yes irish1, I would. The cure for cancer is to kill the cells.

True colours, Glasgow? I don't quite follow you. If someone sees no wrong in planting a bomb where it will kill innocent civilians under the guise of an "economic target", I see nothing wrong with them being shot. If someone thinks they have the right to kneecap teenagers that cause trouble in an area that the person themselves have ensure the police force can't enter, I see nothing wrong in shooting that person. Where's the point in killing the families of those involved? Unless they're members themselves, they too are victims of the paramilitary.

Now you are just rambling

You are advocating exactly what the paramilitaries do but you try and dress it up as 'justice'. You are no better than the advocates of violence. You think you are but you are totally misguided and out of touch with reality if you think that killing every member of a paramilitary group will solve the issue.

You advocated that every 'active' member of paramilitaries be shot dead. Their crime? For being an 'active' member? Guilt by association?

You will not eradicate the problem, you will eradicate the immediate symptom and the problem will come back and bite you on your backside.

Your true colours are showing: Somebody who would use violence to further their own ends. Something you say you despise in others :rolleyes:

ionapaul

Isreal's use of targeted assassination never eradicated their own terrorist problem - I doubt a more extreme policy (such as that suggested by Sleepy) would work. I am sure that the authorities (securocrats!) on both sides of the border have up-to-date details of all members of the terrorist organisations (via informants and planted agents) - but eliminating them might lead to an upsurge in recruitment in the affected communities.

At the same time, I wouldn't shed a tear over the elimination of active terrorists / criminals - such as what happened in Gibraltar.

Sleepy

So, irish1, it's murder if a member of a paramilitary is killed but a 'wrong' or an 'unfortunate accident' if an innocent civilian is killed by their actions? I fail to understand your logic tbh.

A Dub in Glasgo - I stipulated active members to allow those members of the organisations in question to relinquish their violence and membership of the organisation.

The problem in the north today is the paramilitaries, the vast majority of Northerners don't support their actions and just want to go on with their lives. By killing all of them, the problem is solved.

Villain

Sleepy wrote:

So, irish1, it's murder if a member of a paramilitary is killed but a 'wrong' or an 'unfortunate accident' if an innocent civilian is killed by their actions? I fail to understand your logic tbh.

When did I ever say that??

You really shouldn't presume to know what I think, if your referring to Jean McConville I have said it was murder, read back over the related thread and you will see it. :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

So, irish1, it's murder if a member of a paramilitary is killed but a 'wrong' or an 'unfortunate accident' if an innocent civilian is killed by their actions? I fail to understand your logic tbh.

What do you call this? or this? 'Murder' or 'unfortunate accident'

A Dub in Glasgo - I stipulated active members to allow those members of the organisations in question to relinquish their violence and membership of the organisation.

Unless people leave the paramilitaries, they will be rounded up and executed? You actually think this will solve the problem? I think it is scary that you believe this will solve the problem

By killing all of them, the problem is solved.

Only the naive or someone on a blood lust would believe that

[ Daithí ]

Sleepy wrote:

So, irish1, it's murder if a member of a paramilitary is killed but a 'wrong' or an 'unfortunate accident' if an innocent civilian is killed by their actions? I fail to understand your logic tbh.

A Dub in Glasgo - I stipulated active members to allow those members of the organisations in question to relinquish their violence and membership of the organisation.

The problem in the north today is the paramilitaries, the vast majority of Northerners don't support their actions and just want to go on with their lives. By killing all of them, the problem is solved.

So who's going to kill them all, exactly? The British army? Don't you know the British army has tried that countless times and they have yet to succeed?

"By killing all of them, the problem is solved."

A man called Adolf Hitler said the exact same thing. Perhaps you've heard of him, but maybe not...

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

The dictionary disagrees with you there.

No it doesn’t, this is the third example of you giving a source that doesn’t support your argument and claiming it does.

OK, I'll explain it again: There are two possibilities here:

1. Adams was telling the truth about his legal advice. In which case he is contradicting Necromancer
   
2. Adams was not telling the truth about his legal advice. In which case we can't trust anything he says

I’ve said several times I haven’t hear Adam's legal advice. I’ve repeatedly asked you to tell me what it is if you know or have a link to what Adams claims it is.

I don't know which one of these options is the actual true one, but one of them must be true. So it cannot be the case both that Adams is telling the truth and Necromancer is right.

It is perfectly possible that there is more than one reason why Adams can’t sue. If Adams IS on the army council then the defence of Justification and that can be used, If he’s not then qualified privilege is a valid defence, either way Adams cant sue.

You are going to have to choose one and only one of those possibilities. I'm not suddenly insisting that Adams is telling the truth here and nowhere else -- all I'm saying is that if he is telling the truth here, then Necromancer is wrong.

I’m taking it by this statement that you have finally acknowledged my argument for what it is {one of qualified privilege on the part of McDowell}, and that you are no longer lying about what I have said and stopped accusing me of inventing law. Accepting I can have this opinion is a good step but you should still appologise for making the accusations.
How can I comment on Adams legal advice untill I know what it is, if you know it/what Adams says it is please share it with the rest of us.

It's entirely possible that Adams is lying and Necromancer is right

Thank you, it is entirely possible that Adams is on the army council (that’s my personal opinion btw: I’ve never said he’s not only that even if he’s not he wont win a libel action)

in which case I will gladly concede the point (and presumably you and Necromancer will concede the thread).

That is the most enlightening post you have ever made, you cant accept a win-win end to this thread in which everyone sees the merit in everyone else’s views and come out with new improved opinions.
Someone has to be right and someone else wrong in your opinion, that’s why you were prepared to lie and distort facts.

Your view is that Adams is on the army council, the statement was true, so he can’t sue.
My view is that McDowell spoke under qualified privilege and Adams can’t sue even if he wasn’t on the Army council. The point I want accepted is that failure to sue doesn’t equate to guilt.

Our two stances are not mutually exclusive.

Look at the attached picture, there are two images to be seen in he same picture both equally correct.


You have stopped asking me to repeat myself so I am taking it as you understand my opinion and its basis in Irish law, good I think this thread is going to have a productive end


*Please share with the rest of us what Adam's legal advice is

*I see you have stopped lying and I am happy but I think you should appologise for lying in the first place

*Stop providing links that don’t support your position and claim that they do

Stabshauptmann

Ah Sleepy I know from experience that you are capable of better posts than what you are doing in the thread

How can killing all the Provos currently around help anything. It is a historical truth that actions like this would only increase support for "the cause".

It ammounts as nothing more than censurism and political disinfanchisment, I thought you were a firm believer in democracy.

You agree that the PIRA once served a purpose, it concievable that if a united Ireland were to come about loyalist agression would resume and how capable the Irish security forces are at dealing with such a threat is unknown.

Sleepy wrote:

So, irish1, it's murder if a member of a paramilitary is killed but a 'wrong' or an 'unfortunate accident' if an innocent civilian is killed by their actions? I fail to understand your logic tbh.

Such is the way of war, America calls it collateral damage.

Ive said before that my opinion is that the British forces should either use common law or the rules of war to fight the IRA and that using which ever seems more convienient at any one time is IMO wrong and no matter what way you look at it illegal.
The IRA conducted it its opinion a war. It commited a few ar crimes, not as many as you would think, but the disapperaed is the most easily proved.

The problem in the north today is the paramilitaries, the vast majority of Northerners don't support their actions and just want to go on with their lives. By killing all of them, the problem is solved.

No, the vast majority of ppl didnt support the 1916 rising till after the execution of its leaders. Most ppl dont support paramilitaries, lets keep it that way, get rid of any legitimate reason for them to exist through political means and then tackle what criminal elements remain with the full rigours of the law.

Stabshauptmann

BTW I regret I was never able to finish that other discussion I was having with you sleepy about the IRA, i thought that was a very interesting and productive thread.

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

I’ve said several times I haven’t hear Adam's legal advice. I’ve repeatedly asked you to tell me what it is if you know or have a link to what Adams claims it is.

Here you go:

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/4993044?view=Eircomnet
Mr Adams, however, said he could not sue.

"My solicitor has told me," he told reporters yesterday, "that in terms of the libel laws, the likes of me cannot actually claim to be libelled by being accused of being a member of the IRA, given that to be libelled means that your peer group will be embarrassed and find in some way that they couldn't deal with you.

Nothing about qualified privilege, you'll note.

I’m taking it by this statement that you have finally acknowledged my argument for what it is {one of qualified privilege on the part of McDowell},

Not at all. I just don't think that argument was going anywhere. It didn't look like you were interested in continuing it either, you said you were leaving the thread.

I see you have stopped lying and I am happy but I think you should appologise for lying in the first place

Please read what the rules have to say about accusation that other posters are lying:

If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive.

So unless you can prove that I deliberately intended to deceive you (rather than misunderstanding your point), it's you who needs to withdraw this statement.

Sleepy

Necromancer wrote:

BTW I regret I was never able to finish that other discussion I was having with you sleepy about the IRA, i thought that was a very interesting and productive thread.

Which thread was that?

Sleepy

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

So who's going to kill them all, exactly? The British army? Don't you know the British army has tried that countless times and they have yet to succeed?

"By killing all of them, the problem is solved."

A man called Adolf Hitler said the exact same thing. Perhaps you've heard of him, but maybe not...

That's a non-argument. The Jews, Romanys and Homosexuals weren't murderous thugs.

To be honest, I don't entirely believe it would work it's just that I'm so exasperated by the Sinn Fein / IRA mafia and inability to behave like decent human beings that at this point I honestly would like to see the lot of them shot. Call that blood lust if you like. I'd see it as putting down a dog that you've tried your hardest to train but still bites every hand that tries to feed it. (And before it's pointed out to me, I'm aware that comparing the IRA/Sinn Fein to dogs is dehumanising them and making it easier for me to consider killing a viable option before the armchair psychologists jump in there. Truth is, I think most dogs are nicer animals than a lot of humans and personally believe I would find it harder to pull the trigger on one than on a convicted murderer).

Sleepy

Necromancer wrote:

Ah Sleepy I know from experience that you are capable of better posts than what you are doing in the thread

Thank you.

How can killing all the Provos currently around help anything. It is a historical truth that actions like this would only increase support for "the cause".

There's a definite truth in that. I'm just currently completely exasperated with Sinn Fein / IRA, their inability to speak a word of truth, make a meaningful commitment to peace (they had the perfect opportunity to take the moral high-ground by just going ahead with the decommissioning, with or without taking photographs of it, in a unilaterral disarmament and chose to ignore it), their inconsistency, victim-complex and propoganda.

It amounts as nothing more than censurism and political disinfanchisment, I thought you were a firm believer in democracy.

I wouldn't go so far to say I'm a firm believer in democracy, but it is the only system we have at the moment.

You agree that the PIRA once served a purpose, it concievable that if a united Ireland were to come about loyalist agression would resume and how capable the Irish security forces are at dealing with such a threat is unknown.

The provisionals had justification during their early defenderist days, they lost it years ago. I agree with you that a united Ireland would be a very dangerous place though I probably have a little more faith in the Irish army than you. I believe if they could handle the lebanon, they could handle a group of terrorists notorious for their lack of discipline, organisation and general incompetence (this is probably one of the reasons I tend to be more vocal about the IRA than Unionist terrorists, much as I despise them, they have proven themselves to be quite talented terrorists).

Such is the way of war, America calls it collateral damage.

It's still wrong when they do it, and tbh I don't consider the IRA's terrorism to be a war (legitimate or otherwise)

Ive said before that my opinion is that the British forces should either use common law or the rules of war to fight the IRA and that using which ever seems more convienient at any one time is IMO wrong and no matter what way you look at it illegal.
The IRA conducted it its opinion a war. It commited a few ar crimes, not as many as you would think, but the disapperaed is the most easily proved.

I'd consider the majority of the IRA's actions to be crimes. I see your point regarding the British but for the most part, I believe their actions were legitimate.

No, the vast majority of ppl didnt support the 1916 rising till after the execution of its leaders. Most ppl dont support paramilitaries, lets keep it that way, get rid of any legitimate reason for them to exist through political means and then tackle what criminal elements remain with the full rigours of the law.

I agree with you in large part on this, the problem is I don't see Sinn Fein/IRA keeping to purely political means of persuing their objectives. Their role in obstructing the course of justice in the case of the brutal butchering of Robert McCartney to protect murderers that they on the one hand distance themselves from and on the other hand protect is a prime example of this.

Sinn Fein / IRA seem completely incapable of allowing the law to deal with the criminal aspects within itself (and before someone jumps in with it the fact that Fianna Fail seem incapable of allowing justice be done with regards the illegal dealings of some of their members does not excuse Sinn Fein / IRA or in any way diminish my point).

[ Daithí ]

Sleepy wrote:

That's a non-argument. The Jews, Romanys and Homosexuals weren't murderous thugs.

To be honest, I don't entirely believe it would work it's just that I'm so exasperated by the Sinn Fein / IRA mafia and inability to behave like decent human beings that at this point I honestly would like to see the lot of them shot. Call that blood lust if you like. I'd see it as putting down a dog that you've tried your hardest to train but still bites every hand that tries to feed it. (And before it's pointed out to me, I'm aware that comparing the IRA/Sinn Fein to dogs is dehumanising them and making it easier for me to consider killing a viable option before the armchair psychologists jump in there. Truth is, I think most dogs are nicer animals than a lot of humans and personally believe I would find it harder to pull the trigger on one than on a convicted murderer).

Your hypocrisy makes me shudder. You are no better than the people who commit these crimes in the first place, except what you're talking about is planned mass murder, not on and off shootings.

Are soldiers not "murderous thugs" when they shoot civilians? Should every solider in Ireland who has killed someone be executed for being a "murderous thug"? Just because the IRA's war against Loyalism and the Brits isn't "officially recognised" by international governments doesn't mean it's not a war. Civilians get killed in wars. Face the reality of war.

That said, I do not support the IRA, but you're just being a hypocrite, and it pisses me off.

Sleepy

Just because the IRA's war against Loyalism and the Brits isn't "officially recognised" by international governments doesn't mean it's not a war

How exactly do you figure that? Besides, these days the IRA are far too busy with robbing banks, taxing drug dealers, dishing out punishment beatings etc to be bothered having a go at the British.

To be entirely honest, Daithí, I'm not entirely serious in the suggestion. It's just something I'd personally like to see. I'm sure every republican (and a few non-republicans) on this board would love to see Ian Paisley dead. To be honest, unless it was done in a way in which the Unionists could make a martyr of him akin to Sinn Fein's beatification of Bobby Sands, I wouldn't be upset to see it myself. I'm not saying that it's necessarily what should be done, just something I'd like to see.

shltter

Sleepy wrote:

How exactly do you figure that? Besides, these days the IRA are far too busy with robbing banks, taxing drug dealers, dishing out punishment beatings etc to be bothered having a go at the British.

To be entirely honest, Daithí, I'm not entirely serious in the suggestion. It's just something I'd personally like to see. I'm sure every republican (and a few non-republicans) on this board would love to see Ian Paisley dead. To be honest, unless it was done in a way in which the Unionists could make a martyr of him akin to Sinn Fein's beatification of Bobby Sands, I wouldn't be upset to see it myself. I'm not saying that it's necessarily what should be done, just something I'd like to see.

personally I don't want anybody else to be killed i think there has been enough killing

it seems odd that your so anti republican but it is you that wants to continue the killing