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

A Dub in Glasgo

The only one here advocating murder!!

FTA69

God forbid you ever get your hands on a gun Sleepy!

Besides, these days the IRA are far too busy taxing drug dealers

And you know this from your vast experience with working-class areas, the IRA and drug-dealers do you? The IRA have a long history of combatting drugs in Ireland especially Dublin and Belfast. You really should stop relying on the gutter press for your information Sleepy, I've had a few meaningful discussions with your good self but as someone posted above, you've let yourself down here! It appears your ranting and raving stems from the misconception that the IRA and even the Loyalist death squads are the sole cause of conflict in this country, what I have yet to see you do is analyse the causes of the origins and sustenance of these groups which is after all the real source of peace, the addressing of the root cause.

Sinn Fein's beatification of Bobby Sands

I am unaware his name was ever submitted to the Pope for beatification.

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

Here you go:Nothing about qualified privilege, you'll note.Not at all.

I think that statement was a very good political move, hats off to Adams, but its BS IMO. Ive mentioned a case already that deals with defamtion and IRA membership and why its not your peers but society generally that you are defamed in. I also quoted the law as it is written (Ive a policy of not repeating things now for you)

I just don't think that argument was going anywhere.

You were determined it go round in circles, you had a problem accepting ti was a valid arguement or that the law even existed. Thats why you had to lie so much.

It didn't look like you were interested in continuing it either, you said you were leaving the thread.

If you didnt stop lying and trolling. You did, so Im ready to continue.

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

Reread some of my earlier posts, Ive made my arguement for why I believe you to be trolling and lying quite clear, I did use the report button but still have gotton no reply.

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.

You tried to go round and round in circles. After you were backed into a corner you wanted me to repeat myself again, I didnt, you tried to get out by changing the topic, I pointed out I answered that question already, you then lied about what I said. Your reputation was put on the line when all this was put to you and you *suddenly and miraculously* understood the crystal clear arguements I was making without me having to repeat them.

I think it would be clear to any moderator or admin how hard I tried to make my point clear, the quality of the supporting evidence and the number of ways and times I made it that you choose not to admit you understood what I was saying. That you made links beyond those of reasonable interpretation just as you have done with the newspaper article and dictionary enteries.

Squaletto

Good man Necro!!!, give sleepy hell on earth . Great lingo and you must be a lawyer or something with the way you're going at him like that. It's a pity that Irish journalists on the whole don't have your ever so good journalistic skills i.e. separating the truth from their own personal feelings and prejudicies so that the Irish public can make up their own minds on the whole situation!

Once again........excellent work Necro.

[ Daithí ]

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.

How do I figure that? Well...

The Dictionary wrote:

war
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

If you're not serious about it then why say you'd love to see it happen? A bit silly to do so, no?

billy the squid

war
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

putting a bomb under someones car and running aaway isnt exactly very open now is it?

Squaletto

billy the squid wrote:

putting a bomb under someones car and running aaway isnt exactly very open now is it?

Tell that to the families of the Dublin/Monaghan bombing attributed to the loyalists with help from peaceful British army. The astounding fact that the British Gov won't even help in the inquiry speaks volumes really!!

Billy get a life and take off those tunnel vision glasses please!!

Stabshauptmann

Squaletto wrote:

Good man Necro!!!, give sleepy hell on earth . Great lingo and you must be a lawyer or something with the way you're going at him like that. It's a pity that Irish journalists on the whole don't have your ever so good journalistic skills i.e. separating the truth from their own personal feelings and prejudicies so that the Irish public can make up their own minds on the whole situation!

Once again........excellent work Necro.

Thats Meh I was quoting in relation to lying and defamation, not sleepy. I was talking to sleepy re how to handle the IRA

true

Necromancer wrote:

How can killing all the Provos currently around help anything. .

I think it would get rid of the scum is what he/ she meant, and mean there would be less parasites in socirty eg bank robbers, cigarette robbers, diesel smugglers etc

Necromancer wrote:

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.
.

We will never know because a United Ireland will not come about in our lifetime.

Necromancer wrote:

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

War is war, fought by countries in line with the Geneva conventionion. The IRA was never the army of the government of the Republic of Ireland, it never fought according to the Geneva convention and by all stipulations it was a terrorist campaign, not a war.

Necromancer wrote:

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..

A terrorist campaign. Le Mons, Enniskillen, Bloody Friday.etc How is a war shooting a lonley retired soldier in the back and running away back across the border in civilian clothes , or putting bombs under off duty cars privately owned cars ?

Necromancer wrote:

No, the vast majority of ppl didnt support the 1916 rising till after the execution of its leaders.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Because people did not suppport the 1916
terrorists / freedom fighters ( depending on your point of view) does not automatically mean they ( the insurgents of 1916 ) were right.

Stabshauptmann

true wrote:

I think it would get rid of the scum is what he/ she meant, and mean there would be less parasites in socirty eg bank robbers, cigarette robbers, diesel smugglers etc

Thank you for telling me what everyone is thinking, Ive always admired your mind reading powers. Unfortunatly when sleepy replied to this question he gave a different answer, perhaps thats not what he meant.

We will never know because a United Ireland will not come about in our lifetime.

Mindreader and you can tell the future! :eek:

War is war, fought by countries in line with the Geneva conventionion. The IRA was never the army of the government of the Republic of Ireland, it never fought according to the Geneva convention and by all stipulations it was a terrorist campaign, not a war.

Pitty the british government of the day didnt agree with you. But sure what would they know that you dont.

A terrorist campaign. Le Mons, Enniskillen, Bloody Friday.etc How is a war shooting a lonley retired soldier in the back and running away back across the border in civilian clothes , or putting bombs under off duty cars privately owned cars ?

Reread the post you quoted, I said the IRA commited war crimes, I dont deny it.

And how is a shoot to kill policy acceptable when dealing with criminals when the law says its not. Interment without trial for criminals - thats not constitutional.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Because people did not suppport the 1916
terrorists / freedom fighters ( depending on your point of view) does not automatically mean they ( the insurgents of 1916 ) were right.

What?
Please explain your reasoning behind calling the 1916 rising a terrorist campaign.
People voted to legitimise the IRA and its war against britain in the aftermath of the 1916 executions. Thats my point, dont alienate ppl by excessive or repressive measures.

Stabshauptmann

billy the squid wrote:

war
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

August 1971 with the introduction of internment without trial (a military technique) the then home secretary Reginald Maudling declared "a state of open war now exists....between the IRA and British forces".

So it comes down to www.dictionary.com or the british government. Hmmm.

The IRA declared war, trained an army, conducted a war with a smaller proportion of civilian casualties than most other wars in the 20th century.
The British declare war, send in the army, introduce interment and give IRA prisoners political status. Hmm.

Yes the IRA commited war crimes, so did the British and they were found guilty of human rights abuses. The British have a history of human rights abuses during war times.

billy the squid

Squaletto wrote:

Tell that to the families of the Dublin/Monaghan bombing attributed to the loyalists with help from peaceful British army. The astounding fact that the British Gov won't even help in the inquiry speaks volumes really!!

Billy get a life and take off those tunnel vision glasses please!!

ironic coming from a tireless rebutter like yourself

the dublin and monaghan bombs were not the first to go off in the troubles.

ugust 1971 with the introduction of internment without trial (a military technique) the then home secretary Reginald Maudling declared "a state of open war now exists....between the IRA and British forces".

ifirstly, are you still sure your war is still going?

and secondly, it really doesnt matter who says what, putting a bomb under a civilian vehicle and then running away is not very open, is it.

A Dub in Glasgo

billy the squid wrote:

and secondly, it really doesnt matter who says what, putting a bomb under a civilian vehicle and then running away is not very open, is it.

It is not very 'open' in the sense that you perceive it to be not very open. We all accept that the Iraq invasion was a war yet firing a missile from a plane 2 miles up at a non-military target was hardly 'open'.

What is meant by 'open' anyway?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What is meant by 'open' anyway?

probably that those fighting the war are accountable to the people on whose behalf they are fighting it...

billy the squid

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is not very 'open' in the sense that you perceive it to be not very open. We all accept that the Iraq invasion was a war yet firing a missile from a plane 2 miles up at a non-military target was hardly 'open'.

What is meant by 'open' anyway?

if you want to talk about the iraq war, feel free to start a new topic about it. as for missiles hitting civilian targets, the geneva convention forbids the targeting civilian targets. why do you think there is so much anti bush feeling in the world, its because the whole war in iraq is flouting the rules of war.

but what happens in iraq does not make what the IRA / UDA UFF / (insert three letter terrorist group here ) right. using examples of other people committing atrocities is no justification for the ira to commit atrocities themselves.

A Dub in Glasgo

billy the squid wrote:

if you want to talk about the iraq war, feel free to start a new topic about it. as for missiles hitting civilian targets, the geneva convention forbids the targeting civilian targets. why do you think there is so much anti bush feeling in the world, its because the whole war in iraq is flouting the rules of war.

but what happens in iraq does not make what the IRA / UDA UFF / (insert three letter terrorist group here ) right. using examples of other people committing atrocities is no justification for the ira to commit atrocities themselves.

Hey hold on a minute, I am wanting to know what is meant by open? What do you mean by open? I have not justified anything here. If a definition/term is applied inconsistantly and selectively, surely I can point that out by highlighting other examples without being accused of going off topic and justifiying atrocities.

billy the squid

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Hey hold on a minute, I am wanting to know what is meant by open? What do you mean by open? I have not justified anything here. If a definition/term is applied inconsistantly and selectively, surely I can point that out by highlighting other examples without being accused of going off topic and justifiying atrocities.

fair enough "open" with regard to warfare in my opinion is warfare that complies with the rules of engagement set down by the geneva convention.

BuffyBot

of the day

And there you go. Of the day. In the past. What has been.

When people stop clinging on to the past like desperate limpits and using it for justification for the events of today, we might actually get somewhere in this country.

Stabshauptmann

billy the squid wrote:

ifirstly, are you still sure your war is still going?

wow sorry, who said the war was still going? Must have missed that. I believe the troubles met the criteria of a war but that the troubles are thankfully and forseeably over.

and secondly, it really doesnt matter who says what, putting a bomb under a civilian vehicle and then running away is not very open, is it.

As compared to what, open is a relative term its not like: this apple is green this one is red. Whats open is arguementative, but if the British government consider it open war I dont think you are in a position to say well it doesnt meet my standards.
Yep bombs were placed under cars, yep civilians died, so what exactly? Bombs and civilian casualties are a part of every war, you say its not very open because ppl dont see the face of their killer. In modern wars they rarely do

mycroft

Necromancer wrote:

Yep bombs were placed under cars, yep civilians died, so what exactly? Bombs and civilian casualties are a part of every war, you say its not very open because ppl dont see the face of their killer. In modern wars they rarely do

And that callous disregard for human life is what sickens me about you and your ilk.

monument

Earthman wrote:

probably that those fighting the war are accountable to the people on whose behalf they are fighting it...

The US and British armies are now "accountable to the people on whose behalf they are fighting it"... funny, if not a bit sad.

Accountable is not something the British have being in NI. “Well more then the IRA” I’m sure I’ll get, but how much more?

billy the squid wrote:

fair enough "open" with regard to warfare in my opinion is warfare that complies with the rules of engagement set down by the geneva convention.

This is the funniest thread ever! The British have really done that in NI! On the other hand, are you now going to say that the IRA's action justifies the actions of the British?

monument

monument wrote:

Accountable is not something the British have being in NI. “Well more then the IRA” I’m sure I’ll get, but how much more?

In relation to the IRA war vs Govt approved wars
you know,I'm not sure its a discussion road you and I want to go down as somewhere in the middle of it, one of us will start trying to apologise for the Ira bombing and shooting that was never given the sanction of the people in whose name it was carried out
Also if we are into comparing ratings for wars carried out by the U.S and the U.K,I think you'll find that with the former, a majority kind of agreed with the policy and with the latter certainly 40 or 50% at the time of the war and even more during the war - ok we now know that the reasons for that war were a load of Guff but Both Governments are democratically elected and indeed one got back in with an increased majority, the other is going to the polls in a few months.

The IRA on the other hand completely ignored the people of this island during its campaign What approval rating do you think they would have got for warrington or Enniskillen etc( that equally applies to loyalis terrorists)-so lectures of comparison are hollow, and so thin in fact you can see the mountains out through them.

Stabshauptmann

mycroft wrote:

And that callous disregard for human life is what sickens me about you and your ilk.

Your ilk?
Who might that be?

What callous disregard for life?

Yes the choice of the word "yep" was deliberate but was used for a reason. War isnt pretty, its not a clean cut process and people who try and say this war is a clean war (when in fact its not) and that ones dirty, this war is acceptable (not that its any difference) but this one's not.

You may find it offence that people died but thats what hapens in a war, Im not debating the merits or reasons for said war - all Im saying at this point in time is that one happened. Living in willful ignorance is IMO sickining.

monument

Earthman wrote:

In relation to the IRA war vs Govt approved wars
you know,I'm not sure its a discussion road you and I want to go down as somewhere in the middle of it, one of us will start trying to apologise for the Ira bombing and shooting that was never given the sanction of the people in whose name it was carried out

No, I don’t think I will be apologising for an inexcusable actions by the IRA.

Earthman wrote:

Also if we are into comparing ratings for wars carried out by the U.S and the U.K,I think you'll find that with the former, a majority kind of agreed with the policy and with the latter certainly 40 or 50% at the time of the war and even more during the war - ok we now know that the reasons for that war were a load of Guff but Both Governments are democratically elected and indeed one got back in with an increased majority, the other is going to the polls in a few months.

I don’t agree with the idea that killing and torturing is fine as long as your people support you. Do you?

Earthman wrote:

The IRA on the other hand completely ignored the people of this island during its campaign What approval rating do you think they would have got for warrington or Enniskillen etc( that equally applies to loyalis terrorists)-so lectures of comparison are hollow, and so thin in fact you can see the mountains out through them.

I’m confused here. You could not possibly be really saying it would have been ok if the public backed them. Could you? I certainly could not agree with such.

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

I think that statement was a very good political move, hats off to Adams, but its BS IMO.

And I suppose you know more about Adams' legal advice than Adams himself? I can't think of any reason for him to lie about his legal advice being based on that rather than your notion of qualified privilege.

Ive mentioned a case already that deals with defamtion and IRA membership and why its not your peers but society generally that you are defamed in. I also quoted the law as it is written (Ive a policy of not repeating things now for you)

You've proved that qualified privilege exists, you haven't shown that it applies to McDowell. If it does, how come Daily Ireland can sue him? If they can sue him by claiming malice on his part, why can't Adams claim malice as well?

You argued that Daily Ireland could sue because the allegations were new rather than restated -- this is clearly a red herring since if McDowell is privileged, that privilege applies to new statements as well as restatements. There's nothing in that definition of qualified privilege you posted about it being restricted to new statements only. As you said yourself on page 3, "Even if it was a new comment there is no defamation because mcDowell has qualified privilage on all matters relating to his ministerial office." So how come Daily Ireland can sue him?

You were determined it go round in circles, you had a problem accepting ti was a valid arguement or that the law even existed.

That's because it is an invalid argument, try to pay attention please.

...personal attacks deleted...

Do you have problem with following rules or something?

Also, it's quite comical the way you're trying to present yourself as a legal expert whose opinion is beyond question, when in fact you're a first-year commerce student quoting out of a beginner's business law textbook.

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

And I suppose you know more about Adams' legal advice than Adams himself?

IMO stands for "in my opinion". its my opinion that he's lying just like its your opinion that hes on the army council.

I can't think of any reason for him to lie about his legal advice

Political gain.

your notion of qualified privilege.

You've proved that qualified privilege exists

Bit of inconsistancy there.
Ive shown McDowell has qualified privilage, if you dont want to believe that fine. Ive highlighted the differences between the daily ireland and Adams scenario, if you dont see them then thats your perogitive.

how come Daily Ireland can sue him? If they can sue him by claiming malice on his part, why can't Adams claim malice as well?

You argued that Daily Ireland could sue because the allegations were new rather than restated -- this is clearly a red herring since if McDowell is privileged, that privilege applies to new statements as well as restatements.
There's nothing in that definition of qualified privilege you posted about it being restricted to new statements only.That's because it is an invalid argument

I argued that statements made about Adams were covered under absolute privilage from an earlier time, that they had been made over and over AND that McDowell had qualified privilage. Statements made about daily ireland arent covered by the first two. And thats not the only thing I said about the daily ireland remarks, go back and read the posts again.

Also, it's quite comical the way you're trying to present yourself as a legal expert whose opinion is beyond question, when in fact you're a first-year commerce student quoting out of a beginner's business law textbook.

Ive stated no where that Im an expert but I have more faith in my text book and my lecturer than your opinion. You present that bit as a revelation to everyone but the only reason you know Im a BCOMM student is because I said so. Thats comical, petty and childish.

Stabshauptmann

btw what personal attacks are you referring to?

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

Political gain.

What political gain would he make from saying he didn't sue because of he didn't lose the respect of his peer group, rather than because of qualified privilege?

Ive shown McDowell has qualified privilage, if you dont want to believe that fine. Ive highlighted the differences between the daily ireland and Adams scenario, if you dont see them then thats your perogitive.

And I've shown that those differences don't apply, if you don't want to address these arguments then that's up to you.

I argued that statements made about Adams were covered under absolute privilage from an earlier time,

And you're accusing me of going round in circles? We have been through this before: only accurate and neutral restatements of an absolutely privileged statement are themselves entitled to qualified (not absolute) privilege.

that they had been made over and over AND that McDowell had qualified privilage. Statements made about daily ireland arent covered by the first two.

So how come qualified privilege can protect McDowell when he says bad stuff about Adams, but not when he says bad stuff about Daily Ireland? It appears that McDowell does not have qualified privilege when it comes to the Daily Ireland remarks (if he did, they wouldn't be able to sue him), so your statements about when qualified privilege applies are wrong. Q.E.D.

Ive stated no where that Im an expert but I have more faith in my text book and my lecturer than your opinion.

So what does your textbook say about Adams v. McDowell and how it compares to Daily Ireland v. McDowell?

btw what personal attacks are you referring to?

You know the thread at the top that says "Rules"? Read it please (specifically the part about accusations of trolling).

[ Daithí ]

Necromancer wrote:

Political gain.

It is my opinion that Gerry Adams, at present, wouldn't lie about something so serious. If he was found to be on the Council after denying it, his reputation would bomb moreso than if he admitted to being on it. I don't think he's willing to risk that.

Would you lie about it? I sure as hell wouldn't.

lomb

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

It is my opinion that Gerry Adams, at present, wouldn't lie about something so serious. If he was found to be on the Council after denying it, his reputation would bomb moreso than if he admitted to being on it. I don't think he's willing to risk that.

Would you lie about it? I sure as hell wouldn't.

of course he would lie, membership is ILLEGAL. and as such he could be locked up for 5 years. thats why bertie although he knows he is on the council (which he obviously is imho) he cant say because adams should be locked up.