H Blocks and IRA The Army Council

oscarBravo

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

So, what's that supposed to mean then?

Exactly - verbatim - what it says. It wasn't a complicated post.

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Implying that I support the IRA?

I've said on this forum that I do not support the IRA or Sinn Féin.

You're generalising. You presume that all Republicans support Sinn Féin. Newsflash: they don't.

I'd dearly love to see how exactly you extracted anything whatsoever to do with Sinn Féin or the IRA out of my post. Go on, explain it to me.

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Hypocrite.

Careful now.

[ Daithí ]

Why would you like to know what the British are doing in Clonsilla? I don't know any British people here. And even if I did, it wouldn't affect me.

oscarBravo

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Why would you like to know what the British are doing in Clonsilla? I don't know any British people here. And even if I did, it wouldn't affect me.

Two short days ago, you said:

The IRA still exists because the British are still here.

I'm still curious about how you deciphered what you did out of a two-line post.

Villain

Lemming wrote:

Yes. You vote for - ergo give tacit support - to a party who are heavily associated with paramilitary violence and all other manner of criminal behaviour and whom show no transparency or accountability in their dealings of such. Even their engagement in poltics is utterly cynical and obviously so. They further "the struggle" in one hand with words whilst waving a gun in the other.

Whilst SF may help get that burnt-out car removed from housing estate 'a', the party is engaged in (at the very least by association although this is suspect) very ugly behaviour at a higher level and there's no getting around that. They condone and support terrorists, murders, criminals & drug-dealers. That's the bottom line. Your vote gives them one more vote to wield power at a higher level.

It's like having your business approached by another business with a proposition and then discovering that it is heavily associated with the mafia. Would you be so keen? In all sane likelihood you'd run a mile. Whilst you might make some money short-term, long-term you have destroyed that which you have worked hard to build.

God, going on that it's just as well we don't have too many nationalists on boards or the poor servers wouldn't be able for your list.

In future maybe you might actually come into this forum and discuss the issues at hand instead of hiding behind a link to insults that you have written somewhere else, I mean I could probably count on one hand the number of posts you have made in SF related threads in the last year.

But hey then you might actually have to discuss politics, god forbid, maybe If I was a childish as you I would write something on a web page to let people know what I think of you and link to it.

Seriously Lemming your cowardly post says a lot.

bonkey

I locked this thread temporarily, but am re-opening it on reconsideration.

Let me make one thing clear - the behaviour of many posters on threads of this topic has gone beyond any reasonable tolerances the rules may allow.

You are supposed to be discussing a topic, not making judgements on each other's beliefs or engaging in other forms of personal "clashing of antlers". If you're unable to make that distinction, the moderators will now summarily do so for you.

Take your personal disagreements elsewhere.

jc

Lemming

irish1 wrote:

God, going on that it's just as well we don't have too many nationalists on boards or the poor servers wouldn't be able for your list.

In future maybe you might actually come into this forum and discuss the issues at hand instead of hiding behind a link to insults that you have written somewhere else, I mean I could probably count on one hand the number of posts you have made in SF related threads in the last year.

But hey then you might actually have to discuss politics, god forbid, maybe If I was a childish as you I would write something on a web page to let people know what I think of you and link to it.

Seriously Lemming your cowardly post says a lot.

You didn't debate against single thing I just posted there irish1. I'm here, just like you asked me to. I'm writing arguments to discuss politics as you have challenged me to do so and yet here you are - speaking yet saying nothing. Much like SF apparently.

As I was about to write in private to you (except I got interrupted - so apologies for that), I will respect your right to have an opinion. I will even fight to defend your right to an opinion. That does not however mean that I will necessarily respect the content of your opinion.

Villain

Lemming wrote:

You didn't debate against single thing I just posted there irish1. I'm here, just like you asked me to. I'm writing arguments to discuss politics as you have challenged me to do so and yet here you are - speaking yet saying nothing. Much like SF apparently.

As I was about to write in private to you (except I got interrupted - so apologies for that), I will respect your right to have an opinion. I will even fight to defend your right to an opinion. That does not however mean that I will necessarily respect the content of your opinion.

Sorry Bonkey this is my last off topic comment.

Lemming I have been busy, and I have sent you several PM's, I'm sure people here will acknowledge that I discuss all issues here on a daily basis, unlike you who just comes in and links to some insults you have written in your Journal. Now if theres anything else you want to say to me in relation to this reply to my last PM.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

Yes. You vote for - ergo give tacit support - to a party who are heavily associated with paramilitary violence and all other manner of criminal behaviour and whom show no transparency or accountability in their dealings of such. Even their engagement in poltics is utterly cynical and obviously so. They further "the struggle" in one hand with words whilst waving a gun in the other..

Sinn Fein don't have any weapons i have not seen anyone from sinn fein waving guns
why do you say their engagement in politics is utterly cynical what do you base that on

Lemming wrote:

Whilst SF may help get that burnt-out car removed from housing estate 'a', the party is engaged in (at the very least by association although this is suspect) very ugly behaviour at a higher level and there's no getting around that. They condone and support terrorists, murders, criminals & drug-dealers. That's the bottom line. Your vote gives them one more vote to wield power at a higher level..

this allegation that republicans are involved in drug dealing is completely untrue
Sinn Fein are trying to move towards a peaceful settlement but people like yourself are not happy with that it seems that you would rather that we went back to 15 or 20 years ago
I respect that you honestly believe that the IRA is just a bunch of criminals and that everything they did was wrong but Republicans dont look at the IRA in that way there is no way that Sinn Fein can call what the IRA were engaged in in the past a crime they would not and they could not

however since the GFA the realities has changed sinn fein have said that whoever robbed the northern bank it was a crime
just a few short weeks ago the IRA was on the verge of completely decommissioning its weapons and standing down
the chances are that in the next year or so the IRA will decommision and be gone
is that not what we all want
Sinn Fein will be on the policing boards young nationalists and republicans will be joining the PSNI

Lemming wrote:

It's like having your business approached by another business with a proposition and then discovering that it is heavily associated with the mafia. Would you be so keen? In all sane likelihood you'd run a mile. Whilst you might make some money short-term, long-term you have destroyed that which you have worked hard to build.

what does any of that mean you think sinn fein are going to destroy the 26 counties
so what is your solution go back to the troubles when you knew where you stood
Sinn Fein is unlike any other political party in this state at this time
But and I can absolutely gaurantee this Sinn Fein is going to evolve and change
I know this is a different era but while develera was leader of fianna fail he still met with the leadership of the IRA
infact the IRA supported Fianna Fail in the 1932 election and develera continued to meet them when he was taoiseach
but when the IRA launched it bombing campaign in britain develera banned them interned them and eventually executed them

as sinn fein grows it is going to attract more people that have no association with past you can see it happening already with some of their canidates
the other thing about sinn fein is that although it was relatively small it was a broad church in that it had socialists communists nationalists conservative catholics etc
differences on major issues like abortion economics divorce etc were put to one side because the struggle was more important
but those differences are going to become more apparent as the struggle becomes less
I think alot of people here are worried about sinn fein because they see it as something akin to the rise of the nazis in germany it is not if i tought for one second it was i would agree with you wholeheartedly but the fact of the matter is that the leadership of sinn fein are desperate to get rid of the IRA they know that the IRA is a millstone around their necks and believe me just as develera turned on the IRA when they had served their purpose sinn fein would and will do the same
the IRA will be gone in a year or two if they do not go i will campaign against sinn fein

poneill

cdebru wrote:

Sinn Fein is unlike any other political party in this state at this time
But and I can absolutely gaurantee this Sinn Fein is going to evolve and change

Thats Insight That Is :eek: !!!

Remind me to buy you a well deserved pint on your 18th brthday when the free state permits me to so do .

cdebru

poneill wrote:

Thats Insight That Is :eek: !!!

Remind me to buy you a well deserved pint on your 18th brthday when the free state permits me to so do .

if you have nothing constructive to add why bother trying to provoke people with your petty insults and your condescending atitude

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

But and I can absolutely gaurantee this Sinn Fein is going to evolve and change

Based on what? their track record? Adams spent this weekend at a commeration of an IRA bomber killed by his own bomb, (as in killed by the device he planned to use to kill people) how's that progress. The investigation into the bank robbery is exposing how IRA have a network of fundraising they refuse to remove their grip over. SF can;'t bring themselves to call the murder of a mother nearly thirty years ago, a crime, nor can them ten years after the ceasefire bring themselves to ask people to go to the police for a crime members of the IRA commited.

Essentially SF have demonstrated how short a distance they've truly come over the last ten years over the past few weeks.

true

FTA69 wrote:

I don't know either, hence me saying it begs a question. Republicans don't normally make allegations of this nature against each other through the conduit of an anti-Republican newspaper.

Any newspaper which does not push the provo line is labelled by republicans as "anti-republican". As regards "Republicans don't normally make allegations of this nature against each other", maybe they are too fond of their kneecaps / their family home ?

FTA69 wrote:

,
Exactly, which is why his article is such a one-sided view. Danny Morrison said it happened. Also, prison officials and officers were and are not the nicest of people to say the least.

Oh lets belive Danny Morrison so , if he said it happened. He would be completely unbiased. As regards "prison officials and officers were and are not the nicest of people to say the least" did you , currenty a teenager in Free West Waterford ( lol ), ever meet one , let alone a big enough sample of them to allow you draw this conclusion ? Were you even born during the H-block strikes ? No. Ah shure an Phoblocht and the books I choose to read say it, so it must be right. Did they mention it was not unknown for the IRA to kill, blackmail and intimidate prison officials ?

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

Sinn Fein don't have any weapons i have not seen anyone from sinn fein waving guns
why do you say their engagement in politics is utterly cynical what do you base that on

You *honestly* believe that SF & the IRA are not inextricably linked to each other? Everyone and their dog knows that SF are the political wing of the IRA and always have been. the important word here is "wing" which denotes sub-group. They may say they are not, but their actions would seem to say otherwise

this allegation that republicans are involved in drug dealing is completely untrue

Really? How, would you suggest, the IRA finance themselves? Besides engaging in acts of criminal behaviour - ie. armed robbery? There have been plenty of reports publicised in the media over the years regarding drug-dealing. Indeed there have been plenty of reports of the IRA taking cuts off the proceeds of criminal gangs so that they are allowed to "operate" on IRA "turf" so to speak.

Sinn Fein are trying to move towards a peaceful settlement but people like yourself are not happy with that it seems that you would rather that we went back to 15 or 20 years ago

Oh far from it. I want to go forward. I am not however prepared to sell my soul, and those of my future offspring, to the devil in order to do so, proverbially speaking.

Out of interest - why do we have to go back to 15/20 years ago if the current process fails? yet again we have the menace of a threat of return to violence unless SF/IRA gets their way. That is utter boll*cks and is a prime example of why they reek of utterly hypocritcal sh*te

I respect that you honestly believe that the IRA is just a bunch of criminals and that everything they did was wrong but Republicans dont look at the IRA in that way there is no way that Sinn Fein can call what the IRA were engaged in in the past a crime they would not and they could not

If "republicans" cannot see the IRA for what they are then they deserve nothing but my upmost contempt. What would you call a bank robbery? What would you call the kidnapping of a doctor (if I recall his profession was during the 1980s) to extract ransom? What would you call teh shooting dead (in cold blood I might add) of an unarmed detective sitting in his car?

Criminal behaviour. Nothing more, nothing less. To say that a bank robbery could be political is laughable in the extreme. To say that trying to get a monetary ransom is political is laughable. To say that shooting someone dead in cold blood of the very state you claim to "represent" with your republicanism is to hold utter contempt for society.

Why the inability to call a crime a crime? All that means is that they support these people and give them their blessing. Which makes them no better than the animals that carry out these crimes. I would use the word "scum" but in order to use that the target would have to register as human first.

however since the GFA the realities has changed sinn fein have said that whoever robbed the northern bank it was a crime
just a few short weeks ago the IRA was on the verge of completely decommissioning its weapons and standing down

Why were SF so slow to issue a condemnation? Why did they have to harassed and cajoled into it? Hardly convincing is it? Nothing more than a badly handled PR exercise.

As for the IRA about to decommission? I'll believe it when I see it. That is the only answer I can ever give. I do not trust them one iota nor do I believe they were seriously intent on it beyond a token gesture. That is the sad truth of the matter. I sincerely hope that they will, but at the same time I recognise the fact that they have been doing a lot of speaking, yet have said nothing and more importantly - done even less.

Everytime there's an impasse, we hear SF go on with rhetoric about how all sides have to reach together and how SF/IRA are really the good guys and are willing to do this and that. When at the same time they give nothing yet take as much as they can. Actions speak louder than words at the end of the day and SF/IRA have been rather lacking in that capacity whilst everyone else has given a great deal.

what does any of that mean you think sinn fein are going to destroy the 26 counties

yes. They will if they get into power. They have no real policies outside of N.Ireland and those that they do have are so laughably out of date that a child could tell them that. As currently stands, their policies would result in economic suicide for this country and return us to the 1980s.

That's ignoring the fact that they count criminals among their ranks, which only adds further concern to the mix.

In short, they are a party short on meaningful ideas or morality of any kind.

so what is your solution go back to the troubles when you knew where you stood

Yet again we have the threat of a return to violence. That's twice in one post cdebru.....

Sinn Fein is unlike any other political party in this state at this time
But and I can absolutely gaurantee this Sinn Fein is going to evolve and change

That remains to be seen. The core mandate of SF/PIRA has yet to change in the 35 years of their existence. If it hasn't changed already I see little hope of it changing any time soon. When would you like to see that put to the test? When they've established themselves in power and decreed that since they are the "sole legitimate ruling body" of Ireland that all other political parties are illegal and membership will get you a bullet in the back of the head? Or when they are perhaps taking your house off you because it's bad (according to their rather absurd idealogy) and people shouldn't own their own property? Or when you make an opinion at odds to theirs and are told "You can have any opinion you want so long as its ours" followed shortly by a savage "punishment" beating?

TBH, I'll take 'n' for none-of-the-above bob!

I know this is a different era but while develera was leader of fianna fail he still met with the leadership of the IRA
infact the IRA supported Fianna Fail in the 1932 election and develera continued to meet them when he was taoiseach
but when the IRA launched it bombing campaign in britain develera banned them interned them and eventually executed them

The P-IRA are somewhat different to the IRA that existed back then, and to try and compare them is absurd.

as sinn fein grows it is going to attract more people that have no association with past you can see it happening already with some of their canidates
the other thing about sinn fein is that although it was relatively small it was a broad church in that it had socialists communists nationalists conservative catholics etc differences on major issues like abortion economics divorce etc were put to one side because the struggle was more important
but those differences are going to become more apparent as the struggle becomes less I think alot of people here are worried about sinn fein because they see it as something akin to the rise of the nazis in germany it is not if i tought for one second it was i would agree with you wholeheartedly but the fact of the matter is that the leadership of sinn fein are desperate to get rid of the IRA they know that the IRA is a millstone around their necks and believe me just as develera turned on the IRA when they had served their purpose sinn fein would and will do the same

Whilst many people are voting SF for reasons other than N.ireland - the problem ultimately is that whilst at a local level you are voting for benign reasons - the party is involed in very ugly and despicable behaviour as a whole and that simply is inexcusable. Your vote at a local level transfers into a tacit approval of the party's behaviour at a higher level (read N.Ireland), and I don't think a lot of people realise that. If you even look at SF's political activities outside of N.Ireland - it is almost non-existant outside of the community. They are a near non-entity at national level in the Republic of Ireland. So outside of the local "lets fix some pavements" routine, the only other thing they are dealing with is N.Ireland.

the IRA will be gone in a year or two if they do not go i will campaign against sinn fein

I will await that day with interest.

Slutmonkey57b

Back to the original point,

Mr McFarlane, responding to Mr O Rawe's claims, said today: "All of us, particularly the families of the men who died, carry the tragedy and trauma of the Hunger Strikes with us every day of our lives. It was an emotional and deeply distressing time for those of us who were in the H-Blocks and close to the Hunger Strikers.
"However, as the Officer Commanding in the prison at the time, I can say categorically that there was no outside intervention to prevent a deal. The only outside intervention was to try to prevent the Hunger Strike. Once the strike was underway, the only people in a position to agree a deal or call off the Hunger Strike were the prisoners, and particularly the Hunger Strikers themselves.
"The political responsibility for the Hunger Strike and the deaths that resulted from it, both inside and outside the prison, lies with Margaret Thatcher, who reneged on the deal which ended the first Hunger Strike. This bad faith and duplicity lead directly to the deaths of our friends and comrades in 1981".

Sinn Féin MLA for Foyle, Raymond McCartney, who participated in the first Hunger Strike, which lasted for 53 days, said of the claims: "Richard's recollection of events is not accurate or credible. The Hunger Strike was a response to Thatcher's criminalisation campaign, now being revived by Michael McDowell.
"The move to Hunger Strike resulted from the prisoners' decision to escalate the protest after 5 years of beating, starvation and deprivation.
"The leadership of the IRA and of Sinn Féin tried to persuade us not to embark on this course of action. At all times we, the prisoners, took the decisions."

This is my favourite line of hunger-strike related bullsh!ttery. (If not favourite republican bullsh!ttery). Basically they tell us:

1. We decided to starve ourselves.
2. The ba$tards tried to feed us!
3. We ended up starving ourselves to death.
4. It's all their fault we starved to death!

The fact that they swallow this line of propaganda is no reason for anyone else to.

And the obvious reason why Republican A does not agree with Republican B's not-entirely-flattering analysis of the Army Council is probably that admission of failure or stupidity never comes from within the ranks of any organisation.

Also I find the notion that the prisoners would be granted that much decision-making power on an issue with such large implications without having to get anything approved by SF or the IRA when dealing direct with Thatcher wholly laughable. If he expect us to believe that then we're a lot more stupid than he takes us for.

Sponge Bob

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Back to the original point,



This is my favourite line of hunger-strike related bullsh!ttery. (If not favourite republican bullsh!ttery). Basically they tell us:

1. We decided to starve ourselves.
2. The ba$tards tried to feed us!
3. We ended up starving ourselves to death.
4. It's all their fault we starved to death!

Very simplistic SM57. The hunger strike was a tactic of last resort for the Republicans , not only in 1981 but in 1921 as well and at other times in between .

The key issue at the time in 1980/1981 was that the British government wanted to remove political status, meaning that the prisoners would have to wear prison uniforms and accept prison rules .

By 'criminalising' the prisoners the British propoganda line would have been that these people were criminals not political prisoners. Therefore there would have been no need for a political solution as there were no political prisoners.

In the context of the 1970s the hunger strikes are understandable even if they seem odd now but in the end the solution was ....as it had to be ...political. That solution could not have been arrived at if there were no political prisoners with whom to negotiate ....as one negotiates not with criminals.

What is not acceptable any more, and has not been since the months after the GFA was duly ratified by governments and electorates both, is the pretense or the fudge that an apparatus of some kind is needed to wage and sustain an irregular campaign as in the 1970s , an apparatus such as the IRA for example.

They have no freedom to fight 'for' compared to the 1970's . They are simply a criminal and smuggling organisation and a drain on the collective resources of the people of Ireland and of the communities that sustained them only to have their trust broken when 12 ' stood down boys ' attacked Robert Mc Cartney out of ennui or some equally frivilous reason.

Please go evaporate yourselves and your pathetic juvenile apologists who were not even born in 1981 and do so permanently and decisively . History will be kinder to you in hindsight than the CAB and the Fraud Squads will in future

Stabshauptmann

Sponge Bob wrote:

Very simplistic SM57. The hunger strike was a tactic of last resort for the Republicans , not only in 1981 but in 1921 as well and at other times in between .

The key issue at the time in 1980/1981 was that the British government wanted to remove political status, meaning that the prisoners would have to wear prison uniforms and accept prison rules .

By 'criminalising' the prisoners the British propoganda line would have been that these people were criminals not political prisoners. Therefore there would have been no need for a political solution as there were no political prisoners.

In the context of the 1970s the hunger strikes are understandable even if they seem odd now but in the end the solution was ....as it had to be ...political. That solution could not have been arrived at if there were no political prisoners with whom to negotiate ....as one negotiates not with criminals.

What is not acceptable any more, and has not been since the months after the GFA was duly ratified by governments and electorates both, is the pretense or the fudge that an apparatus of some kind is needed to wage and sustain an irregular campaign as in the 1970s , an apparatus such as the IRA for example.

They have no freedom to fight 'for' compared to the 1970's . They are simply a criminal and smuggling organisation and a drain on the collective resources of the people of Ireland and of the communities that sustained them only to have their trust broken when 12 ' stood down boys ' attacked Robert Mc Cartney out of ennui or some equally frivilous reason.

Please go evaporate yourselves and your pathetic juvenile apologists who were not even born in 1981 and do so permanently and decisively . History will be kinder to you in hindsight than the CAB and the Fraud Squads will in future

You had a grand post there, why couldnt you resist ruining it with the last paragraph - attacking anyone who might disagree with you.

I would have thought this the exact type of thread for which the thunderdome was created...

Sponge Bob

Answer this much then Necromancer , a simple yes or no answer nothing else .

Did the 10 hunger strikers die in 1981 so that 12 indigent IRA men could murder a man outside a pub in 2005 and believe themselves immune from all forms of justice as they murdered McCartney.

Blub2k4

Sponge Bob wrote:

Answer this much then Necromancer , a simple yes or no answer nothing else .

Did the 10 hunger strikers die in 1981 so that 12 indigent IRA men could murder a man outside a pub in 2005 and believe themselves immune from all forms of justice as they murdered McCartney.

You actually answered this one yourself with the admission that they were "stood-down members".

oscarBravo

Blub2k4 wrote:

You actually answered this one yourself with the admission that they were "stood-down members".

He did? Spell that one out for me, I don't see the connection.

Stood-down, stood-up or jumping through hoops, an IRA member is a member of an organisation whose raison d'etre is the belief that violence is a more efficient way than diplomacy to achieve an outcome. The very existence of the organisation lays the foundation for tragedies like Robert McCartney's murder.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sponge Bob wrote:

Did the 10 hunger strikers die in 1981 so that 12 indigent IRA men could murder a man outside a pub in 2005 and believe themselves immune from all forms of justice as they murdered McCartney.

No

Blub2k4

oscarBravo wrote:

He did? Spell that one out for me, I don't see the connection.

Stood-down, stood-up or jumping through hoops, an IRA member is a member of an organisation whose raison d'etre is the belief that violence is a more efficient way than diplomacy to achieve an outcome. The very existence of the organisation lays the foundation for tragedies like Robert McCartney's murder.

Personally I would have said a drunken brawl in a pub was the reason but whatever gets more political capital for anti-agreement types is a more palatable answer I suspect.

A Dub in Glasgo

Getting back on topic and away from all the other avenues which certain people want to pull this thread to (even though there are other appropriate threads in this forum).

The more I hear from the participants in the affair, the more I am convinced that O'Rawe is wrong.

Hunger Strikers Story Brought to Book
Daily Ireland 02/03/05

By Danny Morrison


I got a phone call from the ‘Sunday Times’ last Saturday.

“Do you know Richard O’Rawe,” the journalist asked. “He mentions you in a new book he has brought out.”

That surprised me because I had waved to Richard a few days earlier when I crossed the road just below his house and would have thought he would have given me the good news – and a free copy. About four years ago he came to me and told me he was writing a book about growing up in West Belfast and could I give him advice. We met twice, once in each other’s homes. What I read was quite funny and reminiscent of my own youth. Richard said that an agent had offered to publish his book for several thousand pounds. I told him not to go down that road – which is called vanity publishing – and I gave him the names of some literary scouts and publishers. But I don’t think he had any luck. It is a tough circle to break into.

The journalist told me that his paper was serialising Richard’s book, ‘Blanketmen’, and proceeded to read out to me an accompanying feature: ‘Ireland: The men who died for nothing. Former Maze inmate Richard O’Rawe was at the heart of the 1980s hunger strike drama. His new book lays the blame for six of the 10 deaths firmly on his IRA army council masters.’

I was astonished. Richard was saying that there was a deal offered to the hunger strikers by the British before Joe McDonnell died but that the army council rejected it. The journalist quoted from the book: “No matter which way one views it, the outside leadership alone, not the prison leadership, took the decision to play brinkmanship with Joe McDonnell’s life. If Bik and I had had our way, Joe and the five comrades who followed him to the grave would be alive today.”

The journalist also told me that Richard said the hunger strike was prolonged to get Owen Carron elected on August 20th in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I spent some time on the telephone explaining the exact circumstances of the death of Joe McDonnell and rejecting Richard’s claims – though only a sentence or two was actually published by the paper. After the call I immediately phoned those who had worked in the H-Block office at the time of the hunger strike to alert the families who would be devastated by the allegations.

By July 1981 the (Catholic) Irish Commission for Justice and Peace (ICJP) was the latest outside body to get involved in trying to mediate a settlement. It was told by Prisons Minister Michael Allison that the government would not act under the duress of a hunger strike but that if it ended there would be a review of prison conditions. The government had promised the same at Christmas 1980 when the first hunger strike ended, only to renege on its promises. Because of this duplicity the prisoners in the second hunger strike wanted any agreement to be copper fastened.

On July 4th the prisoners issued a conciliatory statement stating that they were not looking for special privileges for themselves over and above conforming, non-politicals. Shortly afterwards the republican leadership was contacted by ‘Mountain Climber’, codename for a leading Foreign Office figure. He was in contact with the leadership through an intermediary, which wasn’t satisfactory given that messages could become distorted. We on the outside who were monitoring the hunger strike and advising the prisoners knew that there were divisions within the British government – inflexible and bigoted Home Office and NIO officials, and Foreign Office people who appreciated the damage caused to Britain’s image and wanted a settlement.

We needed to know if the Mountain Climber was acting with authority and were assured that he was. As a test of this it was requested that within hours I, who had been banned from the jail since Christmas, be allowed visit the hunger strikers in the prison hospital, acquaint them with the details of Mountain Climber’s offer, meet with Bik McFarlane and have access to an outside telephone. It was a Sunday when there were no visits. I was brought in through the prison officers’ entrance. One warder when he saw me said: “What’s that ******* doing here! This is a ****in sell-out”. I took that as a good sign.

The men were brought into the canteen. Martin Hurson was too sick to attend but among the others were Kieran Doherty TD, Kevin Lynch, Tom McElwee and Mickey Devine, all of whom would die. Joe McDonnell – whom I had known from internment – was in a wheelchair and was in bad shape but smiled and smoked in between sipping water. I explained to them about the contact and the offer, which appeared to go further than what was being discussed between Allison and the ICJP.

The prisoners wanted to explore the offer but also had a major concern about tying the Brits to their word. The prisoners needed to see the offer in black and white to see if it represented a settlement and have it officially guaranteed. I told them I would go out and relay their views to Gerry Adams and would be back. He and other members of our ‘kitchen cabinet’ were on permanent standby at a house in West Belfast where they were taking the calls from the mediator. Bik was in the hospital circle waiting and I briefed him. We asked to see the hunger strikers but were told that we could not see them together, which was a bit concerning, so he went in.

I phoned Gerry and told them the issues around which the men were seeking clarification. I had just put the phone down to go back into the canteen when a governor came in.

“You! Get out!” He was ranting but full of glee. I told him I was there to try and sort out the hunger strike. I went for the phone to tell Gerry Adams that I was being put out but he snatched the phone from me and other prison officers came in. I asked to see the hunger strikers but was forcefully told the meeting was over. So, this was the atmosphere and it was a worrying sign that those opposed to a settlement were asserting themselves. Bik, who was still with the hunger strikers, had no knowledge of this incident.

That night the ICJP visited the hospital. The prisoners asked for Bik to be present but the NIO refused and the ICJP didn’t push the request. They offered to act as guarantors but the prisoners asked for an NIO official to deal with them directly. The ICJP said that that was not going to happen – though they were to change their minds very shortly.

In relation to my eviction the Mountain Climber explained the delicacy of his operation, what he was up against and how many were opposed to a settlement. He had been insisting on strict confidentiality. However, the leadership took a decision to divulge to the ICJP that a more solid negotiation with more on offer was going on in the background. It was explained to them that because of their intervention the British were postponing doing this potential deal to see if they could force the prisoners to accept less through the ICJP. The ICJP were angry and confronted Allison and demanded that an NIO guarantor be sent into the hunger strikers to confirm the deal. He procrastinated then said he had approval.

This was on Monday night when in Richard O’Rawe’s version the IRA’s army council sent in a communication (‘comm’) that afternoon rejecting the proposals. “Bik and I were shattered,” writes Richard. In a BBC interview on Monday Bik totally repudiated that account and the contemporaneous evidence is on Bik’s side. Bik wrote a lengthy comm at 11pm that night (which is in ‘Ten Men Dead’). There is no mention of an IRA comm and from his demeanour no evidence that he received such a missive.

Furthermore, if the NIO had really wanted to do a deal based on the ICJP’s proposals then all it had to do was send in the guarantor to the hunger strikers. Six times did the ICJP phone up Allison about the guarantor and six times it was told that one would be going in shortly, but none ever appeared. Does that sound like a government interested in a deal? Richard says that “the proposals were there in black and white, direct from Thatcher’s desk.” They were there through word of mouth. Given previous experience weren’t the prisoners right to insist that any deal be guaranteed? How can they or the republican leadership be faulted for insisting on that safeguard?

Finally, although Richard claims that he wrote the book because the families “had a right to know the facts” he did not have the courtesy to forewarn them. They would have to buy the ‘Sunday Times’ or his book to find out. I also learnt that although he repeatedly recruits Brendan ‘Bik’ McFarlane to his position he never once discussed with Bik if those recollections from 24 years ago were also his, as would be the normal practice. We now know why. Bik, who was the person dealing directly with the hunger strikers and handling communications with the republican leadership, is the true authority and he totally dismisses Richard’s account. Richard’s book which relies so much on ‘Bik and I this and that’ would have fallen asunder if Richard had consulted him.

unme

oscarBravo wrote:

Stood-down, stood-up or jumping through hoops, an IRA member is a member of an organisation whose raison d'etre is the belief that violence is a more efficient way than diplomacy to achieve an outcome. The very existence of the organisation lays the foundation for tragedies like Robert McCartney's murder.

Well said oscarBravo.

Though the IRA is a magnet for the type of people who carried out that murder.

They pick up a few hopelessly delluded idealists and obsessed fantasists along the way, but most of it's members would be involved in crime and intimidation, even if the organisation was nominally disbanded by it's 'leaders'.

The 'army' structure is merely an attempt to impose some control on a group of people who feel that the laws of the majority and the 'restraints' of democracy shouldn't apply to them. It is little wonder that they organise their own local murders, and moonlight as common criminals when not 'fighting for the cause'.

oscarBravo

Blub2k4 wrote:

Personally I would have said a drunken brawl in a pub was the reason

I fail to see any inconsistency between this point and what I said. Nice try though.

Blub2k4 wrote:

but whatever gets more political capital for anti-agreement types is a more palatable answer I suspect.

I've made it clear a number of times on this board that I voted for the Agreement.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

You *honestly* believe that SF & the IRA are not inextricably linked to each other? Everyone and their dog knows that SF are the political wing of the IRA and always have been. the important word here is "wing" which denotes sub-group. They may say they are not, but their actions would seem to say otherwise

linked by common membership of a small percentage of sinn fein members the IRA do not control sinn fein nor do sinn fein control the IRA
they both have the same objectives

Lemming wrote:

Really? How, would you suggest, the IRA finance themselves? Besides engaging in acts of criminal behaviour - ie. armed robbery? There have been plenty of reports publicised in the media over the years regarding drug-dealing. Indeed there have been plenty of reports of the IRA taking cuts off the proceeds of criminal gangs so that they are allowed to "operate" on IRA "turf" so to speak.

name one IRA member convicted of drug trafficking
name one time that drugs belonging to the iRA were siezed

People continually spread liies like this about the IRA and then are surprised when republicans don't immediately believe that the IRA has committed a bank robbery or whatever
plenty of reports is bull**** the IRA do not deal in drugs nor do they take a cut from drug dealers

Lemming wrote:

Oh far from it. I want to go forward. I am not however prepared to sell my soul, and those of my future offspring, to the devil in order to do so, proverbially speaking.

Out of interest - why do we have to go back to 15/20 years ago if the current process fails? yet again we have the menace of a threat of return to violence unless SF/IRA gets their way. That is utter boll*cks and is a prime example of why they reek of utterly hypocritcal sh*te

I am not threatening anyone the situation is that we either move forward or we move back I want to move forward I believe some people would be far happier to move back to the situation that pertained 15/20 years ago

Lemming wrote:

If "republicans" cannot see the IRA for what they are then they deserve nothing but my upmost contempt. What would you call a bank robbery? What would you call the kidnapping of a doctor (if I recall his profession was during the 1980s) to extract ransom? What would you call teh shooting dead (in cold blood I might add) of an unarmed detective sitting in his car?

the ira funded itself from such activities how do you think they would fund themselves weekly subscriptions

Lemming wrote:

Criminal behaviour. Nothing more, nothing less. To say that a bank robbery could be political is laughable in the extreme. To say that trying to get a monetary ransom is political is laughable. To say that shooting someone dead in cold blood of the very state you claim to "represent" with your republicanism is to hold utter contempt for society.

of course a bank robbery on behalf of the IRA is political
and you have revealed how little you know about the IRA the IRA never claimed to represent this state the IRA do not view the 26 counties as the Irish republic to which they aspire
read some of the history of this country particularly relating ti the Irish civil war

Lemming wrote:

Why the inability to call a crime a crime? All that means is that they support these people and give them their blessing. Which makes them no better than the animals that carry out these crimes. I would use the word "scum" but in order to use that the target would have to register as human first.



Why were SF so slow to issue a condemnation? Why did they have to harassed and cajoled into it? Hardly convincing is it? Nothing more than a badly handled PR exercise.

you will have to be more specific as to what you are actually talking about
a comdemnation of what i have no idea what your talking about

Lemming wrote:

As for the IRA about to decommission? I'll believe it when I see it. That is the only answer I can ever give. I do not trust them one iota nor do I believe they were seriously intent on it beyond a token gesture. That is the sad truth of the matter. I sincerely hope that they will, but at the same time I recognise the fact that they have been doing a lot of speaking, yet have said nothing and more importantly - done even less.

I can not see how the IRA could ever satisfy you they offered to destroy all their weapons and to have two independent churchmen present to witness the event so are you suggesting that these churchmen would be fools or worse
never mind the fact that the international decommisioning body would oversee it and report the full details to the 2 governments

Lemming wrote:

Everytime there's an impasse, we hear SF go on with rhetoric about how all sides have to reach together and how SF/IRA are really the good guys and are willing to do this and that. When at the same time they give nothing yet take as much as they can. Actions speak louder than words at the end of the day and SF/IRA have been rather lacking in that capacity whilst everyone else has given a great deal.

what have SF or the IRA been given
on the other hand SF have accepted stormont and powersharing
they have accepted the principle of consent
the IRA have maintained a ceasefire bar the breakdown in 1997 for over 10 years
the IRA have decommisioned significant ammounts of weapons

Lemming wrote:

yes. They will if they get into power. They have no real policies outside of N.Ireland and those that they do have are so laughably out of date that a child could tell them that. As currently stands, their policies would result in economic suicide for this country and return us to the 1980s.

That's ignoring the fact that they count criminals among their ranks, which only adds further concern to the mix.

In short, they are a party short on meaningful ideas or morality of any kind.

the fact is that they are not going to be in power for the forseeable future and when they are i suspect that as they were in the 6 counties they will be pretty middle of the road and lacking in any real radical ideas

Lemming wrote:

Yet again we have the threat of a return to violence. That's twice in one post cdebru.....

it is not a threat of violence just a question what is your way forward

Lemming wrote:

That remains to be seen. The core mandate of SF/PIRA has yet to change in the 35 years of their existence. If it hasn't changed already I see little hope of it changing any time soon. When would you like to see that put to the test? When they've established themselves in power and decreed that since they are the "sole legitimate ruling body" of Ireland that all other political parties are illegal and membership will get you a bullet in the back of the head? Or when they are perhaps taking your house off you because it's bad (according to their rather absurd idealogy) and people shouldn't own their own property? Or when you make an opinion at odds to theirs and are told "You can have any opinion you want so long as its ours" followed shortly by a savage "punishment" beating?

what do you mean the core mandate has not changed

none of that is going to happen that is pure fantasy

Lemming wrote:

The P-IRA are somewhat different to the IRA that existed back then, and to try and compare them is absurd.

why is it absurd tell me what the difference is between the IRA in the 1930s and now

Lemming wrote:

Whilst many people are voting SF for reasons other than N.ireland - the problem ultimately is that whilst at a local level you are voting for benign reasons - the party is involed in very ugly and despicable behaviour as a whole and that simply is inexcusable. Your vote at a local level transfers into a tacit approval of the party's behaviour at a higher level (read N.Ireland), and I don't think a lot of people realise that. If you even look at SF's political activities outside of N.Ireland - it is almost non-existant outside of the community. They are a near non-entity at national level in the Republic of Ireland. So outside of the local "lets fix some pavements" routine, the only other thing they are dealing with is N.Ireland.

you dont have faith in Irish people to be able to decide for themselves who they vote for and why
the reason that as you say sinn fein are non existant on a national political level is that alot of what sinn fein say is ignored and generally the media only looks for comment from sinn fein in relation to the IRA or the peace process

Lemming wrote:

I will await that day with interest.

I am not tied to any political party if you check back you will see that i criticise the IRA and sinn fein as well

cdebru

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Getting back on topic and away from all the other avenues which certain people want to pull this thread to (even though there are other appropriate threads in this forum).

The more I hear from the participants in the affair, the more I am convinced that O'Rawe is wrong.

at the same time it is hard to believe that O'rawe would do it for the money

so what is the motivation

A Dub in Glasgo

cdebru wrote:

at the same time it is hard to believe that O'rawe would do it for the money

so what is the motivation

Motivation to open a potential can of worms like this? I have no idea why he done it

Let us assume he is telling the truth... Why has he waited until he has written a book about it all to drop the bombshell, nearly 24 years after the event? If his concern was that the truth should be told, why did he not inform the people that really matter in all this.... the families? Why has he not confided in anybody before he released his bombshell via his book?

Let us assume he is not telling the truth... Why would he make up a story like this? Why release it now?

I have no idea as to his motivations and unless he has some other evidence or corroboration, I think he is not telling the truth on this matter.

I have read Ten Men Dead a number of times and he is hardly mentioned in the whole of the 'comms' between the prisoners and the outside world.

unme

cdebru wrote:

name one IRA member convicted of drug trafficking
name one time that drugs belonging to the iRA were siezed

IRA members are usually dis-owned by their organisation when it suits them. Not likely that any names would satisfy you.

cdebru wrote:

plenty of reports is bull**** the IRA do not deal in drugs nor do they take a cut from drug dealers

That depends on whether you describe those members of the IRA who do as "the IRA" or not. It doesn't have to be in their written literature to be a part of their activities.

cdebru wrote:

of course a bank robbery on behalf of the IRA is political

You don't need to say any more. Any further argument from you is hardly going to be taken seriously by anyone who recognises the wrong in crime.

cdebru wrote:

you will have to be more specific as to what you are actually talking about
a comdemnation of what i have no idea what your talking about

Switch on any TV or radio, or look at any daily newspaper these days. That should give you an 'idea' of what he is talking about.

cdebru wrote:

... they offered to destroy all their weapons

and they can 'offer' until hell freezes over, but it makes not a damn bit of difference to anyone unless they follow it up with action

cdebru wrote:

it is not a threat of violence just a question what is your way forward

People like me are unlikely to cast another vote for Sinn Fein until they begin to see that violence is not an option.

cdebru wrote:

none of that is going to happen that is pure fantasy

Clearly you have not read the IRA literature given to it's volunteers! I have, and I find your understanding of the organisation to be lacking in fact. Until you understand more about the organisation, their goals and activities, you have given yourself an impossible task to debate logically on the issue.

cdebru wrote:

...alot of what sinn fein say is ignored and generally the media only looks for comment from sinn fein in relation to the IRA or the peace process

That is true. But you can hardly be surprised. If another 'political' party had an armed wing that lays claim to the state, then they could also expect similar questions.

cdebru wrote:

I am not tied to any political party if you check back you will see that i criticise the IRA and sinn fein as well

I wonder what you criticised them for, if not bank raids, murders, extortion, etc. etc. You appear to me to join the other IRA apologists in showing disapproval of certain activities by either claiming that it doesn't happen, or that those that are caught in the act were acting on their own behalf.

cdebru

unme wrote:

IRA members are usually dis-owned by their organisation when it suits them. Not likely that any names would satisfy you. .

the usual bull**** you can not name any because they do not exist

unme wrote:

That depends on whether you describe those members of the IRA who do as "the IRA" or not. It doesn't have to be in their written literature to be a part of their activities..

so where are they and how come none of them have been caught

unme wrote:

You don't need to say any more. Any further argument from you is hardly going to be taken seriously by anyone who recognises the wrong in crime..

of course a bank robbery on behalf of the IRA is political
it is to raise funds in order to carry out its aims how the **** else are they going to be able to arm themselves a ****ing raffle and a cake sale

unme wrote:

Switch on any TV or radio, or look at any daily newspaper these days. That should give you an 'idea' of what he is talking about..

he did not specify what he is talking about and i'm not engaging in a ****ing guessing game

unme wrote:

and they can 'offer' until hell freezes over, but it makes not a damn bit of difference to anyone unless they follow it up with action.

yes and they would have done it if the stupid request for a photograph had not been made

unme wrote:

People like me are unlikely to cast another vote for Sinn Fein until they begin to see that violence is not an option..

that is your choice to vote for whoever you want

unme wrote:

Clearly you have not read the IRA literature given to it's volunteers! I have, and I find your understanding of the organisation to be lacking in fact. Until you understand more about the organisation, their goals and activities, you have given yourself an impossible task to debate logically on the issue..

ok produce the IRA literature that says they are going to ban all political parties and shoot anyone who is a member of a different party
sieze all private property and kneecap anyone who disagrees with them

unme wrote:

I wonder what you criticised them for, if not bank raids, murders, extortion, etc. etc. You appear to me to join the other IRA apologists in showing disapproval of certain activities by either claiming that it doesn't happen, or that those that are caught in the act were acting on their own behalf.

is that how i appear and what is that based on your magical intuition

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

yes and they would have done it if the stupid request for a photograph had not been made

Really you know that for sure?

Because if they were plotting a massive bank robbery in the middle of those negotiations we're going to have to ask how commited where the IRA to the peace process, and how geniune and complete IRA disarming was going to be?

Fool me once....and er.......em fool me once, and......look if you fooled us you can't fool us again.