Martin McGuiness Tells McCartney Sisters "careful now"

Sand

The SF/IRA threats arent surprising. Afterall, theyve been engaging in a widespread campaign of intimidation against the locals already so no major change. And despite the awkward, forced, begrudging musings about people maybe, you know if they feel like it, if they have a few hours free, might want to visit a priest and confess their sins it seems like a fecking SF/IRA convention was going on in the pub and none of them saw anything. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

And If I remember correctly I read an article in the Sindo where a reporter recounted snippets from the SF/IRA convention in Dublin. Adams speech on the McCartney murder was given a tepid reception. Apparently one charmers response to being asked what he thought about the McCartneys was "**** Them!". SF/IRA despise the McCartneys as traitors and enemies. Theyre currently untouchable because theyre in the public eye but it cant be easy for them knowing the psychopaths in SF/IRA hold a grudge against them.

I hear the McCartneys are saying theyre broke - does anyone know if there is any fund set upto support them yet? Id contribute, and I think quite a lot of people would too.

Im very encouraged by the noises whereby Adams and Arrafat are being mentioned in the same sentence. Bush - rightly or wrongly - views the world very simply. If he views the McCartney sisters as being the Good Guys, then Adams by default is one of the Bad Guys. Even Kennedy is blanking Adams now, and he was the one that swung the visa for him in the first place. In a post 9/11 mindset, the American media/public will not listen to SF/IRAs bull**** as uncritically as before.

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

quick question if you will

I know they has some sort of PR system for elections for the northern Ireland assembly, but are they using the same system for westminster elections or are they using the First-past-the-post system like the rest of the UK?

If it is the latter any mccartney candidate taking votes from adadams could cost adams the seat, even if neither of them were to be elected.

i think what mcguiness is saying is that the familyy have to be careful that they are not used by other political parties to further their own anti republican ideals

that if for example they run in the west minister elections against republicans then they become political adversaries and risk detracting from the rightful cause of obtaining justice for their brother

monument

cdebru wrote:

i think what mcguiness is saying is that the familyy have to be careful that they are not used by other political parties to further their own anti republican ideals

Yes, and I think that is the way the family understood the statement, no matter how some would like to twist it.

Something was said about only running as an independent.

mike65

Those who saw McGuiness say he narrowed his eyes as he said the words then drew a finger across his throat..er I made the last bit up.

Mike.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

Nah ... you're forgetting all those drugs they "confiscated" from the pushers when they did their "drug dealers out" campaign ....

Ooops. Did I just say that?!!

you see with ridiculous claims like this all you do is make republicans reject everything you say

republicans know this is lies

the same way this morning the irish time and the star said the IRA had nothing to do with the robbery yesterday
yet the sun and the mirror headline was provos strike again or the IRA did it

all you do when you make outlandish claims like this is take away from your arguement about anything else the IRA may have been involved in

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

you see with ridiculous claims like this all you do is make republicans reject everything you say

republicans know this is lies

the same way this morning the irish time and the star said the IRA had nothing to do with the robbery yesterday
yet the sun and the mirror headline was provos strike again or the IRA did it

all you do when you make outlandish claims like this is take away from your arguement about anything else the IRA may have been involved in

You do understand sarcasm don't you cdebru? Do I need to hold your hand and do a "sarcasm by numbers" routine to help your poor besieged republican brain? :rolleyes:

Anyone who read the comments before that could see I was being flippant.

I do find your comment about outlandish claims resulting in people not taking anything seriously ..... coming from a Shinner I find that to be absolutely f*cking priceless! Mr. Pot? Meet Mr.Kettle.

Sponge Bob

cdebru wrote:

i think what mcguiness is saying is that the familyy have to be careful that they are not used by other political parties to further their own anti republican ideals

They will stand for the DUP ....of course they will cdebru .

Martin is right as always in his reading of the sit-YEE-ayshun .

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

You do understand sarcasm don't you cdebru? Do I need to hold your hand and do a "sarcasm by numbers" routine to help your poor besieged republican brain? :rolleyes:

Anyone who read the comments before that could see I was being flippant.

I do find your comment about outlandish claims resulting in people not taking anything seriously ..... coming from a Shinner I find that to be absolutely f*cking priceless! Mr. Pot? Meet Mr.Kettle.

i understand it perfectly
so can i take it you don't believe the ira are involved in drug dealing

so were you being sarcastic when you alleged it here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=230138&page=2&pp=20


or was that one of your unsarcastic moments when you actually believed what you were writing


I am not a shinner Iam not a member of any political party thank you

cdebru

Sponge Bob wrote:

They will stand for the DUP ....of course they will cdebru .

Martin is right as always in his reading of the sit-YEE-ayshun .

I never said they would stand for any party once they stand for election then they become politcal adversaries

anti republicans are not just on the unionist side

they would risk alienating people who support sinn fein from their campaign for justice for their brother

if they specifically stand against sinn fein they risk being viewed as being used by others to further their own anti republican agenda rather than just highlighting their quest for justice and to see the people responsible for the murder of their brother being brought to justice

AmenToThat

mike65 wrote:

Those who saw McGuiness say he narrowed his eyes as he said the words then drew a finger across his throat..er I made the last bit up.

Mike.

Alot of that about lately.
Even more 'forgetfullness' though.

Like the fact that the McCarthneys have been happy to support SF despit years of indimidation and murder in the Short Strand area by a nasty IRA unit that seemed to be beyond the control of the army council.
Like the fact that Robert McCarthney was happy to drink in the company of these nuts.
Like the fact that the guy who was with Robert McCarthney and who was injured by these IRA guys was today charged in a Belfast court with two counts of violence.
Like the fact that one of those wanted in connection with the murder presented himself to the PSNI today but was told that his timing didnt suit the investigating officers (youd think that because so few people have come forward the detectives would have had plenty of time to interview this man).

Iv seen precious little about any of these issues dealt with here today.

If we are going to discuss the facts lets discuss all the facts and not just those that suit a particular agenda.

mycroft

AmenToThat wrote:

Alot of that about lately.
Even more 'forgetfullness' though.

Like the fact that the McCarthneys have been happy to support SF despit years of indimidation and murder in the Short Strand area by a nasty IRA unit that seemed to be beyond the control of the army council.
Like the fact that Robert McCarthney was happy to drink in the company of these nuts.

Every report including the IRA's suggest mc carthy was just in the same bar, and wasn't drinking with the IRA men, in fact they took exception to something he or his friend did (a gesture).

But the first part of your post is a real beauty.

SF and the IRA were the only justice in the short strand for decades. Not because of just who they where, but they intimidated those around them. Implying that the Mc Carthys are just some ungrateful swine just cause their brother was beaten stabbed and gutted is a new kind of low. As the Sisters said in an interview "We grew up in the violence, the army, the raids, this was all we knew"

Well what they've known these past ten years is that the situation changed, or was supposed to have. The situation was supposed to be evolved and the casual air of violence (on an aside does anyone else remember what it was like in the 80s and 70s, the fear going up the north, I can remember as a child genuinely being afraid getting into a taxi in dublin for the first time, because of so many UTV reports of taxi drivers getting shot up north) the family supported SF as they grew up, because they thought sinn fein could defend them from the UVF and the RUC and the army, they supported SF when they thought they could bring peace. And they rejected SF/IRA when thye realised they were more interested into protecting their own and the their money making apparatus, and only after the family appealed to the world did the IRA offer them the kind of revenge they'd thought the north had outgrown.

Amen you sicken me, this is the kind of family the IRA "fought" for, and who fought for SF, and when the back is turned SF try to screw em because they're a liability. Theres going to be a concerted attempt to villify the family in the coming weeks, Mc Guinness has fired the first blow, it won't be the last, this by Amen is a poor weak broadside........

Slutmonkey57b

SF's media machine seems to have gone off the rails altogether now. Warning citizens not to exercise their right to stand for political office would be unbelievable hipocracy if it weren't coming from SF.

AmenToThat

AmenToThat wrote:

Like the fact that the McCarthneys have been happy to support SF despit years of indimidation and murder in the Short Strand area by a nasty IRA unit that seemed to be beyond the control of the army council.
Like the fact that Robert McCarthney was happy to drink in the company of these nuts.

Well yesterday on route to the U.S , the McCartney sisters said they were very disillusioned with SF as it was now coming out that many SF members were in the pub and were slow to come foward.
This morning on morning Ireland they said they were in the U.S to dispell any romantic notions that Irish americans had about the need for the IRA in this day and age and that all they are now are criminals.
For a link on that, go to the RTÉ website and listen to this mornings morning Ireland.

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

i understand it perfectly
so can i take it you don't believe the ira are involved in drug dealing

I never said that. As a matter of opinion I believe that SF/IRA have their fingers in a lot of dirty little pies, including drugs.

so were you being sarcastic when you alleged it here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=230138&page=2&pp=20


or was that one of your unsarcastic moments when you actually believed what you were writing

I stand by everything I write cdebru, unlike a lot of people who can't do anything but spout indoctrinated crap repeatedly as if that will suddenly make it all true.

I am not a shinner Iam not a member of any political party thank you

You defend them often enough. Maybe you're part of a "Friends of Shinner" group or some crap :rolleyes:

But as an aside ... nice to see you ignore every other thing I wrote PRIOR to that flippant remark and then proceed to try and base your argument around soimething that I have stated was me being flippant...

I call it the "bloody sunday" defense (in homage to the "Chewbacca defense" from SouthPark - and if you think comparing it to a tv series is absurd then I shall have rested my case)

Sane Person: Look at attrocity x, y, z!!
SF/IRA: No matter what else gets said it doesn't matter!! Because "Bloody Sunday"
Sane Person: What?
SF/IRA: Ummm
Sane Person: Riiiiight. Well can you explain this event? And how SF/IRA can possibly be adhering to agreement 'N'?
SF/IRA: It doesn't matter because "Bloody Sunday"
Sane Person: That's not a defense!!!
SF/IRA: Yes it is.
Sane Person: How is it a defense?
SF/IRA: Idunno :-/ It just is.
Sane Person: Riiiiiight. How can you call the murder of X not a mur ... wait ... don't tell me. "Bloody sunday" right?
SF/IRA: "Bloody Sunday".

etc etc etc etc.


In short, the age old "Oh!! Look over there! Something else!!" routine :rolleyes:

Slutmonkey57b

AmenToThat wrote:

Like the fact that the McCarthneys have been happy to support SF despit years of indimidation and murder in the Short Strand area by a nasty IRA unit that seemed to be beyond the control of the army council.

Who said they were beyond control? They may well have been acting with the blessing, or direction of the "army council" before this incident. Unless you have inside info to the contrary?

Like the fact that Robert McCarthney was happy to drink in the company of these nuts.

I'd LOVE to hear an explaination for this. Why SHOULDN'T a man be able to walk into a pub and drink without worrying what kind of psycho's he's going to have to deal with?

Surely the whole point of the peace process is to have a situation where people can walk into a pub, or a shop, or a job, or a street, without having to worry about whether there is a nutter inside who's going to take exception to who they are or whether they show the proper "respect"?

This is remarkably like the logic of clan members who murdered black and white civil rights activists in the states on the basis that they should have known better than to exist, or espouse their views in the same physical space as the Klan.

Like the fact that the guy who was with Robert McCarthney and who was injured by these IRA guys was today charged in a Belfast court with two counts of violence.

Previous criminal history is inadmissable in a British court of law, isn't it? In any case the fact remains that, whether he was a criminal himself, that which was done to him is a crime. Isn't that what IRA supporters and apologists always harped on about when an IRA man was shot, or arrested, or beaten? "It doesn't matter what he did, it only matters what was done to him"? Ahhh, but that's different.

Again, surely the point of the process is that we arrive at a situation where all are equal before the law?

Like the fact that one of those wanted in connection with the murder presented himself to the PSNI today but was told that his timing didnt suit the investigating officers (youd think that because so few people have come forward the detectives would have had plenty of time to interview this man).

I've seen no reporting of that at all. Care to elaborate? The police do release suspects who hand themselves in while they establish evidence you know. Since most of the witnesses (including a SF electoral candidate) have failed to come forward and speak to the police (and as SF have demonstrated contempt for the investigation by failing to speak to the police themselves) they may simply not have enough evidence to hold him. Or, as a hot political football they may simply be trying to avoid looking like they're jumping to conclusions.

As I predicted elsewhere, the chances of the killers and their accomplices getting a clean trial are zilch, particularly as SF has been very public in their dealings of throwing them out of the party etc. The chances of any successful prosecution not being thrown out on appeal are slim to say the least.

Iv seen precious little about any of these issues dealt with here today.

Probably because McGuinness has his foot in his mouth and is dominating the news as a result.

If we are going to discuss the facts lets discuss all the facts and not just those that suit a particular agenda.

How does Brendan Devine's criminal convicion fit in with a specific political agenda I wonder? Certainly not by SF quietly attempting to smear one of the IRA's victim's reputations like they have done so often in the past I'm sure...

Lemming

AmenToThat wrote:

Like the fact that the McCarthneys have been happy to support SF despit years of indimidation and murder in the Short Strand area by a nasty IRA unit that seemed to be beyond the control of the army council.
Like the fact that Robert McCarthney was happy to drink in the company of these nuts.
Like the fact that the guy who was with Robert McCarthney and who was injured by these IRA guys was today charged in a Belfast court with two counts of violence.
Like the fact that one of those wanted in connection with the murder presented himself to the PSNI today but was told that his timing didnt suit the investigating officers (youd think that because so few people have come forward the detectives would have had plenty of time to interview this man).

Iv seen precious little about any of these issues dealt with here today.

If we are going to discuss the facts lets discuss all the facts and not just those that suit a particular agenda.

Nice to see the "Bloody Sunday" defense being utilised once more. Stop trying to deflect the facts o fthe case

1.

Like the fact that the McCarthneys have been happy to support SF despit years of indimidation and murder in the Short Strand area by a nasty IRA unit that seemed to be beyond the control of the army council.

Just like everyone else. They put up with it to get on with things. There is a point where people will say "enough is enough" to others bullsh*t. I'm thinking the gutting of a member of the community they claim to hae been "protecting" would do that.

2.

Like the fact that Robert McCarthney was happy to drink in the company of these nuts.

He was in the same bar. That does not equate to drinking with them. As another matter, he offered to buy a drink for the "offended" party's partner as a show of good faith. Once more, that does not equate to drinking with these people.

3.

Like the fact that the guy who was with Robert McCarthney and who was injured by these IRA guys was today charged in a Belfast court with two counts of violence.

Two counts of violence in relation to what? What incident? A prior incident perhaps? Even if he was being put up for being involved in a fight in the bar, that does not excuse nor make right the subsequent violence metted out to both men and is utterly irrelevant.

4.

Like the fact that one of those wanted in connection with the murder presented himself to the PSNI today but was told that his timing didnt suit the investigating officers (youd think that because so few people have come forward the detectives would have had plenty of time to interview this man).

Link please.

5.

Iv seen precious little about any of these issues dealt with here today.

I've seen precious little of the GFA dealt with by SF/IRA and I've been waiting for the last god knows how many years. Plenty of rhetoric and fluff, but little delivery of the goods so to speak.

bonkey

Lemming wrote:

I've seen precious little of the GFA dealt with by SF/IRA and I've been waiting for the last god knows how many years. Plenty of rhetoric and fluff, but little delivery of the goods so to speak.

But does this make them any different to any of the other parties involved with the GFA? More specifically - any of the other Northern parties?

I can't think of a single one which hasn't been engaged in rhetoric and fluff, or in shifting the goalposts, or in just plain ol' obstructionism. They're all at it, from what I can see....which is why I'm wondering.

And if they're all at it...why is the public busy blaming only one party? Hasn't it occurred to anyone that showing such a blatant bias cannot be anything other than counter-productive? And if so, could they explain to me how it will be productive?

We can stand up there and insist that until SF learn to play fair, there's no place for them at the table....but while we do so with other people sitting safely at the table despite playing unfairly as well....well, I'd put our chances of actually making progress somewhere in the negative figures.

I know I'm off-topic, but I'm just making a passing comment and leaving it at that.

magpie

I can't think of a single one which hasn't been engaged in rhetoric and fluff, or in shifting the goalposts, or in just plain ol' obstructionism. They're all at it, from what I can see....which is why I'm wondering.

And if they're all at it...why is the public busy blaming only one party?

Because the leaders of this party are members of the IRA Army Council, because this party/paramilitary organisation funds itself with armed robbery in the middle of peace negotiations, because this party has groups of armed thugs who kill people in pubs for looking at their girlfriends the wrong way, because this party then issues 'warnings' to people not to contest their seats in elections.

Any other reasons you need?

I don't know about SF shooting themselves in the foot, more like shooting themselves in the ankles, knees and elbows. Much like they might do to a 16 year old who doesn't give them their cut of his hash-dealing.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

Because the leaders of this party are members of the IRA Army Council

Your use of the present tense is, I assume, indicative of this being an assumption as opposed to an established and accepted fact?

There have been long-running threads about this very issue, and what it seems to boil down to is a choice of who to believe, rather than there being any actual proof.

Also, for this point to be valid, can you verify that no political party member of any of the other political parties has equally proven links to another terrorist movement? If not, then I ask again, why only SF?

, because this party/paramilitary organisation funds itself with armed robbery in the middle of peace negotiations,

Again, is this opinion, or is there proof that the party has received proceeds from this? Or is it just a case of "we won't negotiate with the political wing of terrorists[/i]?

If its the latter, then I take it that you oppose the GFA in its entirety and every step which has been taken to remove us from the troubles of the past few decades?

Also, can you show that no other paramilitary organisation has been involved in criminal activity? Or is it just that if they are, we don't know for sure whereas with the IRA there's no doubt that they were, and a serious quest

because this party has groups of armed thugs who kill people in pubs for looking at their girlfriends the wrong way,

They did this on instruction...is that what you're saying? Again...fact or opinion?

because this party then issues 'warnings' to people not to contest their seats in elections.

Which differs from what the media have reported both the issuers and receivers of this warning understood it to mean....so presumably this is more opinion rather than established fact.

Any other reasons you need?

Yes. One which doesn't involve buying into what spinmeisters have decided happened and how they have chosen to present it to us. One which is based on fact rather than assumption of truth. One which definitely doesn't apply to other parties.

While most of what you have said above has a basis in fact (e.g. the IRA did carry out robberies), you've decided to slant how you present it (e.g. Sinn Fein was funded from these robberies) in a manner which strikes me as, well, biased.

Its funny that you should do so whilst I'm more or less asking for the reason for such bias existing in the first place

If you apply the same approach to all of the other involved parties, you'll find that none of them are worth dealing with either.

So again...why only Sinn Fein and the IRA?

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Also, for this point to be valid, can you verify that no political party member of any of the other political parties has equally proven links to another terrorist movement? If not, then I ask again, why only SF?

There was a documentary on RTÉ last night called The year London Burned, it was about the Balcome street IRA gang who blew up and shot up as much as London as they could in 1974.
They were released under the terms of the GFA and rightly so as part of that agreement.
The programme showed a scene from the SF Árd Fheis following that release where the four members were brought on stage to roars and cheers and hugged by Adams and McGuinness.
They were féted as heroes having caused mahem in London, a city like many in Britain, that Irish people fled to in their thousands to try find work.
All those people in the hall roaring and shouting their approval,I assume were SF members-100% approval from those in the hall-100% approval for what would outside of SF be considered widely as terrorist acts.

Thats a link that would understandably leave a bitter taste in a lot of peoples mouths, its not a scene that would be repeated at a Labour,FG or FF party convention or an Ulster Unionist one for that matter.
The names of the people killed were listed at the end of the programme.


So to address your question,I doubt if you could draw any comparison between that and the other established parties at the moment.The fact that people widely believe that the IRA was responsible for the Northern robbery and respected government ministers relying on Garda information attribute all sorts of other criminality to republicans doesnt help improve Non SF peoples opinion of that party given the warmth of the link that is there.

In non SF's peoples eyes, its not a case of there being one or two or twenty two from other parties that may at a push have some terrorist links, its the extent of the approval,love-in connection amongst SF members for the IRA(as witnessed at that Árd Fheis for example) that would cause the popular perception problem for them.
Unfortunately for those bored with it, or those on the receiving end of it, many of the discussions on this board are symptomatic at the moment of the subjects topicality and of the apparent irreconcialability of the opposing views.

magpie

Depends if you choose to believe that the Independent Monitoring Commission is an independent body set up to monitor events, or a sinister plot to stop Sinn Fein from getting into power.

http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/

cdebru

magpie wrote:

Depends if you choose to believe that the Independent Monitoring Commission is an independent body set up to monitor events, or a sinister plot to stop Sinn Fein from getting into power.

http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/

the IMC offers opinion based on what it has been told by the PSNI MI5 MI6 the Gardai etc we all ready know what they all think it does not offer any new evidence
just opinions and beliefs

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

There was a documentary on RTÉ last night called The year London Burned, it was about the Balcome street IRA gang who blew up and shot up as much as London as they could in 1974.
They were released under the terms of the GFA and rightly so as part of that agreement.
The programme showed a scene from the SF Árd Fheis following that release where the four members were brought on stage to roars and cheers and hugged by Adams and McGuinness.
They were féted as heroes having caused mahem in London, a city like many in Britain, that Irish people fled to in their thousands to try find work.
All those people in the hall roaring and shouting their approval,I assume were SF members-100% approval from those in the hall-100% approval for what would outside of SF be considered widely as terrorist acts.

Thats a link that would understandably leave a bitter taste in a lot of peoples mouths, its not a scene that would be repeated at a Labour,FG or FF party convention or an Ulster Unionist one for that matter.
The names of the people killed were listed at the end of the programme.


So to address your question,I doubt if you could draw any comparison between that and the other established parties at the moment.The fact that people widely believe that the IRA was responsible for the Northern robbery and respected government ministers relying on Garda information attribute all sorts of other criminality to republicans doesnt help improve Non SF peoples opinion of that party given the warmth of the link that is there.

In non SF's peoples eyes, its not a case of there being one or two or twenty two from other parties that may at a push have some terrorist links, its the extent of the approval,love-in connection amongst SF members for the IRA(as witnessed at that Árd Fheis for example) that would cause the popular perception problem for them.
Unfortunately for those bored with it, or those on the receiving end of it, many of the discussions on this board are symptomatic at the moment of the subjects topicality and of the apparent irreconcialability of the opposing views.

what do you think should happen

Sinn Fein should say ok yes we were completely in the wrong and all those IRA people who we supported at the time were all wrong as well
and yes margaret thatcher was right the IRA were just a criminal gang


Just because the GFA does not mean that SF have to believe that what was done in the past was wrong
it is a way forward an attempt to stop it happening in the future.

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

what do you think should happen

Sinn Fein should say ok yes we were completely in the wrong and all those IRA people who we supported at the time were all wrong as well
and yes margaret thatcher was right the IRA were just a criminal gang

A recognition that a lot of what they did was wrong or criminal might go a long way to extending an olive branch, rather than this arrogant "we didn't do anything wrong ever" attitude that alienates people. A lot of outrageous things were carried out over the course of the troubles by all parties involved in armed conflict. What makes SF/IRA think that they are the pristine angels of it all?

Just because the GFA does not mean that SF have to believe that what was done in the past was wrong
it is a way forward an attempt to stop it happening in the future.

Just because Germany surrendered at the end of WW2 doesn't mean that Germans have to believe that what was done in their name was wrong ....

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote:

A recognition that a lot of what they did was wrong or criminal might go a long way to extending an olive branch, rather than this arrogant "we didn't do anything wrong ever" attitude that alienates people. A lot of outrageous things were carried out over the course of the troubles by all parties involved in armed conflict. What makes SF/IRA think that they are the pristine angels of it all?

Looks to me like they have. Whether you choose to believe they were sincere is a totally different matter

The following statement from the leadership of the IRA was received by An Phoblacht (Republican News) on Tuesday, 16 July 2002:

Sunday 21 July marks the 30th anniversary of an IRA operation in Belfast in 1972 which resulted in nine people being killed and many more injured.

While it was not our intention to injure or kill non-combatants, the reality is that on this and on a number of other occasions, that was the consequence of our actions.

It is therefore appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.

We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.

There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides.

We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives.

The future will not be found in denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt.

That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants.

It will not be achieved by creating a hierarchy of victims in which some are deemed more or less worthy than others.

The process of conflict resolution requires the equal acknowledgement of the grief and loss of others.

On this anniversary, we are endeavouring to fulfil this responsibility to those we have hurt.

The IRA is committed unequivocally to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Ireland.

We remain totally committed to the peace process and to dealing with the challenges and difficulties which this presents.

This includes the acceptance of past mistakes and of the hurt and pain we have caused to others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2132113.stm

AmenToThat

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Who said they were beyond control? They may well have been acting with the blessing, or direction of the "army council" before this incident. Unless you have inside info to the contrary?

Whos to say they werent beyond the control of the army council or at the very least not following guideliness properly, maybe you have inside information about this?

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

I'd LOVE to hear an explaination for this. Why SHOULDN'T a man be able to walk into a pub and drink without worrying what kind of psycho's he's going to have to deal with?

My point is if you know a place is frequented by a bunch of nuts why would you want to drink their unless you feel relativaly comfortable in that company anyways its seems his pal who was cut up by the IRA was a nut in any case so he wasnt uncomfortable in the company of crazies.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Surely the whole point of the peace process is to have a situation where people can walk into a pub, or a shop, or a job, or a street, without having to worry about whether there is a nutter inside who's going to take exception to who they are or whether they show the proper "respect"?

Are there certain pubs in the Republic you would feel uncomfortable in?
What about Glasgow or New York.
That is a ridiculas statement to make.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

This is remarkably like the logic of clan members who murdered black and white civil rights activists in the states on the basis that they should have known better than to exist, or espouse their views in the same physical space as the Klan.

Your saying there was a political motive for the killing?
You seem to be inplying this by your use of that particualr example if you have any information that this is so you should pass it to the PSNI/RUC

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Previous criminal history is inadmissable in a British court of law, isn't it? In any case the fact remains that, whether he was a criminal himself, that which was done to him is a crime.

Now were getting to it.
When an allegation against SF is made you in particular scream for them to be locked up immediately without any concrete evidence having been yet put before a judge and jury.
Here you are now defending this individual and attempting to say that two wrongs dont make a right(which of course they dont) but this is your first time admitting as much and I hope that if future allegations are made against anyone you will hold off judgement untill a trial has been conducted. Otherwise you run the risk of pidgeonhole yourself as an even more hypocritical individual than you have already displayed when dealing with unproven allegations regarding individuals or groups.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Again, surely the point of the process is that we arrive at a situation where all are equal before the law?

Including Republicans?
Does this new found enthusiams for the Good Friday Agreement mean you are no longer going to brand all Republicans if allegations are made against certain individuals without any evidence being presented in a court of law?

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

I've seen no reporting of that at all. Care to elaborate? The police do release suspects who hand themselves in while they establish evidence you know. Since most of the witnesses (including a SF electoral candidate) have failed to come forward and speak to the police (and as SF have demonstrated contempt for the investigation by failing to speak to the police themselves) they may simply not have enough evidence to hold him.

They not only didnt they hold him they didnt question him when he made himself available, are you saying this is standard practice in a case where someone is wanted for questioning in such a serious crime?

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Or, as a hot political football they may simply be trying to avoid looking like they're jumping to conclusions.

Didnt stop them in relation to the Northern Bank job where there is still no evidence of IRA involvement. Again you are applying double standards in dealing with the issues at hand

uberwolf

P O'Neill wrote:

The IRA is committed unequivocally to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Ireland.

16/03/05

IRA was prepared to shoot people directly involved in the killing of Robert McCartney

8/03/05

Whose standards of justice & peace are they searching for? Because there is no half way house between those two quotes, and no believing that in a week they've changed their stripes so entirely.

Victor

jman0 wrote:

[Re: McCartney family - IRA interlocuter] Possibly a member of the clergy, something they've traditionally done in NI. I suppose that would make the Catholic church in league with IRA right? By the way, do you have some sort of proof of your claim?

I really do think it was SF, seeing as the meeting was held just before they attending Adams' speech at the ard fheis.

AmenToThat wrote:

They are getting cruxified anyways so I think its time they came out fighting.

Interesting, er, choice of words.

Cork

McGuiness Statement was absurd. This guy is a member of a party that followed the policy of an armalite in one hand and a bottot box in the other. His party has links to the criminal IRA. His party never wanted to enter the politics of condemnation with regards to the IRA.

This guy really needs to focus his attention on sorting out his own party.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.