Martin McGuiness Tells McCartney Sisters "careful now"

Slutmonkey57b

AmenToThat wrote:

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?

My point was that the only people who can answer that for you are the people that live there and the army council. Before the murder the people who have been ousted from SF and the IRA were apparantly "all right", or at least there was no public evidence to the contrary. Now, after the murder, it turns out they were out of control lunatics. A fairly rapid change there, no? Or else they were always lunatics but for some reason none of their activities came to light until now. If that was the case, I wonder why?

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. 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.

So.. if a pub is frequented by troublemakers, the troublemakers should be left alone, and the law should do nothing about it. And the law-abiding citizen who wants to use the pub because it's local should go elsewhere?
Interesting logic.

The licencing laws here and in the UK, however, require that the landlord must run a "reputable premesis" and not disturb his neighbours. So if there are "crazies" in the pub who are cutting people up and threatening people, it is the "crazies" who should be removed, no?

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

Where did I say that? Nowhere. My point was, saying "Well if he didn't want to get hurt he should stay out of a pub with crazies in it", which was your initial point, is very like saying "well if he didn't want to get hurt he shouldn't be walking into a white bar with his black friends", which was the Klan's logic in a lot of cases. As history proved, the Klan were wrong and the activists were right.

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.

I've never to the best of my recollection called for the leaders of SF or its members to be locked up for something they haven't done, so you must be confusing me with someone else. I'm not defending Brendan Devine as I have no information about his previous criminal convictions. I'm just pointing out that in the context of the case, they would appear to be immaterial.

Where exactly have I claimed before that two wrongs make a right? I certainly haven't claimed that the British Army is allowed to torture people so it can't be that. I haven't claimed that it's ok for loyalist paramilitaries to attack nationalists to "protect" themselves, or vice versa, so it can't be that. Again you may be confusing me with someone else.

I've criticised SF's media handling before. I've criticised IRA decommissioning before. I've criticised whether the GFA does what it is supposed to do. I've even criticised northern ireland as a whole, but I haven't claimed (to the best of my recollection) that everyone in SF should be locked up wholesale.

Either you're very confused about who I am, or you're attacking me personally rather than discuss the issues.

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?

Again, please provide evidence of my previous inconsistancy here as I'm not sure what you're talking about. What "certain individuals" have I branded and in what cases? Are you going to continue attacking me or are you going to discuss the points at hand? Whether I am "enthusiastic" about the GFA would be immaterial - the GFA has a purpose, and the stated purpose is to change the nature of northern society.

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?

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

You asked for a discussion on the subject, I provided you with a couple of alternative scenarios. As I already stated, I haven't seen any reporting on the subject so I can't comment definitively on what did or didn't happen when this man turned up at the police station

Roisin Dubh

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.

They are using First Past the Post for the UK General Election including in NI.

Sand

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

Well, that would be a perfect world. Id settle for them *not* glorifying killers and cheering and whooping murderers and scumbags. Would you consider it acceptable for Tony Blair to hold a party reception for the Paras in Bloody Sunday and for all them to cheer on those Paras? Would you then argue that you couldnt expect the British to say yes, the Paras were completely in the wrong and all those Paras who we supported at the time were all wrong as well?

You wouldnt, and youd be right not to. I wouldnt either. And I wont accept that its okay for SF/IRA to celebrate murderers either. Provo apologists on the other hand still sup from Pearse's communion of blood.

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

Bonkey if you can name me another terrorist movement that has Dail TDs, MPs in the British Parliment, Seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Mayors and local Councillors, tons of semtex and various smallarms, An electoral team who is convicted of being a terrorist punishment squad, another who guts a man and his friend like animals on a street, who pontificate about justice and truth whilst its candidates refuse to give testimony to police murder investigations, who offer to murder people in retaliatory killings, who threaten to kill children as young as 13 and who have savagely beaten supposed "anti-social" elements, who refuse to recognise any act by themselves as a crime - maybe a wrong, but never a crime - who consistently lie, deny and deceive over incidents as widespread as the Colombia Three and the killers of McCabe, who pose for smiling group hugs with Garda killers whilst denouncing the Gardai as a disgraced force in need of reform then belive me Ill line up with everyone else to condemn them and demand that they conform to the expected requirements of every other democratic party or movement.

Until then, SF/IRA are the victims of their electoral success. When they were merely thuggish scumbags people didnt expect them to be anymore than thuggish scumbags. Now that they are elected thuggish scumbags people expect them to accept the rule of law and the norms of civillised government.

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?

I think people need to be brave and accept that the pandering to terrorists and the "dont mention the war" attitude has corrupted the GFA beyond repair. It retains no credibility and thus neither bloc of Unionism can be expected to stake their fortunes on the word of Gerry Liar Adams. The undertakings in the GFA are meaningless because neither side has the will or intent to fufill their side of the bargain.

Its time to go back to the drawing board and start again. The threat of another IRA campaign is quite low - as the McCartney killing has demonstrated their former support base is war weary and want to lead normal lives. This time there needs to be more stringent requirements from the terrorist groups - decommissioning needs to be locked into the timetable, whereby phased decommissioning and concrete undertakings are synchronised with phased political reforms and demilitarisation.

One of the first steps would be to restart the Assembly without SF/IRA participation, just to remind them that yes - it is quite possible to go ahead without them. Once they recognise that, theyll be ready to engage in a second peace proccess. All carrot and no stick leads to a situation like we currently find ourselves in.

cdebru

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

Sand actually captured in one line what I thought.
I was merely pointing out that SF are a small minority of the Irish people and the Vast majority don't share their adolation of IRA killers in the way that the Balcome st gang were adored at that Árd Fheis.
It would be akin to Blair welcoming in the Para's that did Bloody sunday to the labour annual conference, and the whole conference erupting in applause and shouting well done for that deed.
It wouldnt look good would it?

Besides, again I was merely stating the obvious, that its understandable that non SF supporters would find such scenes at an SF meeting distastefull.
I can fully understand why ardent republicans would want to do that, but am surprised that they are surprised that a majority of people would have opposed the IRA campaign at the time and still do-thats democracy though and something to which I subscribe.

A Dub in Glasgo

The British actually went one better. The inquiry gave a verdict that all the people killed during Bloody Sunday were 'bombers' and 'gunmen' and totally exonerated the soldiers of any wrongdoing. The commanding officier that day was given a knighthood by the Queen soon after and Prince Charles is still the head honcho (ceremonial) of the Regiment. Not one person who committed the crimes in Derry that day has ever faced any criminal charge or disciplinary charges. Look at the killers of Peter McBride, they are still feted amongst their own.

In their own way, the British establisment adored their soldiers for what they done in Derry.

I can understand the anger of some people about the reception given to former republican prisoners but that is the way of the world when a movement is to move as one to a new phase of their struggle.

mycroft

sand wrote:

Well, that would be a perfect world. Id settle for them *not* glorifying killers and cheering and whooping murderers and scumbags. Would you consider it acceptable for Tony Blair to hold a party reception for the Paras in Bloody Sunday and for all them to cheer on those Paras? Would you then argue that you couldnt expect the British to say yes, the Paras were completely in the wrong and all those Paras who we supported at the time were all wrong as well?

Um Sand Neil Kinnock was filmed one christmas with a group of para's who'd murdered two joyriders, the banner above them was a home made picture of the car with the caption "Built by Japanese, driven by scum, stopped by paras"

Though in fairness, the image forced an investigation in the regiment.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The British actually went one better. The inquiry gave a verdict that all the people killed during Bloody Sunday were 'bombers' and 'gunmen' and totally exonerated the soldiers of any wrongdoing. The commanding officier that day was given a knighthood by the Queen soon after and Prince Charles is still the head honcho (ceremonial) of the Regiment. Not one person who committed the crimes in Derry that day has ever faced any criminal charge or disciplinary charges. Look at the killers of Peter McBride, they are still feted amongst their own.
.

Yeah amongst there own.

When Adams made his orginal condemnation of the Mc Carthy killers he was at the memorial service of a IRA bomb master killed by his own bomb.

And as for bloody sunday, may I remind you, we're awaiting the verdict of the longest tribunal in the history of the british state. At least they're making an open appeal to the orginal verdict. Mary Lou still won't condemn the murder of a mother of ten.

There have been wrongdoing by both sides in the conflict, and while the British govt are dragging their heels for justice in the murder of Pat Finucane and the Dublin Monaghan bombing, etc....the IRA/SF are fetéing their own murderers and calling em heroes, in public services. It's a tad rich to condemn one sides behaviour while your own is so shameful.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Sand actually captured in one line what I thought.
I was merely pointing out that SF are a small minority of the Irish people and the Vast majority don't share their adolation of IRA killers in the way that the Balcome st gang were adored at that Árd Fheis.
It would be akin to Blair welcoming in the Para's that did Bloody sunday to the labour annual conference, and the whole conference erupting in applause and shouting well done for that deed.
It wouldnt look good would it?

Besides, again I was merely stating the obvious, that its understandable that non SF supporters would find such scenes at an SF meeting distastefull.
I can fully understand why ardent republicans would want to do that, but am surprised that they are surprised that a majority of people would have opposed the IRA campaign at the time and still do-thats democracy though and something to which I subscribe.

so you would prefer if they did not adore them in public

the way the british knighted and promoted the people responsible for bloody sunday something like that

the fact is that it was done in public in front of tv cameras for the whole world to see
obviously if you believe those men were murderers and terrorists then it would be disturbing but what would disturb me alot more if they whooped and cheered them in private and condemned and snubbed them in public at least everyone knows where SF stands on this they can make up their minds to support or reject them as you have done.

I can see no benefit to anyone for SF or anyone else to put on a public face that you would find agreeable but hold onto their beliefs and keep them secret

cdebru

Sand wrote:

.



I think people need to be brave and accept that the pandering to terrorists and the "dont mention the war" attitude has corrupted the GFA beyond repair. It retains no credibility and thus neither bloc of Unionism can be expected to stake their fortunes on the word of Gerry Liar Adams. The undertakings in the GFA are meaningless because neither side has the will or intent to fufill their side of the bargain.

Its time to go back to the drawing board and start again. The threat of another IRA campaign is quite low - as the McCartney killing has demonstrated their former support base is war weary and want to lead normal lives. This time there needs to be more stringent requirements from the terrorist groups - decommissioning needs to be locked into the timetable, whereby phased decommissioning and concrete undertakings are synchronised with phased political reforms and demilitarisation.

One of the first steps would be to restart the Assembly without SF/IRA participation, just to remind them that yes - it is quite possible to go ahead without them. Once they recognise that, theyll be ready to engage in a second peace proccess. All carrot and no stick leads to a situation like we currently find ourselves in.

the assembly can not be restarted without sinn fein

the locking mechanism whereby a majority of nationalists and a majority of unionists are needed
sinn fein is the majority nationalist party obviously they are needed if you are to have a majority of nationalists onboard

Ian paisley speaking with tommy gorman about 2 weeks ago said that he would be still willing to go into power sharing with sinn fein


there is no way that the SDLP would contemplate putting sinn fein outside the assembly

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

so you would prefer if they did not adore them in public

Well,they can do whatever they wish,I'm just commenting really on what a lot of non SF supporters would perceive from that and extending that to non surprise that views supporting the IRA would be vigorously opposed here.
I'm informing those that express support for the IRA, that in this forum opposing views will be expressed.
Discussion between the opposing viewpoints though should be within the rules of the boards charter and of course civil
The line from sand that I was thinking of was

Would you consider it acceptable for Tony Blair to hold a party reception for the Paras in Bloody Sunday and for all them to cheer on those Paras?

cdebru

Would you consider it acceptable for Tony Blair to hold a party reception for the Paras in Bloody Sunday and for all them to cheer on those Paras?

honestly if they support their troops and what they did then i would prefer them to be honest about it
Just at they cheer the soldiers they sent on a terroist attacks in Iraq


george bush for example was led into the congress to give his state of the union address by one of the soldiers involved in the attack on fallujah which IMHO was a terrorist attack
they whoop and holler and welcome the terrorist they sent into Iraq

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Well,they can do whatever they wish,I'm just commenting really on what a lot of non SF supporters would perceive from that and extending that to non surprise that views supporting the IRA would be vigorously opposed here.
I'm informing those that express support for the IRA, that in this forum opposing views will be expressed.
Discussion between the opposing viewpoints though should be within the rules of the boards charter and of course civil

i think IMHO that try as moderators might they take in their own bias and that anti republicans are given alot more leeway to abuse tell lies about republican posters and try to create arguements were none exist
and in my experience moderators tend not to ban such people but to warn and then just lock the thread
and then the abuse and lies and created arguements just move to another thread


i have no problem with anyone opposing my viewpoints there would not be much point in posting here if i did
i do have a problem with people distorting and making up things and creating an arguement just for the sake of it

marco murphy

Yes,i agree

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

i think IMHO that try as moderators might they take in their own bias and that anti republicans are given alot more leeway to abuse tell lies about republican posters and try to create arguements were none exist
and in my experience moderators tend not to ban such people but to warn and then just lock the thread
and then the abuse and lies and created arguements just move to another thread

So you and poblachtach are alledging that moderators here apply the rules in a biased way.
I presume you are including me in that?
I suggest you take it to feedback as its in my opinion unfounded.

gandalf

As you all know if you have a problem with the way this place is modded go to feedback and take it up with the admins. So far numerous people have been banned due to the recent influx of republican topics and posts and believe it or not the majority have been people who posted from the so called anti-republican side.

Now its simple if you do not like the way this board is modded go away, there are plenty of other boards out there,why not go to one of the many republican ones where you all can wallow in your calls of "700 years" but don't expect that here, this is a mainstream political forum which means the majority are not only against your politics they are abhorred by what some of it stands for and condones.

Now take this to the feedback forum or shut up or get lost.

marco murphy

Iam not speaking for myself,but wouldnt one get banned for speaking out?

gandalf

Take it to the feedback section of boards. I do not want to see one more whinge on this thread, if I do I will ban people from here.

If you are warned by the mods here you heed it, you are free to complain in feedback.

Seth Brundle

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

In their own way, the British establisment adored their soldiers for what they done in Derry.

With respect, I would think that quietly the IRA leadership were also pleased with Bloody Sunday as it was possibly the cause of their biggest recruitment drive!

Villain

I would just like to say I think the Mod's are doing a pretty good job.

I think the biggest problem is that the majority of threads relating to SF end up in a general discussion rather than sticking to the topic at hand.

BTW cdebru if there's something you want to say that is contrary to the rules of this forum, just pay €50 and get a Journal, then write what you like and link to it.

marco murphy

gandalf wrote:

Take it to the feedback section of boards. I do not want to see one more whinge on this thread, if I do I will ban people from here.

If you are warned by the mods here you heed it, you are free to complain in feedback.

Understood

A Dub in Glasgo

kbannon wrote:

With respect, I would think that quietly the IRA leadership were also pleased with Bloody Sunday

With even more repect, I don't think so

Sponge Bob

Right So, back on topic !

The sIt-YEE-AYSHUN now is that the sisters were clearly warned off and still went off to the US and met Bush and spoke to him about the sit-YEE-AYSHUN and told Bush all about the sit-YEE-AYSHUN it seems .

Nobody is listening to Martin anymore bar the junior party members , what a sit-YEE-AYSHUN indeedy.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sponge Bob wrote:

Right So, back on topic !

The sIt-YEE-AYSHUN now is that the sisters were clearly warned off and still went off to the US and met Bush and spoke to him about the sit-YEE-AYSHUN and told Bush all about the sit-YEE-AYSHUN it seems .

Nobody is listening to Martin anymore bar the junior party members , what a sit-YEE-AYSHUN indeedy.

You obviously are considering you are trying your best to sound like him!

sceptre

irish1 wrote:

BTW cdebru if there's something you want to say that is contrary to the rules of this forum, just pay €50 and get a Journal, then write what you like and link to it.

I'd be wary of linking to it in posts as an attempt to evade a ban that someone might get for actually posting the content of their journal post as a regular post. This isn't angled at you specifically obviously but given that you've brought it up that'd be my view as a mod on the matter. That's an aside and I'm not trying to divert the thread in case anyone's got anything of value to say.

A Dub in Glasgo

sceptre wrote:

I'd be wary of linking to it in posts as an attempt to evade a ban that someone might get for actually posting the content of their journal post as a regular post. .

Without going further off topic, there is precedence for doing exactly that in a thread in the politics forum

cdebru

sceptre wrote:

I'd be wary of linking to it in posts as an attempt to evade a ban that someone might get for actually posting the content of their journal post as a regular post. This isn't angled at you specifically obviously but given that you've brought it up that'd be my view as a mod on the matter. That's an aside and I'm not trying to divert the thread in case anyone's got anything of value to say.

in fact it was a moderator from another section who did exactly that

that is what Irish1 was refering to no action was taken

cdebru

Sponge Bob wrote:

Right So, back on topic !

The sIt-YEE-AYSHUN now is that the sisters were clearly warned off and still went off to the US and met Bush and spoke to him about the sit-YEE-AYSHUN and told Bush all about the sit-YEE-AYSHUN it seems .

Nobody is listening to Martin anymore bar the junior party members , what a sit-YEE-AYSHUN indeedy.

as has already been discussed mcguiness did not mean it as a threat and the mccartney sisters did not take it as one

sceptre

cdebru wrote:

in fact it was a moderator from another section who did exactly that

that is what Irish1 was refering to no action was taken

OK, you could have PMed that to me rather than going for another off-topic post but the Report button is always available to you. Or by PM. I'm in the book.

uberwolf

cdebru wrote:

in fact it was a moderator from another section who did exactly that

it doesn't matter who did it. There are only 4 mods on this forum. Everyone else is a regular user

cdebru wrote:

that is what Irish1 was refering to no action was taken

Be advised not to take this as a precedent. Whilst not familiar with the incident in question I can assure you that anyone linking to material that would itself not be quotable in this forum will be treated as if they had posted it themselves.

Until we have considered the implications fully use that as your guide. If you can't post it or quote it don't link to it.

Villain

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2434806&postcount=11

I discussed this with Devore and he didn't seem to think lemming should be banned for it, I think if lemming was allowed to it so should others.

I personally think it's just a cowardly way of name calling without getting banned, I think the mods need to deal with this issue.

I would have sent this via PM btw but I already did to devore and we discussed via several PM's so I didn't see the point in going over it again with the mods.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I personally think it's just a cowardly way of name calling without getting banned, I think the mods need to deal with this issue.

Well they have and I agree with uberwolf and Sceptre,You can consider the matter as having been decided upon.
I personally dont care whats in anybodies journal if Boards.ie allow it to be in their journal.But under no circumstances am I going to allow a link to a journal in future containing anything considered against the politics charter or charter evasion here.
It doesnt matter what colour ,hue or political stand point the poster has, my decision will be the same if I see that kind of thing.