IT only takes 8 years to say sorry...

jman0

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Let me see if I've got this right - jman0 thinks that Mrs McCabe's opinion should be taken with "buckets of salt" because she wasn't there.
His opinion, that Gda McCabe behaved like an "idiot" and was "trying to be a hero", based on.... ummmm... not being at the scene of the crime perhaps, should be taken as ummm...

Something I got from those dogs in the street you folk are so inclined toward

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

On the other hand, as he's quoting from the green book maybe he does have some first hand experience of the case. Do they have net access in those bungalows?

Some sort of personal attack it sounds like.
Of course, you could try googling "ira green book", if you are able to figure out how to do that..
EDIT: nice work board moderators, if I or any other poster from a republican viewpoint posted a similar attack on another poster we'd probably get banned. It just shows what a joke this board is and that "moderators" allow their personal political bias to influence how they dispense their duties, nice one lads.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

EDIT: nice work board moderators, if I or any other poster from a republican viewpoint posted a similar attack on another poster we'd probably get banned. It just shows what a joke this board is and that "moderators" allow their personal political bias to influence how they dispense their duties, nice one lads.

You could always report the post... Lord knows we get enough reported posts around here and deal with them all, feel free to join the queue.
Then we decide if it merits action as you may or may not know we aren't sitting in front of our pc's 24:7 pressing refresh :rolleyes:

He seems to be insinuating that the McCabe killers are emailing you?
Is that an insult given that you are a republican and supportive of these lads?

billy the squid

what I would like to know is why Jonn0 thinks that Gda McCabe was trying to be some sort of a hero, he didnt even get a chance to get out of his car ffs. the picture of his dead body still in the car seat were plastered all over the front page of the Sunday World for all in sundry to see.

he didnt pick this operation because he expected an IRA bank job to take place. guarding a security van was part of the routine of his job.

oh and "the dogs on the street" is not a valid source. might be good enough for Martin McGuiness and your good self, but not for me.

and the IRA green book (which the IRA chose to ignore in this instance) is not a legal document.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

He seems to be insinuating that the McCabe killers are emailing you?
Is that an insult given that you are a republican and supportive of these lads?

You didn't get it i guess,
Here's what he said:

"On the other hand, as he's quoting from the green book maybe he does have some first hand experience of the case. Do they have net access in those bungalows?"

The poster is insinuating that since i can quote from the Green Book, I may have first hand experince in IRA issues regarding the McCabe killing, or first hand experience in IRA matters regarding the Green Book.
His next sentence about bungalows is either insinuating that i am in gaol, or that i'm in council housing or something. Either way it's a personal attack.
Are you defending a poster making a personal attack on me?
Maybe pretending that you don't understand the nature of the post?

billy the squid

actually i believe the reference to the bungalows is a reference to castlerea and the accomodations of the attempted bank robbers / manslaughterers of gerry mccabe.

so unless you are one of the four i cant see how it was a personal attack on you

why would a staunch republican find the fact that he is believed to have had first hand experience with his heroes in the IRA, insulting. If I knew personally a member of the Garda Siochana, I would be proud of the fact.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Are you defending a poster making a personal attack on me?
Maybe pretending that you don't understand the nature of the post?

I took the same reading of it as Billy the Squid.

Maybe we should ask the poster what exactly he is insinuating or to clarify same
If it's that he thinks you are receiving emails from the McCabe killers, then all thats needed here is for you to deny that, if thats what you want.
Slutmonkey can take that denial and believe it if he wants or not, thats his perogative.
In my view he may not continue to accuse you of consulting the McCabe killers on your posts, if you are denying same, he can say he disbelieves you without accusing you of lying though and leave it at that.
I *will* take a dim view of his postings if they continously accuse you of lying.

It's not for me to make a call on a personal insult if I dont see one.

jman0

billy the squid wrote:

why would a staunch republican find the fact that he is believed to have had first hand experience with his heroes in the IRA, insulting. If I knew personally a member of the Garda Siochana, I would be proud of the fact.

Because:
1) the IRA are not my heroes and i have never expressed that they were. So you are attributing a false position to me. Niether am i a "staunch republican" as i find my personal views are not all in league with SF, or Republican SF (what is a "staunch republican"?)
2) the poster (like many on this board) think of the IRA and SF in highly negative terms and use negative and derogatory remarks about republicans generally. Therefore the poster's insinuations are intending offence, they are not intending to compliment.
3) As an upstanding member of tax paying society, having no criminal record, no criminal past, i find the inference of my possibly being in gaol offensive; as well as the insinuation that i may be in contact with convicted killers.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

3) As an upstanding member of tax paying society, having no criminal record, no criminal past, i find the inference of my possibly being in gaol offensive; as well as the insinuation that i may be in contact with convicted killers.

Yet you feel that a garda who's salary you pay, is an idiot for doing his job, and that an unelected unoffical organisation should have the right to carry out summary justice.

Oh and you don't support SF or the IRA.

Where is that bucket of salt you put down just a minute ago?

billy the squid

His next sentence about bungalows is either insinuating that i am in gaol, or that i'm in council housing or something. Either way it's a personal attack.

are ou saying that there is something wrong with people that came from council housing, if so then you are insulting me personally.

not to worry though

getting back to your other points

how was jerry mccabe acting the idiot?
how was he trying to be a hero?

1) the IRA are not my heroes and i have never expressed that they were. So you are attributing a false position to me. Niether am i a "staunch republican" as i find my personal views are not all in league with SF, or Republican SF (what is a "staunch republican"?)

I have only heard staunch republicans call the republic of Ireland the free state

2) the poster (like many on this board) think of the IRA and SF in highly negative terms and use negative and derogatory remarks about republicans generally. Therefore the poster's insinuations are intending offence, they are not intending to compliment.

and he could equally take offence to your statment that a member of the police force in his country, who was killed in the line of duty, being called an idiot.

which you still havent answered.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Because:
1) the IRA are not my heroes and i have never expressed that they were. So you are attributing a false position to me. Niether am i a "staunch republican" as i find my personal views are not all in league with SF, or Republican SF (what is a "staunch republican"?)

Really? forgive me but am I wrong in thinking that every single post that you make in threads involving SF or the IRA are from a republican standpoint?
You've even gone as far as accusing this board and its moderators of being biased towards anti Republicans in their moderating.

And what about this ? while we are at it... Remember that? comments like that don't go un noticed by people who oppose the IRA and they would be in a very significant majority in this country, thats something you must deal with rather than crying fowl of.

There is nothing wrong with being a Republican and there is nothing wrong with being proud of being a Republican.
However when you wear your views on your sleeve like you do and they are contentious, you must also expect that they will be challenged by those that disagree with you when they are posted here.
Thats called discussion.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

Really? forgive me but am I wrong in thinking that every single post that you make in threads involving SF or the IRA are from a republican standpoint?
You've even gone as far as accusing this board and its moderators of being biased towards anti Republicans in their moderating

Yes i never denied i am repubican minded, but that wasn't the charge.
The charge was that the IRA are my heroes, which they aren't, and also that i am a "staunch republican" and i asked what is a staunch republican, being the case that i don't agree with everything SF nor Republican SF do..
But you didn't answer that question Earthman.

Earthman wrote:

And what about this ? while we are at it... Remember that?.

Of course i remember that, and i stand by it still. The Brighton bomb was absolutely spectacular, there's no point in questioning that. Ronald Reagon bombs the home of Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi (kills an infant) and HMG is supportive of that so i don't see why when the IRA do something similar, that it's anything but spectacular, considering the massive resources HMG has at their disposal to guard against such a thing, absolutely amazing.

Earthman wrote:

comments like that don't go un noticed by people who oppose the IRA and they would be in a very significant majority in this country, thats something you must deal with rather than crying fowl of.

Great, and they can be handled via dialogue and discussion, not name-calling and snide little insinuations.

billy the squid

and your remark in quoted post wasnt snide?

is there any chance one could get an explanation as to why jerry McCabe was an idiot trying to be a hero, or am i pissing against the wind on this one.

jman0

billy the squid wrote:

and your remark in quoted post wasnt snide?

is there any chance one could get an explanation as to why jerry McCabe was an idiot trying to be a hero, or am i pissing against the wind on this one.

I already answered that question, next.

Edit:
snide "Derogatory in a malicious, superior way"
from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snide
I think you're incorrect, my comment was not snide.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Yes i never denied i am repubican minded, but that wasn't the charge.
The charge was that the IRA are my heroes, which they aren't, and also that i am a "staunch republican" and i asked what is a staunch republican, being the case that i don't agree with everything SF nor Republican SF do..

I see so you take offence if you are called a staunch republican, its an insult to you?
Simply denying that the IRA are your heroes is fine,but dont ask me to call someone on their view if it is their view that based on their posts they believe that you think the IRA are heroes.
They like you are entitled to their beliefs and that need only be clarified.

If you regard someone believing that you regard the IRA as heroes as a slur on your character, theres little I can do for you here in terms of redress as its their belief to which they are entitled if thats what they clarify it as... and indeed those present at the árd fheis that the balcome st gang came home to certainly gave them a heroes welcome.

Of course i remember that, and i stand by it still. The Brighton bomb was absolutely spectacular, there's no point in questioning that.

Ah but was it approvingly spectactular? You havent clarified that.
If you believe it is, then be prepared for the onslaught of opinion by people who would be disgusted by that and again they form a very significant majority.
Expressing views isnt a simple matter here you know, you are expected to justify them or at least discuss them and in the case of emotive issues like bombing shooting and killing expect emotive responses as people are human after all.
The rules of this board are here if you need them , so if you are personally attacked in a post, by all means report it and a moderator will deal with it.

billy the squid

jman0 wrote:

I already answered that question, next.

Edit:
snide "Derogatory in a malicious, superior way"
from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snide
I think you're incorrect, my comment was not snide.

no you didnt.

and dont give me that "dogs on the street" post as your explaination as it in no way proves that he acted like someone trying to be a hero.

as for other points raised which you ignored, try post 40 of this thread.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

I see so you take offence if you are called a staunch republican, its an insult to you?.

No, i didn't say that. I don't recognise the phrase, since the poster brought it up, maybe they could define it. I am assuming a "staunch repbulican" would either agree entirely with SF or agree entirely with Republican SF.

Earthman wrote:

Simply denying that the IRA are your heroes is fine,but dont ask me to call someone on their view if it is their view that based on their posts they believe that you think the IRA are heroes.
They like you are entitled to their beliefs and that need only be clarified.
If you regard someone believing that you regard the IRA as heroes as a slur on your character, theres little I can do for you here in terms of redress as its their belief to which they are entitled if thats what they clarify it as... and indeed those present at the árd fheis that the balcome st gang came home to certainly gave them a heroes welcome.

I think you're getting confused now between the orginal poster : Slutmonkey and his snide insinuations against my character, and the ensuing interjection by Billy the Squid (of which i haven't taken any offense by and have not argued that Billy meant to offend)

Earthman wrote:

Ah but was it approvingly spectactular? You havent clarified that.
If you believe it is, then be prepared for the onslaught of opinion by people who would be disgusted by that and again they form a very significant majority.

Ah, nobody has asked the question til now.
Sometimes yes, i do, why not? USA tried bombing Saddam while allegedly at a dinner in a residential part of Bagdad, UK is a staunch supporter of that war and Bush.. i already brought up Libya.
In quieter moments, i think no, I wish it didn't happen. But it doesn't matter at the end of the day which way i lean.

Capt'n Midnight

mike65 wrote:

IT only takes 8 years to say sorry...

8 years, you are missing the point completely. The only reason for the apology is that public opinion down here means that no govt can now do an early release deal.

But as to a LASTING apology , I doubt it, can almost guarantee that this issue will be dragged up again as a example of how killers were "wrongfully" convicted.

Just more Manslaughter <---> Man's laughter

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Sometimes yes, i do, why not?......

Well as I say when you express that publically here, expect vigorous opposition from a lot of quarters who view IRA or any terrorism as unacceptable and who vote for governments that through the legislation they enact declare it unlawfull.It's safe to say that includes 160+ td's ie the very vast amount of majority public opinion.

No, i didn't say that. I don't recognise the phrase, since the poster brought it up, maybe they could define it. I am assuming a "staunch repbulican" would either agree entirely with SF or agree entirely with Republican SF.

well if you dont recognise it , you seem to be able to use it in your post fairly well when you mention the UK...
Staunch Republican to me would mean someone with fervent Republican views.

I think you're getting confused now between the orginal poster : Slutmonkey and his snide insinuations against my character, and the ensuing interjection by Billy the Squid (of which i haven't taken any offense by and have not argued that Billy meant to offend)

Uhm... you complained about it,I answered your post both specifically about Slutmonkey and generally with regard to how easily you are taking offence.
With regard to the latter,I can only repeat that,even sometimes agreeing with bombing and shooting by an unlawfull organisation as you say you do, is going to come up against vigorous opposition from the majority and you should both understand this and expect this, as that majority are all around you.

Slutmonkey57b

Ok, to clarify at earthman's request, I am not "attacking your character".

You posted that Gda McCabe's widow should not be taken seriously when talking about the case as she was not at the scene.
You then posted that Gda McCabe was "an idiot" who "was trying to be the hero".

So, either
a) We should ignore your opinion because you weren't at the scene
b) We should accept your opinion because you were at the scene.
c) We should accept your opinion because you have been in contact with someone who was at the scene.

In case a) we could probably also draw the conclusion that you are being deliberatly offensive for no good reason, as you are disparaging the memory of an innocent man who was murdered by criminals while doing his job.

In case b) we can draw the conclusion that you are either
i) A witness who did not provide evidence at the trial (since no evidence like this came to light afaik)
ii) One of the victims
iii) One of the killers

In case c) we can conclude that you are in contact with someone at the scene which means
i) You know one of the victims
ii) You know a witness
iii) You know the killers.

My post summed all that up in a one-sentence joke. Only you can clarify which one of the many options it is.

Slutmonkey57b

One could argue that by making disparaging comments about Gda McCabe and describing him as "an idiot", you are in fact attacking your own character.

Having read through the thread again, you claim to have answered the question of why you think he was "an idiot". I see no such explaination. Perhaps you can point it out to me? A cynic might suggest that by beating your breast about a non-existant attack on your character, you are attempting to divert attention away from the extremely distateful and offensive original comment that you made in the hope you won't be pulled up on it. But of course I'm not a cynic.

Also, as you're a fan of dictionaries, you should be aware that "spectacular" indicates approval of the incident. If you approve of the Brighton Bombing, then again, you may be attacking your own character.

Mighty_Mouse

What more can you do but say sorry and ask to remain in prison?

Does it mean anything to any non-republican that these men have refused what they perceive as their absolute right to freedom?

Does that mean anything to people?

Slutmonkey57b

Eeeeh they were in the paper yesterday claiming that their continued incarceration is against Irish and European law, according to the report on their appeal.

So, eh.. you would appear to be wrong there.

Mighty_Mouse

Eeeeh they were in the paper yesterday claiming that their continued incarceration is against Irish and European law, according to the report on their appeal.

Um! They have clearly stated that they want the issues removed from the negotiation table in future peace talks.

The fact that the GFA has not been honoured by the Irish government in releasing the Castlerea prisoners, still remains..

eeeh, eeeh!

ps.
links to newspaper articles would be great

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

The fact that the GFA has not been honoured by the Irish government in releasing the Castlerea prisoners, still remains..

We have had this discussion several times,it was made perfectly clear at the time of the negotiations and at the referendum that those guys were not covered by the GFA.

Villain

Legally Earthman I believe they are entitled to early release, not saying I support that but legally the IRA were not on a ceasefire when Garda McCabe was murdered and they were acting on behalf of the IRA.

Once again let me say I'm not saying these men should be released, justing pointing out the situation.

Slutmonkey57b

They didn't say sorry and ask to remain in prison. They (eventually) said sorry and asked to be let out.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0316/mccabe.html

Why am I supposed to be congratulating them again?
Still, I do believe that if killers of northern policemen are to be released, then killers of southern policemen should be released. I don't think any of them deserve brownie points for being brave little kiddies and admitting that they might be a little bit sorry though. Not that most of them have.

And if you're wondering why it doesn't mean that much to people (how perplexing!) it's because it means a lot more to people that a policeman shouldn't be shot dead while protecting pensioner's money at a post office, or shot dead outside his home for the crime of "being a policeman".

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Legally Earthman I believe they are entitled to early release, not saying I support that but legally the IRA were not on a ceasefire when Garda McCabe was murdered and they were acting on behalf of the IRA.

The Minister for justice according to the legislation has the final say in who qualifies for release and evidently he has decided that they were not acting for the IRA and that they only claimed them several days after their denial of them when they realised the implication of the denial on their release.

It's been on record several and many times by Ahern and his colleagues that the Dublin side of the negotiating table kept stating that they werent to be included.

More importantly and I clearly remember this,the government clearly stated several times during the GFA referendum campaign that they were not included in the deal.
I voted in that referendum with that in mind, there was no ambiguity at the time.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

The Minister for justice according to the legislation has the final say in who qualifies for release and evidently he has decided that they were not acting for the IRA and that they only claimed them several days after their denial of them when they realised the implication of the denial on their release.

It's been on record several and many times by Ahern and his colleagues that the Dublin side of the negotiating table kept stating that they werent to be included.

More importantly and I clearly remember this,the government clearly stated several times during the GFA referendum campaign that they were not included in the deal.
I voted in that referendum with that in mind, there was no ambiguity at the time.

The Supreme Court was factually wrong on the central point of its judgment on January 29 last on an application by the killers of Jerry McCabe.


It falsely assumed that they were differentiated from those prisoners released under the Good Friday Agreement in that they alone were convicted after the signing of the agreement. Several persons convicted in both the North and the South following the signing of the agreement were released under its terms.

People who have been convicted of crimes since the GFA have been released up north, under the terms of the GFA I believe they are legally entitled to release. Now I don't want to go into this all over again there is a thread over 13 pages long where I discussed issue at very great length, I think it's still open: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=159627&page=1&pp=20

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

...under the terms of the GFA I believe they are legally entitled to release.

My understanding is that they are legally entitled to consideration for release - no-one has an automatic entitlement; every decision is considered separately. I'm open to correction if anyone has read up on the relevant legislation more carefully.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

People who have been convicted of crimes since the GFA have been released up north, under the terms of the GFA I believe they are legally entitled to release. Now I don't want to go into this all over again there is a thread over 13 pages long where I discussed issue at very great length, I think it's still open: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=159627&page=1&pp=20

Indeed and the pertinent fact is that the legislation leaves the discretion with the minister.
He could of course decide to release them under the GFA and take the IRA change of mind as his reason, but he hasn't because he doubts the sincerity of their claim and is obviously mindfull of the statements made during the referendum campaign.

What you have said either in the 13 page thread, you've linked to or here, has no bearing whatsoever on the two important facts I mentioned ie (1) The government made it very clear in the referendum campaign that the McCabe killers were not covered by the agreement, you can ask their press office for any of the archive material from the time if you dont believe me if google doesnt turn them up for you and (2) The legislation left the release of prisoners in the Republic at the discretion of the minister

In relation to NI prisoners, if there was specific mention by the yes campaign in the referendum campaign there as to who would not qualify and those were subsequently released then you might have a point.
I can tell you with absolute certainty in my mind that in the Republics referendum, the Government told the voters on as many occasions as necessary that the McCabe killers were to be excluded from the GFA release terms.