Adams & McGuinness and the IRA Army Counil

Sleepy

What are you really waiting for? An Phoblacht to publish an article stating that the SF leadership are on/control the Army council? :rolleyes:

Villain

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I realise your beef is with sand, but Id be interested in your view on my post too if you have the time.
Thanks.

Well all you have offered is an opinion, no evidence, I accept that opinion and respect it, but I don't believe it is up to me to disprove sand's claim as he is the one making the claim.

Sleepy wrote:

What are you really waiting for? An Phoblacht to publish an article stating that the SF leadership are on/control the Army council?

I'm waiting for Sand to prove his claims, Sleepy.

Stabshauptmann

Actually what Ive said or at least meant to say (rereads post...) is that senior SF members doubled as senior IRA members, and I listed the possible positions they might hold, as recently as the late 90's.

Usings hypothesis testing, the method used in business and science (though not in legal issues) It is not upon Sand to prove they still hold these positions but for you to prove they dont.
This isnt a court of law, but if you want Sand to stop saying they are on the army council perhaps you should tell us why and when you believe they gave up whatever senior positions they held.

Not an unreasonable request

Villain

But what are you using for your information Kaptain Redeye??

I have an opinion which I have formed based on the facts available to me and I have seen no factual evidence to support Sand's claim that Adams and McGuinness sit on the IRA Army Council. He is making the accusation so I believe he should be asked to prove it.

Not an unreasonable request

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

I have seen no factual evidence to support Sand's claim that Adams and McGuinness sit on the IRA Army Council.

But if we change the word sit to sat in that sentence, do you accept or not that there is credible evidence to suggest that at some point in the past they held senior positions?

The use of the word suggest is deliberate here. I'm not suggesting that its an ascertained fact, but that there does exist evidence of a credible nature which supports the notion.

jc

Sand

Lets recap....

Irish1 rejects that Adams and McGuinness are on the Army Council. He belives this so absolutely that hes taken to using the report bad post function to try and censor posts that assert otherwise.

But

1) He accepts that they have a "dark past" - this is probably a guarded admission that he accepts they, at the very least, *were* senior IRA men - men senior enough to negotiate on behalf of the IRA as far back as 1972. He certainly hasnt countered a single bit of evidence that backs up this assertion.

2) He claims that this is in the past, that they have left this behind. However he offers no evidence whatsoever for this belief. There is certainly no evidence that Adams and McGuinness have *lost* power in the intervening years. Theyre currently openly discussing decommissioning and disbandment as bargaining leverage!

3) He offers no logical explanation why Adams and McGuinness are willing to offer disbandment of the IRA to reassure Middle Ireland voters, but are unwilling to sue to protect their character - and by extension the character of their party - from open naming as members of the IRA Army Council in established newspapers.

Like I said Irish1, if you're in denial of the obvious conclusion to be drawn thats your problem. Dont expect me to humour you no matter how many times you use the report bad post button.

What are you really waiting for? An Phoblacht to publish an article stating that the SF leadership are on/control the Army council?

I doubt that would be enough for him.

Stabshauptmann

I could have swore I wrote a reply to this, if a post of mine has been deleted Ive recieved no pm or warning from anyone, so Im gonna presume I never pressed submit and type one again......

Irish1, you refuse to counter any points made by any posters in this thread. You say the points arent good enough.
The criminal records stated above are fact.
Two IRA splits and what they were over are well known facts.

Senior SF members once help senior IRA positions as demonstrated at many negotiations, thus FACT!
Up till recently these senior SF ppl still held senior IRA positions, a logical dedution from facts.
That conclusion is valid unless you can prove a change in the status quo. You claim you dont have to, if Sand says otherwise he should prove it. Sand is accepting the status quo, you are not, the onus is on you not him.

Do you dispute any of the above facts, if so which.
Why do you believe this change came about and more importantly when. So far you have offered no proof, you say you have facts available to you, share them. I'll settle for logic and reasoning though, backed up of course by something palpable.

Cork

Does Adams still believe that he was never a member of the IRA?

I don't think many believe him only the gullable.

The membership of the IRA army council has been named by many sources in our media and our government.

TDs have named people outside Dail Privilidge.

They are sure of their ground.

Villain

bonkey wrote:

But if we change the word sit to sat in that sentence, do you accept or not that there is credible evidence to suggest that at some point in the past they held senior positions?

The use of the word suggest is deliberate here. I'm not suggesting that its an ascertained fact, but that there does exist evidence of a credible nature which supports the notion.

jc

I would certainly accept that in the past Adams and McGuinness probably held positions in the IRA, how senior I'm not sure.

Sand wrote:

Lets recap....

Irish1 rejects that Adams and McGuinness are on the Army Council. He belives this so absolutely that hes taken to using the report bad post function to try and censor posts that assert otherwise.

I have reported posts where you have made statements which IMO were presented as facts without providing any proof.

Sand wrote:

1) He accepts that they have a "dark past" - this is probably a guarded admission that he accepts they, at the very least, *were* senior IRA men - men senior enough to negotiate on behalf of the IRA as far back as 1972. He certainly hasnt countered a single bit of evidence that backs up this assertion.

I accept that in the past these men were probably members of the IRA, I don't believe I have ever said otherwise.

Sand wrote:

2) He claims that this is in the past, that they have left this behind. However he offers no evidence whatsoever for this belief. There is certainly no evidence that Adams and McGuinness have *lost* power in the intervening years. Theyre currently openly discussing decommissioning and disbandment as bargaining leverage!

I have seen no evidence that proves Adams and McGuinness are currently members of the IRA Army Council. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are part of the Sinn Fein leadership which always had and continues to have links with the IRA, I have never disputed that but I don't accept that means they control the IRA.

Sand wrote:

3) He offers no logical explanation why Adams and McGuinness are willing to offer disbandment of the IRA to reassure Middle Ireland voters, but are unwilling to sue to protect their character - and by extension the character of their party - from open naming as members of the IRA Army Council in established newspapers.

Thats simple Sand they want peace and want to achieve their aims through democratic means. The reason they have not sued is because of the legal advice they have, the libel laws don't mean what the media prints has to be true.

Sand wrote:

Like I said Irish1, if you're in denial of the obvious conclusion to be drawn thats your problem. Dont expect me to humour you no matter how many times you use the report bad post button.

All I have asked for is real evidence to prove your accusations, it's not my fault you can't produce any.

Sand wrote:

I doubt that would be enough for him.

Well present some real evidence and you will find out

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Irish1, you refuse to counter any points made by any posters in this thread. You say the points arent good enough.
The criminal records stated above are fact.
Two IRA splits and what they were over are well known facts.

Yes but those facts are not what I am disputing, those facts don't prove Adams and McGuinness are currently on the IRA Army Council, that is what I am disputing.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Senior SF members once help senior IRA positions as demonstrated at many negotiations, thus FACT!
Up till recently these senior SF ppl still held senior IRA positions, a logical dedution from facts.
That conclusion is valid unless you can prove a change in the status quo. You claim you dont have to, if Sand says otherwise he should prove it. Sand is accepting the status quo, you are not, the onus is on you not him.

Do you dispute any of the above facts, if so which.
Why do you believe this change came about and more importantly when. So far you have offered no proof, you say you have facts available to you, share them. I'll settle for logic and reasoning though, backed up of course by something palpable.

I dispute that up until recently senior SF ppl still held IRA positions, I have seen evidence to prove that.

When did I say I have facts, a link to the post will suffice, I am looking for the facts to prove Sand's argument

Cork wrote:

TDs have named people outside Dail Privilidge.

They are sure of their ground.

But your buddy the Taoiseach isn't

Cork

irish1 wrote:

But your buddy the Taoiseach isn't

He was pretty sure that some senior shinners had prior knowledge of the NI bank raid.

He made that pretty clear to Adams.

I find it amazing that SF have yet to acknowledge the full extent of that partys relationship with the IRA.

Adams still refuses to acknowledge he was ever a member of the IRA.

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

I would certainly accept that in the past Adams and McGuinness probably held positions in the IRA, how senior I'm not sure.

Did they attend negotiations on behalf of the IRA. has McGuinness not admitted being OC of Derry at one stge.

I accept that in the past these men were probably members of the IRA, I don't believe I have ever said otherwise.

Dont twist things.

I have seen no evidence that proves Adams and McGuinness are currently members of the IRA Army Council.

I generally feel ppl that waste my time are muppets. If you want to continue this thread you'll need ppl to talk to, show some respect and dont act as if Sand and I are idiots. Its been shown they were senior members, show us why you think they lost/gave up those positions. Dont twist things.

Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are part of the Sinn Fein leadership which always had and continues to have links with the IRA, I have never disputed that but I don't accept that means they control the IRA.

SF disputes those links. On occasion. Then reaffirms them. Inconsistancy is one of my pet peevs.

Thats simple Sand they want peace and want to achieve their aims through democratic means.

By that logic why not promise a british withdrawal and roads made of gold.

The reason they have not sued is because of the legal advice they have, the libel laws don't mean what the media prints has to be true.

Agreed. That AND it would be a political mistake.

All I have asked for is real evidence to prove your accusations

Not true. You want an appology from Sand or some sort of admission. Anything you can herald as a victoy.

it's not my fault you can't produce any.

Who else to you blame for your stubburness. You twist arguements and ignore others. You dont want to see the possibility that you are wrong.

Well present some real evidence and you will find out

That Adams was released from internment to negotiate on behalf of the IRA in 1972. Fact. It proves he held a senior IRA position. Do you accept it. Dont dare say "That doesnt prove he currently blah blah blah" The question is simple and been asked repeatedly. Did SF leadership members hold senior IRA positions?

Yes but those facts are not what I am disputing, those facts don't prove Adams and McGuinness are currently on the IRA Army Council, that is what I am disputing.

No, your not disputing your denying. If you were disputing you'd be offering arguements to the contrary.

Are you disputing A) That the IRA split, B)What it split over or C)That because SF members didnt want to resign from Senior IRA positions, that doesnt mean those SF members are Senior members of SF?
If they werent senior SF members then they could easily resign from SF and keep there IRA positions.
Nobody in either SF or the IRA wanted a split so if it could have been easily avoided it would have been.

I dispute that up until recently senior SF ppl still held IRA positions, I have seen evidence to prove that.

What is that evidence?

When did I say I have facts, a link to the post will suffice, I am looking for the facts to prove Sand's argument

Look up two lines and also today at 15:34

But your buddy the Taoiseach isn't

While I think Bertie wouldnt say anything if he did know, your right to use him as a defence, because thats exactly why he said it.

Villain

Cork wrote:

He was pretty sure that some senior shinners had prior knowledge of the NI bank raid.

He made that pretty clear to Adams.

Yep and when asked to stand that claim up he couldn't. Sounds familar doesn't it

Squaletto

irish1 wrote:

Yep and when asked to stand that claim up he couldn't. Sounds familar doesn't it

Certainly does!!!

By the way mods I thought calling other posters childish names was against the rules. Maybe being called a muppet doesn't fall into that category, can you help me out with that one?

Cheers me dears!

Villain

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Did they attend negotiations on behalf of the IRA. has McGuinness not admitted being OC of Derry at one stge.

I believe both to be true.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Dont twist things.

How have I?

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I generally feel ppl that waste my time are muppets. If you want to continue this thread you'll need ppl to talk to, show some respect and dont act as if Sand and I are idiots. Its been shown they were senior members, show us why you think they lost/gave up those positions. Dont twist things.

Easy now, I have not insulted anyone, I have said on many occasions I respects Sand's opinion. I believe they are now members of Sinn Fein only, I don't believe the would have spent so much time on a peace process if they were leaders of the IRA, I also don't believe Tony Blair would invite the leaders of the IRA to No. 10 in public. I believe Adams and McGuinness have devoted themselves to peace and have not been members of the IRA for a very long time, this is what the men state and I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

SF disputes those links. On occasion. Then reaffirms them. Inconsistancy is one of my pet peevs.

Show me where SF has disputed having links with the IRA??

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

By that logic why not promise a british withdrawal and roads made of gold.

Well I believe they want to deliver peace if you believe otherwise thats your right.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Agreed. That AND it would be a political mistake.

Only if they lost

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Not true. You want an appology from Sand or some sort of admission. Anything you can herald as a victoy.

Nope I just want him to prove his accusation, I'm around long enough to know that any sort of admission would be asking too much.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Who else to you blame for your stubburness. You twist arguements and ignore others. You dont want to see the possibility that you are wrong.

I don't twist arguments, I stand firm to my beliefs until I see some facts that prove otherwise. There is a possibility that I am wrong and I will be the first to hold my hands up and admit it if I see facts that prove my beliefs to be wrong.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

That Adams was released from internment to negotiate on behalf of the IRA in 1972. Fact. It proves he held a senior IRA position. Do you accept it. Dont dare say "That doesnt prove he currently blah blah blah" The question is simple and been asked repeatedly. Did SF leadership members hold senior IRA positions?

That is a strong possibilty, but right now I'm not interested in what happened 30 years ago.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

No, your not disputing your denying. If you were disputing you'd be offering arguements to the contrary.

Are you disputing A) That the IRA split, B)What it split over or C)That because SF members didnt want to resign from Senior IRA positions, that doesnt mean those SF members are Senior members of SF?
If they werent senior SF members then they could easily resign from SF and keep there IRA positions.
Nobody in either SF or the IRA wanted a split so if it could have been easily avoided it would have been.

I'm not disputing they split, I don't know why exactly they split,I also don't know who held what positions.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

What is that evidence?

Apologies that was a typo I meant " I have not seen any evidence to prove that"

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Look up two lines and also today at 15:34

My post at 15:34 stated

I have an opinion which I have formed based on the facts available to me and I have seen no factual evidence to support Sand's claim that Adams and McGuinness sit on the IRA Army Council.

by which I meant that I know for a fact that Adams and McGuinness have denied that they are currently members of the IRA Army council and I have seen no facts to prove otherwise, and when they called on the Minister for Justice to have them arrested (by giving evidence to the Gardai that proves they are members of an illegal ornagisation) nothing happened.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

While I think Bertie wouldnt say anything if he did know, your right to use him as a defence, because thats exactly why he said it.

Well I can only go on what he said.

Sand

I believe they are now members of Sinn Fein only, I don't believe the would have spent so much time on a peace process if they were leaders of the IRA, I also don't believe Tony Blair would invite the leaders of the IRA to No. 10 in public. I believe Adams and McGuinness have devoted themselves to peace and have not been members of the IRA for a very long time, this is what the men state and I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise.

So its a matter of faith for you, not evidence?

Why do you think that holding an IRA rank and engaging with the peace proccess is mutually exsclusive? Are you saying you dont believe the IRA is engaged with the peace process? And believe me, the only reason Blair invited Adams and Co to Downing Street was because he believed they were in control of the IRA. Adams and SF/IRA have consistently dangled the carrot of a comprehensive peace settlement before the democratic governments of these islands in an effort to force the complete destruction of law, order and legitimate government in Northern Ireland and more recently in the Republic.

Show me where SF has disputed having links with the IRA??

I think this is what Kaptain means by treating people like idiots. Wasnt it not so long ago that Adams angrily ( as always ) announced that SF wasnt there to interpret IRA statements and that if they wanted to know what the IRA thought that they should ask the IRA? Or did you miss that? Did you miss the tiresome threads where you again expected everyone to indulge you in your belief that SF/IRA werent one and the same?

I don't twist arguments, I stand firm to my beliefs until I see some facts that prove otherwise. There is a possibility that I am wrong and I will be the first to hold my hands up and admit it if I see facts that prove me beliefs to be wrong.

That is a strong possibilty, but right now I'm not interested in what happened 30 years ago.

You dont see how the two statements are connected? The evidence supports the view that Adams and Co were senior IRA in the 70s, there is no evidence to suggest they left or lost influence, and yet despite this you believe as an article of faith that they have? You have seen no facts- none youve shared anyway - to show your beliefs to be correct!

Only if they lost

Which they would. They face the option of losing face to the unchallenged assertions they are IRA Army Council members, or confirming those assertions by challenging them and inevitably losing. A tough political problem for them, but it only supports the case that they are on the Army Council when they cant challenge it to the satisfaction of a court.

Villain

Sand wrote:

So its a matter of faith for you, not evidence?

Why do you think that holding an IRA rank and engaging with the peace proccess is mutually exsclusive? Are you saying you dont believe the IRA is engaged with the peace process? And believe me, the only reason Blair invited Adams and Co to Downing Street was because he believed they were in control of the IRA. Adams and SF/IRA have consistently dangled the carrot of a comprehensive peace settlement before the democratic governments of these islands in an effort to force the complete destruction of law, order and legitimate government in Northern Ireland and more recently in the Republic.

As I have said already I have formed an opinion based on what I know. I believe Adams and McGuinness are solely members of Sinn Fein and are trying to bring an end to the IRA in order to progress the peace process through democratic means. I don't beleive the IRA has done enough for the peace process.

Sand wrote:

I think this is what Kaptain means by treating people like idiots. Wasnt it not so long ago that Adams angrily ( as always ) announced that SF wasnt there to interpret IRA statements and that if they wanted to know what the IRA thought that they should ask the IRA? Or did you miss that? Did you miss the tiresome threads where you again expected everyone to indulge you in your belief that SF/IRA werent one and the same?

Being the same and having links are two very different things, Adams and Sinn Fein have links with the IRA how else would they be able to meet them to ask them questions etc, I have never denied Sinn Fein have links with the IRA I am 100% certain that has always being my position. Adams said that the government should ask the IRA what their statements mean, did he say that Sinn Fein and the IRA had severed all links??? Now you's treating people like an idiot?

Sand wrote:

You dont see how the two statements are connected? The evidence supports the view that Adams and Co were senior IRA in the 70s, there is no evidence to suggest they left or lost influence, and yet despite this you believe as an article of faith that they have? You have seen no facts- none youve shared anyway - to show your beliefs to be correct!

I have been watching the peace process for many years now and I believe Adams and McGuinness that they are now only members of Sinn Fein. A lot has changed in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years, a lot of people have given up using force and now use politics.

Sand wrote:

Which they would. They face the option of losing face to the unchallenged assertions they are IRA Army Council members, or confirming those assertions by challenging them and inevitably losing. A tough political problem for them, but it only supports the case that they are on the Army Council when they cant challenge it to the satisfaction of a court.

Well they have taken legal and accepted that, if they are members of the IRA Army Council and it can be proven they are in breach of teh law and should be arrested.

Sand, you have still failed to provide evidence to prove your accusation.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

I would certainly accept that in the past Adams and McGuinness probably held positions in the IRA, how senior I'm not sure.

Good good. Thats what I wanted to hear.

those facts don't prove Adams and McGuinness are currently on the IRA Army Council, that is what I am disputing.

Ahhh...but Irish1....you're assuming thats what I was lining you up for...which it wasn't

We now all agree that we're coming from a position where there is proof that at some time in the past they were in the IRA (possibly on the council, but you disagree, so lets just say they were members of the IRA).

So, in the absence of proof that they have abandoned those ways, your own logic requires you to insist that they still hold those positions.

Remember - if they were members and you can't provide proof that they have changed their status, then either they are still members, or you are applying a dual standard regarding the burden of proof....where Sand must prove his statements, but you can just decide what you want to be valid based on...well...little more than convenience and ideology (from what I can see).

I dispute that up until recently senior SF ppl still held IRA positions, I have seen evidence to prove that.

You have seen evidence, but you're not willing to provide it? Isn't this a somewhat hypocritical position to be taking having insisted time after time after time that until Sand produces evidence, he's simply talking to the fairies?

So....can you and will you supply proof that Adams etc. have abandoned the IRA positions that you agree they most probably held?

Or will you simply continue to maintain that its perfectly acceptable for you to make leaps of faith like this, changing people's status from a previously known one because it suits you, but for anyone else its a travesty to make such unfounded and baseless assumptions?

jc

Villain

Busy at the moment Bonkey I'll try and get back to that post later, but remember I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am taking the word of both men and I have seen no evidence to prove the accusations. It would be like me accusing you of being a member of the UVF surely it would be up to me to prove that not you to disprove it?

Kaptain Redeye

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I generally feel ppl that waste my time are muppets. If you want to continue this thread you'll need ppl to talk to, show some respect and dont act as if Sand and I are idiots. Its been shown they were senior members, show us why you think they lost/gave up those positions. Dont twist things.

If you are asking people to show you respect, the least you could do is do the same back.
Thin ice there Kaptain Redeye,you know what will happen if that ice snaps.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

It would be like me accusing you of being a member of the UVF surely it would be up to me to prove that not you to disprove it?

No..it would be like you agreeing that there is evidence to suggest that I was a member of the UVF in my teenage years, and then deciding that I'm no longer a member because, well, I say I amn't.

Once you accept I was a member (which you have done with Adams, McGuinness etc.) then surely the onus is to provide proof that the situation has changed, not to provide proof to show that the situation has remained unchanged.

Otherwise, the demands for proof are simply convenient misdirection, as you're not applying them consistently.

jc

Villain

Past convinctions do not prove future or current guilt , each charge must taken on its own merits, i.e. the charge here is that Adams and McGuinness are currently on the IRA Army Council. That charge imo has not been proven by the accused i.e. sand

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

I believe both to be true.

So they were once senior IRA men.

How have I?

By answering questions not asked and answering ones that werent.

Easy now, I have not insulted anyone, I have said on many occasions I respects Sand's opinion.

I havent said you ARE wasting my time, if you were then I wouldnt reply to you. BUT should this all become obvioulsy pointless and the discussion to date fruitless, then my time would be wasted.

I believe they are now members of Sinn Fein only,I don't believe the would have spent so much time on a peace process if they were leaders of the IRA, I also don't believe Tony Blair would invite the leaders of the IRA to No. 10 in public.

A perfectly valid arguement. Why you couldnt make it earlier is beyond me but Im happy you've made it.
Why I disagree with it is that the british government has a long history of negotiating with foreign armies/leaders.
You believe they negotiated with the IRA in 1972. The Irish President met with loyalist paramilitary leaders.
So I have no problem accepting that the British government would negotiate with the IRA. I dont think there would have been any ceasefires if they hadnt.

I believe Adams and McGuinness have devoted themselves to peace and have not been members of the IRA for a very long time, this is what the men state and I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise.

1)Why should their statements be accepted as fact?
2)Does McGuiness's title of Chief Negotiator seem a bit strange to you? Nothing to do with allegations of his being chairman of the army council?
3)Why has the SF leadership met with IRA cells after every major step in the peace process, wouldnt things like this be better explained by ppl the ASUs trust like their leaders in the IRA?
4)Why would being devoted to peace make you unsuitable as a member of an organisation on ceasefire?

Show me where SF has disputed having links with the IRA??

Every SF MLA ive ever heard has had problems with the phrase SF/IRA
Ill get the reference for this quote if you want at the weekend but Adams in an interview refused to interpret an IRA statement, a why ask me type response

Well I believe they want to deliver peace if you believe otherwise thats your right.

Dont twist things, Ive never said anything to that effect.

Only if they lost

No, taking a case would damage his image in republican circles

Nope I just want him to prove his accusation, I'm around long enough to know that any sort of admission would be asking too much.

Do you really want him to prove it?

I don't twist arguments

I stand firm to my beliefs until I see some facts that prove otherwise.

You require a very high standard of proof. For most ppl the balance of probabilities is enough

There is a possibility that I am wrong and I will be the first to hold my hands up and admit it if I see facts that prove my beliefs to be wrong.

That is a strong possibilty, but right now I'm not interested in what happened 30 years ago.

I claim its more recent than that, bout 10 years at most.

I'm not disputing they split, I don't know why exactly they split,I also don't know who held what positions.

I do, so does everyone else who has any interest in the topic. The info is really, really easy to find and disputed by noone.

Apologies that was a typo I meant " I have not seen any evidence to prove that"

Ok

My post at 15:34 stated by which I meant that I know for a fact that Adams and McGuinness have denied that they are currently members of the IRA Army council and I have seen no facts to prove otherwise, and when they called on the Minister for Justice to have them arrested (by giving evidence to the Gardai that proves they are members of an illegal ornagisation) nothing happened.

The interpretation on that is endless, hardly the same standard of proof you are asking from sand and I

Well I can only go on what he said.

Nobodys going to ask you to rea between the lines

P O'Neill

If Adams and McGuinness are in the Provisional IRA, no matter what rank, why have they not been arrested under the Offences Against The State Act? Surely if everyone knows this they(the state or the gardai) must have some sort of evidence? If so, why can't we the public see it? Aren't people innocent until proven guilty no matter who they are? And i know that some may respond by saying that "its well known they have connections..." but unless the allegations are proven beyond reasonable doubt then one cannot state that they are members as fact. It may be some peoples opinion, but people have a policy of "guilty until proven innocent" towards the republican movement.

Sleepy

irish1 wrote:

if they are members of the IRA Army Council and it can be proven they are in breach of teh law and should be arrested.

Do you genuinely believe that?

P O'Neill :rolleyes: wrote:

If Adams and McGuinness are in the Provisional IRA, no matter what rank, why have they not been arrested under the Offences Against The State Act? Surely if everyone knows this they(the state or the gardai) must have some sort of evidence? If so, why can't we the public see it? Aren't people innocent until proven guilty no matter who they are? And i know that some may respond by saying that "its well known they have connections..." but unless the allegations are proven beyond reasonable doubt then one cannot state that they are members as fact. It may be some peoples opinion, but people have a policy of "guilty until proven innocent" towards the republican movement.

Why would the Irish government allow the Garda Siochanna to upset the peace process? The fact that messrs Adams & McGuinness haven't been charged with IRA Membership is not any sort of evidence that they aren't members of (or in charge of) the IRA so can the republicans of this board stop trying to present it as such. The fact that charges haven't been brought is evidence of an unwillingness to prosecute rather than a lack of evidence.

bonkey

P O'Neill wrote:

Aren't people innocent until proven guilty no matter who they are?

By law, yes. This is why legally speaking, there are no grounds that they cannot serve as politicans.

However, whether or not the are members/leaders of the IRA is a seperate issue to whether or not they have been found guilty of that offence.

Irish1 wrote:

Past convinctions do not prove future or current guilt

I never suggested they did.

I suggested that if one was a member of an organisation, adn there is no evidence that one has left the organisation, then the only conclusion (by your standards of proof) is that one is still a member.

I use this logic every time I go to any of the clubs or organisations that I'm a member of. I was a member last time I was here, I have neither left, nor been informed that I have been kicked out, so its reasonable for me to assume I'm still a member. Similarly, if I know someone else is a member of a club or orgnanisation, or indeed employed by an employer, I assume that this state remains unchanged until I have evidence to suggest otherwise.

You are suggesting that this is not a logical course to take, and that - in fact - such assumptions are illogical. Can we conclude, therefore, that in-between actions that the public are aware of, you believe there is no evidence that the IRA haven't already disbanded or ceased their operations? You're denying the relevance of continuation in such thnigs, so presumably you believe that - today - there is no evidence to suggest the IRA still exists, only evidence that they existed when (say) McCartney was killed, or whenever their last interaction with the public was?

Its the same thought-process you're passing off as logic, so either you believe that there is no evidence to suggest the IRA exists right now and that its wrong to say otherwise. All we know is that the IRA existed up to some point in the past, that there is no evidence this changed....and that you insist that this is not enough information to draw conclusions about the present state.

This is your "logic", so I'm sure you agree with it?

each charge must taken on its own merits,

If we were discussing time-specific, atomic actions, that would be true. But membership of an organisation isn't a time-specific, atomic action. Its an ongoing thing. A "state", if you will.

If you went to the doc and he told you that you had a dicky heart....how long would you believe that condition lasted before deciding that it was no longer an issue? Certainly, 30 years later - by your logic - you can safely assume that its gone away...especially if you're in a situation where a doctor isn't close to hand so you can't get current up-to-the-minute proof?

Don't make assumptions about the current state based on the old state and a lack of information that the state has changed. Right?

the charge here is that Adams and McGuinness are currently on the IRA Army Council.

Y'huh. And we know that there is evidence to suggest they were at one point on the council, and no evidence to suggest they ever stopped being on it......

That charge imo has not been proven by the accused i.e. sand

And IMO, there is sufficient evidence for Sand to rightfully base his beliefs on, especially since you're desperately trying to avoid having to address the information.

Regardless, there is also a second charge, by me, which is that there is at least enough evidence to suggest that Adams et al currently hold senior positions in the IRA, if not to go quite as far as saying that they're on the Council.

I would suggest at this point that your dismissal is either based on illogical reasoning, hypocritical reasoning, or just a refusal to engage in discussing a point that you can't win.

Illiogical if you believe that past membership with no evidence of leaving allows you to conlude they are no longer members

Hypocritical if you believe that others must supply evidence to prove their claims, but that you can accept and agree that the lads were members at some point and then claim that they no longer are without providing evidence to support this "state-of-membership change".

Refusal if you actually can see those flaws in your argument but are just refusing to acknowledge them publically.

jc

Stabshauptmann

bonkey wrote:

By law, yes. This is why legally speaking, there are no grounds that they cannot serve as politicans.

However, whether or not the are members/leaders of the IRA is a seperate issue to whether or not they have been found guilty of that offence.


I never suggested they did.

I suggested that if one was a member of an organisation, adn there is no evidence that one has left the organisation, then the only conclusion (by your standards of proof) is that one is still a member.

I use this logic every time I go to any of the clubs or organisations that I'm a member of. I was a member last time I was here, I have neither left, nor been informed that I have been kicked out, so its reasonable for me to assume I'm still a member. Similarly, if I know someone else is a member of a club or orgnanisation, or indeed employed by an employer, I assume that this state remains unchanged until I have evidence to suggest otherwise.

You are suggesting that this is not a logical course to take, and that - in fact - such assumptions are illogical. Can we conclude, therefore, that in-between actions that the public are aware of, you believe there is no evidence that the IRA haven't already disbanded or ceased their operations? You're denying the relevance of continuation in such thnigs, so presumably you believe that - today - there is no evidence to suggest the IRA still exists, only evidence that they existed when (say) McCartney was killed, or whenever their last interaction with the public was?

Its the same thought-process you're passing off as logic, so either you believe that there is no evidence to suggest the IRA exists right now and that its wrong to say otherwise. All we know is that the IRA existed up to some point in the past, that there is no evidence this changed....and that you insist that this is not enough information to draw conclusions about the present state.

This is your "logic", so I'm sure you agree with it?


If we were discussing time-specific, atomic actions, that would be true. But membership of an organisation isn't a time-specific, atomic action. Its an ongoing thing. A "state", if you will.

If you went to the doc and he told you that you had a dicky heart....how long would you believe that condition lasted before deciding that it was no longer an issue? Certainly, 30 years later - by your logic - you can safely assume that its gone away...especially if you're in a situation where a doctor isn't close to hand so you can't get current up-to-the-minute proof?

Don't make assumptions about the current state based on the old state and a lack of information that the state has changed. Right?


Y'huh. And we know that there is evidence to suggest they were at one point on the council, and no evidence to suggest they ever stopped being on it......


And IMO, there is sufficient evidence for Sand to rightfully base his beliefs on, especially since you're desperately trying to avoid having to address the information.

Regardless, there is also a second charge, by me, which is that there is at least enough evidence to suggest that Adams et al currently hold senior positions in the IRA, if not to go quite as far as saying that they're on the Council.

I would suggest at this point that your dismissal is either based on illogical reasoning, hypocritical reasoning, or just a refusal to engage in discussing a point that you can't win.

Illiogical if you believe that past membership with no evidence of leaving allows you to conlude they are no longer members

Hypocritical if you believe that others must supply evidence to prove their claims, but that you can accept and agree that the lads were members at some point and then claim that they no longer are without providing evidence to support this "state-of-membership change".

Refusal if you actually can see those flaws in your argument but are just refusing to acknowledge them publically.

jc

Well he did offer a reason why he believes they stopped being members. That reason was that the British Primeminister and other senior officials in both governments would hardly negotiate with IRA leaders.

I disagree with that and have state so above.

BTW Was just reading some posts I missed. Sand, you and I used the same quote by Adams - how strange. And Bonkey, you and I seem to be using the exact same logic. Perhaps its unfair that we're all ganging up on Irish1, so Im going to play devils advocate for a while:


Why Adams and mcGuiness arn't on the army council:
1)While in UCD McGuiness seemed genuinly unaware of a recent IRA statement and thought he was answering questions about a previous one
2)Bertie is confident that the IRA leadership knew in advance of the NI bank raid but has changed his mind as to whether or not Adams knew.
The NI bank robbery happened in Adam's back yard, if he was an IRA member of any significant rank he would have known about it. The NI robbery was bad for SF, Adams wouldnt have authorised it.
3)There have been a number of new appoinments, cout martials and internal fueds in the past 5 years. This might suggest either a change in policy or a change of leadership.
4)The RIRA split was only possible becasue the PIRA leadership was out of touch with a significant section of the rank and file. What happened at the next GAC *I* dont know. What we do know is that there was RIRA involvement in the NI bank raid. If the two factions have reconciled differences that would leave Adams out in the cold.
5)The PIRA has been increasingly active in the past 2 years. Fund raising is on the increase, weapons are being imported and new members are being trained - with particular focus on punishment beatings. Punishment beatings is something Adams makes a personal point about stopping because he knows it cost SF votes.

Not sure what side Ill be advocating when I post next but I hope this makes the thread a little more interesting. Theres no pint in the three of us posting the exact same thing after all

Cork

:
Originally Posted by irish1

I would certainly accept that in the past Adams and McGuinness probably held positions in the IRA, how senior I'm not sure.

Niether is Adams - He still maintains he was never a member of the IRA.

It is time SF TDs took oaths of alligence to this state and its various institutions.

It was not long ago we had the sorry sight of SF TDS been photographed with the cold blooded murderers of a garda.

I believe the Criminal Assets Bereau needs increased powers and budget to tackle the IRA.

Even if the IRA goes away - I believe some elements of that organisation will continue with organised crime.

But it is up to the authoritys to this state to stop that.

bonkey

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

And Bonkey, you and I seem to be using the exact same logic. Perhaps its unfair that we're all ganging up on Irish1, so Im going to play devils advocate for a while:

I'm gonna be offline for much of the next week anyway, so I'm outta here for now anyways...

jc

Blub2k4

Cork wrote:

It is time SF TDs took oaths of alligence to this state and its various institutions.

Which part did you miss about them representing the true government of Ireland?

P O'Neill

Blub2k4 wrote:

Which part did you miss about them representing the true government of Ireland?

Actually, if you're referring to the Provisional IRA claiming they're the true government of Ireland you're wrong. The last surviving member of the Dail in 1918 moved that responsibility onto the Contiuity IRA after the split in which Ruari O'Broadaigh and other hardline members of Sinn Fein left the party due to the vote in which Sinn Fein would enter the Dail etc. Not precise on the date but i think it was 1984. Republican Sinn Fein (formed by O'Broadaigh) claims it is the political wing of the Continuity IRA

Cool name by the way! :cool: