Adams & McGuinness and the IRA Army Counil

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:

Sand

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.

You just contradicted yourself right there. You talk about what you know, but in reality its what you believe. You know nothing that supports your assertion that Adams and McGuinness left the IRA - nothing youve decided to share with us anyway. Its merely what you believe, a matter of faith.

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.

You know that wont happen because it would effectively kill dead the moderate faction within SF/IRA. Bad and all as they are, Adams and McGuinness are the moderates.

Why do you think the Gardas raid on the money laundering occured so soon after the fallout between SF/IRA and the Government over the bank raid? Do you think the Gardai were only watching the laundering for a few days, or a few weeks? Or do you think it more likely that the Gardai were watching for months if not years but didnt move in because the Government didnt want to destroy the GFA? When the fallout occured the Government decided to take the gloves off and give SF/IRA a sharp reminder of what it feels like to have the full weight of law enforcement on their backs.

Nobody but yourself is under any illusion as to who and what SF/IRA is. The government wouldnt and isnt going to charge people with crimes when theyre trying to negotiate with them.

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

I wasnt aware I was on trial.

Regardless, seeing as your objection to my stating that Adams and McGuinness are on the Army Council is not based on evidence, but rather on your faith in the integrity of men who you admit probably were IRA terrorists and whove been caught lying numberous times then its logically impossible to use evidence to get you to accept the probability that Adams and McGuinness are on the Army Council.

It would be like trying to *prove* to John Paul II that God didnt exist. Even if you had a watertight case that carefully disproved the possibility of his existence, faith flies in the face of all evidence.

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

They certainly *claim* to be the true government of Ireland, which is why its almost certain that the IRA dictates to SF and that Adams and Co would need senior IRA rank to control the provo movement.

But their claim is ridicuous, they should grow up, stop being babies and accept the true Irish government is and always has been the Dail, not the Army Council.

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

And the claim gets even more ridiculous when its the subject of Life Of Brian style splitter rivalries. Who died and made O'Broadaigh the person to decide that he could take Irish sovereignty and give it to a bunch of heavily armed psychotic whackos? Was he on drugs?

cdebru

P O'Neill wrote:

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:

actually p i would expect you to know this it the last survivor of the second dail not the first dail and although o bradaigh claims it it was handed over in 1986 it was long before that infact the remaining anti treaty deputies of the second dail handed over the responsibility to the IRA IN 1938 when their numbers were at risk of falling below 7 in line with standing orders of the second dail which was never dissolved

it is from there that the IRA claimed to be the government of the irish republic

since all the IRAs P O R and C believe themselves to be the IRA i would assume they all still believe they are the government of the Irish Republic if not who have they relinquished it to and when

NOTE: The moral position of the Irish Republican Army, its right to engage in warfare, is based on: (a) the right to resist foreign aggression; (b) the right to revolt against tyranny and oppression and (c) the direct lineal succession with the Provisional Government of 1916, the first Dail of 1919 and the second Dail of 1921.

Regarding point (c), the first Dail declared itself the successor to the signatories of the 1916 Proclamation when it met in January 1919. Later, in March 1921, it declared that if enemy action reduced its ranks to a minimum, the remaining Deputies should hand over executive powers of government to the Army of the Republic, which would constitute itself as a Provisional Government. In 1922, when the majority of the Dail approved the Treaty of Surrender, and were thus guilty of treachery, the I.R.A. withdrew its allegiance from the Dail. Later that year it recognised the minority of the 1921 Deputies as the 'final custodians to the Republic'.

In 1938 the seven surviving faithful Republican Deputies delegated executive powers to the Army Council of the I.R.A. per the 1921 resolution [see page 159]. In 1969 the sole surviving Deputy, Joseph Clarke, reaffirmed publicly that the then Provisional Army Council and its successors were the inheritors of the first and second Dail as a Provisional Government

.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/docs/coogan/coogan93.htm

earwicker

So, just to clarify: everyone agrees that other than Moloney's allegation in his book (and not counting the multiple citations of his book since it was published), there is no other evidence for the view that Adams and co are on the Army Council? Would that be fair to say?

Villain

earwicker wrote:

So, just to clarify: everyone agrees that other than Moloney's allegation in his book (and not counting the multiple citations of his book since it was published), there is no other evidence for the view that Adams and co are on the Army Council? Would that be fair to say?

I believe so earwicker, I have still not seen any factual evidence that proves Adams and McGuinness currently sit on the IRA Army Council

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

I believe so earwicker, I have still not seen any factual evidence that proves Adams and McGuinness currently sit on the IRA Army Council

Ah, you're back. It's Saturday morning, you're online:

irish1 wrote:

Busy at the moment Bonkey I'll try and get back to that post later...

Any chance?

Cork

the Irish Justice Minister, who has directly named Adams, McGuinness and Martin Ferris, a Sinn Fein MP in the Dail, as being the leadership of Oglaigh na hEireann — by being members of the IRA’s Army Council.

The balaclavas that once masked the identities of the Provisionals’ hidden commanders have been stripped away and cannot be easily restored.

link

"A word of a garda superintendent who tells a court he believes someone is a member of proscribed organisation is now sufficient to convict that person.

Irish1 - thats all the evidence that is required.

Villain

Well OscarBravo, I believe Bonkeys main point is

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 can see his point but I don't agree with it, a lot has changed in the North and I believe that if you used that logic you could say there a many many people who are still members of the IRA because there is no proof they have left. But I believe that the main point to consider in relation to this logic is that the people in question have stated they are no longer members of the IRA and if someone is accusing them of lying they should provide proof. I believe Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness when they say that they are not members of the IRA Army Council and I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise.

Villain

That is an opinion of a senior Garda not evidence Cork and if that is so why haven't they been arrested and charged??? and why doesn't the leader of this state know if they are members or not??

Cork

irish1 wrote:

That is an opinion of a senior Garda not evidence

Thats all the evidence that is required.

"If these claims[by Minister McDowell] are true, these men are guilty of membership of a subversive organisation which is punishable by a five-year jail term," said Labour spokesman Joe Costello.

Mr Ahern said it was now “inconceivable” for anyone to believe that there was no provisional IRA involvement in the robbery of £26.5 million (€38.5m) from the Northern Bank.

I believe Bertie knows the state of play with regards to SF/IRA. He has put it up to Adams and McGuiness to deliver.

No democratic government will no longer tolerate a political party with links to an illegal army.

The IRA is an illegal organisation that has killed people like Gerry McCabe. I think that TDs should swear an oath of alligence of this state and its various institutions before taking up office.

cdebru

"If these claims[by Minister McDowell] are true, these men are guilty of membership of a subversive organisation which is punishable by a five-year jail term," said Labour spokesman Joe Costello.


which of course begs the question why have they not been charged if garda intelligence has knowledge of their membership of an illegal organisation let alone leadership of it why no charges

Villain

Cork wrote:

Thats all the evidence that is required.

So haven't they been arrested??

Cork wrote:

I believe Bertie knows the state of play with regards to SF/IRA. He has put it up to Adams and McGuiness to deliver.

No democratic government will no longer tolerate a political party with links to an illegal army.

The IRA is an illegal organisation that has killed people like Gerry McCabe. I think that TDs should swear an oath of alligence of this state and its various institutions before taking up office.

Bertie Ahern has said he doesn't know if these men are on the IRA army council, do you think he has lied to the people of Ireland???

Sinn Fein can and will deliver peace.

Cork

irish1 wrote:

Sinn Fein can and will deliver peace.

SF was never known for peace making.

But If they can deliver justice for the McCartney family - it would be a start and then if it deals with the illegal IRA that it has links to.

7 years aftter the good friday agreement -it is about time the shinners delivered.

But the continued pressure being put on the provisional movement is helping.

Villain

Cork wrote:

SF was never known for peace making.

But If they can deliver justice for the McCartney family - it would be a start and then if it deals with the illegal IRA that it has links to.

7 years aftter the good friday agreement -it is about time the shinners delivered.

But the continued pressure being put on the provisional movement is helping.

Nice to see you replied to my last comment, but failed to reply to my two questions :rolleyes:

Cork

irish1 wrote:

So haven't they been arrested??

It is a metter for the DPP.
In this state there is a clear distinction between the criminal and justice system.

irish1 wrote:

Bertie Ahern has said he doesn't know if these men are on the IRA army council, do you think he has lied to the people of Ireland???

Lied?

Does "not know"? I don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow morning. The world could end.

But should not SF be telling us about their exact relationship with the IRA?

For many years - SF did not want to get into the politics of condemnation about the IRA. Yet the same Shinners see no problem about getting into the politics of condemnation about other issues. For many years SF harped on about human rights but the brutal murder of Robert McCartney by members of the IRA said much.

Sorry I did not answer you questions. I taken aback by the "Sinn Fein can and will deliver peace" statement.

Let us hope they will soon deliver the IRA and justice for the McCarneys.

cdebru

Cork wrote:

It is a metter for the DPP.
In this state there is a clear distinction between the criminal and justice system.



.

it is not a matter for the dpp to decide if they should be arrested if there is evidence that these men are in the IRA nevermind the army council the gardai would have a duty to arrest them and send a file to the DPP who would then decide if they should be charged which should not be a problem if they send the evidence that mcdowell has seen presumably

Cork

Cork wrote:

But should not SF be telling us about their exact relationship with the IRA?

Probably not Cork.
To openly state membership of an illegal organisation would be incontravertable evidence for arrest.
To openly state that both organisations are totally separate and that Adams and McGuinness are not on the Army council is just a statement really,It's not evidence of anything as Bonkey rightly pointed out.
Worse than that, its coming from people who already lied on the subject before.They have always had no choice but to deny on that matter though as they couldnt admit to something that they could be jailed for.
However,the fact that a lie was told before just because of the illegality that they were denying leads many to doubt that they wouldnt be lying again on this occasion.Thats because when you've been on record as lying once, it damages the credibility of what you say on the exact same subject any other time you talk about it.

As for Ahern, he's just being more pragmatic than the rest,he wants to be the Taoiseach when a final deal is signed sealed and delivered and thats certainly not going to be helped if he speaks a similar language to his justice minister.


He'll be old and grey though if alive at all though...the way this process is being dragged out.

Cork

Earthman wrote:

As for Ahern, he's just being more pragmatic than the rest,he wants to be the Taoiseach when a final deal is signed sealed and delivered and thats certainly not going to be helped if he speaks a similar language to his justice minister.


He'll be old and grey though if alive at all though...the way this process is being dragged out.

As Taoiseach of this country - Bertie Ahern can speak on behalf of the Irish people. He was right to put it up to the SF leadership. The IRA has carried out carnage in the name of the Irish people with zero mandate.

In fairness - The continued existance of the IRA is an insult to democrats. 7 years after the people of this country voted for the GFA - the killing of Robert McCartney by members of that organisation was a disgrace.

It is not democratic governments who are dragging their heals. Had we not one party who could not agree to a "no criminality clause"?

"No political party can also have an armed unit that continues the violence and criminality in today's world," Senator Edward Kennedy said.

The pressure has to be kept up on the leadership of SF/IRA. We must ensure that incidents like the killing of Robert McCartney will not happen again.

Cork

Cork wrote:

As Taoiseach of this country - Bertie Ahern can speak on behalf of the Irish people. He was right to put it up to the SF leadership. The IRA has carried out carnage in the name of the Irish people with zero mandate.

Yeah we know all that.Shouting at them like that is not the most effecient way to get rid of them.
SF have a mandate in the North and its one up there thats growing not shrinking, so like it or lump it Cork, they are part and a major part of the solution there.

The pressure has to be kept up on the leadership of SF/IRA. We must ensure that incidents like the killing of Robert McCartney will not happen again.

Indeed, but if you know anything of Northern Ireland, you will realise that the dynamics of Nationalist Vs Unionist politics up there means that the McCartney saga will have little or no impact on the party's vote up there.
It's largely a tribal thing.

Now this thread is wandering off topic and as such if it continues to do so,action will be taken to ensure it stays on topic.
This may include splitting posts/recycling posts or closure.
So back on topic folks thanks.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I don't believe it is inconsistency because I haven't stated that my opinion here, this murder could well have been carried out by the IRA or least a member of that organisation, I don't know because I don't enough information to form an opinion.

my point is you look for more than one piece of information here and are satisfied with one or none in the other to form your beliefs.
You're entitled to form your beliefs in that way, but it gets murky when you demand that others don't.
Thats aninconsistency, plain and simple.

However in relation to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness being members of the IRA Army Council, these men deny those claims and have stated that on many occasions, I support SF so I believe them when they say that and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to prove otherwise and considering they haven't been arrested for membership and the Leader of this state says he doesn't know I believe thats a reasonable belief to hold. That is my opinion based on the information at hand.

It's still just a belief without evidence

IMO you are going on the belief that I believe the IRA weren't involved in this murder, which isn't true I know what the IRA is capable and they are certianly capable of killing a man in a Dublin pub, I just don't know whether or not in this case it was the IRA, I am no supporter of the IRA so why would I defend them here

No I'm not commenting on that at all,I'm just asking for consistency in your approach to what should make ones mind up.
In one situation its ok to have little or nothing, but in the other you want more and more.
You'r are being inconsistant in that.

By the way I find your statement that you know the IRA are incapable of murdering a man in a Dublin pub strange.
Is it another belief or is there somerthing you're not telling us?

For what its worth,I believe they're very capable,just not foolhardy enough to do it as it would damage the peace process.
I presume thats what you mean also?

You know I'm concluding that it would be better for all concerned in threads such as this one about SF or the IRA that people proof read their posts before submitting them so as to ensure as much clarity as possible.
Otherwise, a hornets nest ensues.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

my point is you look for more than one piece of information here and are satisfied with one or none in the other to form your beliefs.
You're entitled to form your beliefs in that way, but it gets murky when you demand that others don't.
Thats aninconsistency, plain and simple.

But IMO theres a major major difference in the one piece of information been offered here and the statements of two men who are leaders of a large political party. Statements from Adams and McGuinness along with Aherns comments and the lack of arrests are more than one or none Earthman!.

Earthman wrote:

It's still just a belief without evidence

That is exactly the argument I was making in the other thread Earthman, IMO Sand was offering comments about Adams and McGuinness been on the Army Council as fact, I had said many many times I respect his opinion that he believes they are on the IRA Army Council, what I disputed is that is offered as fact without any factual evidence.

Earthman wrote:

No I'm not commenting on that at all,I'm just asking for consistency in your approach to what should make ones mind up.
In one situation its ok to have little or nothing, but in the other you want more and more.
You'r are being inconsistant in that.

By the way I find your statement that you know the IRA are incapable of murdering a man in a Dublin pub strange.
Is it another belief or is there somerthing you're not telling us?

For what its worth,I believe they're very capable,just not foolhardy enough to do it as it would damage the peace process.
I presume thats what you mean also?

You know I'm concluding that it would be better for all concerned in threads such as this one about SF or the IRA that people proof read their posts before submitting them so as to ensure as much clarity as possible.
Otherwise, a hornets nest ensues.

Read my post again I said

they are certainly capable

so proof reading might be a good idea

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

But IMO theres a major major difference in the one piece of information been offered here and the statements of two men who are leaders of a large political party. Statements from Adams and McGuinness along with Aherns comments and the lack of arrests are more than one or none Earthman!.

So basically you feel they are more trustworthy because they're politicans. First time on earth irish1?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

But IMO theres a major major difference in the one piece of information been offered here and the statements of two men who are leaders of a large political party. Statements from Adams and McGuinness along with Aherns comments and the lack of arrests are more than one or none Earthman!.

What Ahern says is not evidence,its his usual wishy washy, way of putting things so as to leave wriggle room.
Like the wishy washy way he asked if They think we are eejits or what when he was refering on the Sunday news at one programme that he believed the SF people he was negotiating with were aware of the Northern bank robbery.He stopped short of naming names but still put the accusation out ther.
He's clever like that as you know.
The lack of arrests is simply pragmatism,assuming the Gardaí believe that they are members of the IRA(and it is just an assumption, here unless the Gardaí have said it)perhaps you dont accept that?

That is exactly the argument I was making in the other thread Earthman, IMO Sand was offering comments about Adams and McGuinness been on the Army Council as fact, I had said many many times I respect his opinion that he believes they are on the IRA Army Council, what I disputed is that is offered as fact without any factual evidence.

So are you confirming then that your belief is just an opinion aswell as it has no factual evidence?[/QUOTE]

Read my post again I said so proof reading might be a good idea

Touché,I am but magnanimous in the overwhelming light of your alertness compared to mine today
I fail to see though where you are not asking for more evidence in this case to form an opinion than your cast iron opinion in the other thread based on no evidence.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

What Ahern says is not evidence,its his usual wishy washy, way of putting things so as to leave wriggle room.
Like the wishy washy way he asked if They think we are eejits or what when he was refering on the Sunday news at one programme that he believed the SF people he was negotiating with were aware of the Northern bank robbery.He stopped short of naming names but still put the accusation out ther.
He's clever like that as you know.
The lack of arrests is simply pragmatism,assuming the Gardaí believe that they are members of the IRA(and it is just an assumption, here unless the Gardaí have said it)perhaps you dont accept that?

What I do believe is that the Minister for Justice should not make claims that he knows people are members of an illegal organisation unless the gardai are going to act on that information. You can't have one law for 2 people then another law for others.

Earthman wrote:

So are you confirming then that your belief is just an opinion aswell as it has no factual evidence?

It most certainly is just my opinion I don't believe I have ever said otherwise ( I could be wrong though), I have formed that opinion on the information available to me.

Earthman wrote:

Touché,I am but magnanimous in the overwhelming light of your alertness compared to mine today
I fail to see though where you are not asking for more evidence in this case to form an opinion than your cast iron opinion in the other thread based on no evidence.

I have asked for more evidence in the other thread, that was the whole point of the thread to see what evidence Sand had. I had said in the past that if is proven that many senior members of Sinn Fein were found to be involved in criminality that I would have to look at my support for the party in the future. If someone can show me evidence that Adams and McGuinness are on the IRA Army council and that they sanctioned the Northern Bank robbery I would never vote for SF again.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

What I do believe is that the Minister for Justice should not make claims that he knows people are members of an illegal organisation unless the gardai are going to act on that information. You can't have one law for 2 people then another law for others.

And c'mon Irish1 do you really think they'd arrest them. We still need them to engage in the peace process, and their arrests would make them political martyers and irrevocably stall the peace process. We're engaged in peace negotitations with illegal paramilitary organisations. The law is going to have to be flexible.

It most certainly is just my opinion I don't believe I have ever said otherwise ( I could be wrong though), I have formed that opinion on the information available to me.

And you've admitted you've no facts, just the word of Adams and Mc Guinness

irish1

irish1 wrote:

What I do believe is that the Minister for Justice should not make claims that he knows people are members of an illegal organisation unless the gardai are going to act on that information. You can't have one law for 2 people then another law for others.

But you do in pragmatic circumstances every day, thats the thing.
When was the last time a pirate radio station was raided in Dublin, the airwaves are full of them.

It most certainly is just my opinion I don't believe I have ever said otherwise ( I could be wrong though), I have formed that opinion on the information available to me.

It would appear that Sand conceded that in his reply here too-so you should have no more problems in that regard.

I have asked for more evidence in the other thread, that was the whole point of the thread to see what evidence Sand had. I had said in the past that if is proven that many senior members of Sinn Fein were found to be involved in criminality that I would have to look at my support for the party in the future. If someone can show me evidence that Adams and McGuinness are on the IRA Army council and that they sanctioned the Northern Bank robbery I would never vote for SF again.

Yes and sand has conceded already that it is but an opinion based on what he see's.
So there you have it,If an opinion you rely on in your case, is based on one thing ( and in this case mostly arising out of your discussion with Bonkey in your thread - an article of faith on your part ), its not in order to demand several pieces of evidence from some other poster on any other random subject-thats an inconsistency that there should be less and preferably none of.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

But you do in pragmatic circumstances every day, thats the thing.
When was the last time a pirate radio station was raided in Dublin, the airwaves are full of them.

Yes but has the Minister for Justice gone on the record (no pun intended) to say he knows who the leaders of these radio stations are?? Sorry Earthman but I don't think your comparison is very good.

Earthman wrote:

It would appear that Sand conceded that in his reply here too-so you should have no more problems in that regard.

Yes but Sand and others have presented that belief as fact on this forum many times.

Earthman wrote:

Yes and sand has conceded already that it is but an opinion based on what he see's.
So there you have it,If an opinion you rely on in your case, is based on one thing ( and in this case mostly arising out of your discussion with Bonkey in your thread - an article of faith on your part ), its not in order to demand several pieces of evidence from some other poster on any other random subject-thats an inconsistency that there should be less and preferably none of.

As I said above Sand has presented it as fact in the past and posted his so called evidence several times, which basically is just pulled from Ed Moloney's book. IMO the person who makes an accusation should be able to back that accusation up with proof, if I accused you of being a criminal and you denied it surely it would be up to me to prove my accusation.

That is basically what has been done on here many times, people have accused Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness of breaking the law and currently being members of the IRA Army Council and what happened 30 years ago does not prove that, I have seen no factual evidence to prove the accusation.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Yes but has the Minister for Justice gone on the record (no pun intended) to say he knows who the leaders of these radio stations are?? Sorry Earthman but I don't think your comparison is very good.

I think its quite apt actually because the radio stations are making no secret of who they are and that they are breaking the law,they give out phone numbers,transmit from a manned location and take advertising and other tangible facts of their lawbreaking.
They are completely transparent about it and little or nothing is done.
As regards the minister for justice, he's giving an opinion like you isn't he based on the information that he has.

Yes but Sand and others have presented that belief as fact on this forum many times.

That would have been your opinion that they were presenting it as fact, but Sand has clarified that it is his opinion only .
You should ask the others if you are not certain whether it is fact or opinion that they are presenting.

As I said above Sand has presented it as fact in the past and posted his so called evidence several times, which basically is just pulled from Ed Moloney's book.

I take it it is your opinion that he was presenting fact

IMO the person who makes an accusation should be able to back that accusation up with proof, if I accused you of being a criminal and you denied it surely it would be up to me to prove my accusation.

Yup I'd probably either sue or ignore your opinion after I denied it.
Which one of those are you doing?
If I was xenophobic about it,I might continue to state my innocence over and over again,but I'm not so I'd probably just ignore you

That is basically what has been done on here many times, people have accused Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness of breaking the law and currently being members of the IRA Army Council and what happened 30 years ago does not prove that, I have seen no factual evidence to prove the accusation.

And as Bonkey put it to you in the thread discussing this,you've none to disprove it either, you continue to rely on your belief in Adams and McGuinness.
Might I suggest we get back on topic now and be consistent at the same time?

Sand

So, just to clarify: everyone agrees that other than Moloney's allegation in his book (and not counting the multiple citations of his book since it was published), there is no other evidence for the view that Adams and co are on the Army Council? Would that be fair to say?

Well, everyone agrees that Adams and McGuinness were senior negotiating IRA members as early as the 1970s. Everyone agrees there is no evidence they have left the IRA. Everyone agrees they still have a tremendous degree of control over the IRA. Everyone can say theyre on the Army Council and they wont sue.

Obvious conclusion is.....Theyre on the Army Council.

SF/IRA fanboys are trying to misdirect the thread into a discussion of why Adams and Co arent arrested if theres evidence theyre Army Council members. They were obviously asleep throughout the entire peace proccess and GFA negotiations where political needs overrode the law, and the rights of victims of crime to see justice done, to get the boys out of jail early. If theres anything that shines clear as day from the former peace proccess its that political concerns override the law. Fudge, creative ambiguity and so on and so forth.

Adams and McGuinness wont be arrested and charged for as long they are the moderate faction of SF/IRA and act as a counter balance to the raving loonies.

SF have a mandate in the North and its one up there thats growing not shrinking, so like it or lump it Cork, they are part and a major part of the solution there.

No, theyre part of the problem. The DUP are the new face of unionism, thanks to the rise of SF/IRA, and the DUP are being elected on one simple premise - they will not negotiate with SF/IRA, sit in government with them, or in any way co-operate with a proccess that will grant SF/IRA influence over NI. The mildest view of the peace proccess Ive heard from a DUP politician was that a comprehensive settlement was the work for another generation! And to be honest, I can't blame the DUP. Who could honestly trust SF/IRA anymore? The DUP have seen what relying on Adams word has done for the UUP and Trimble - one of the oldest, if not the oldest continuous parties in Ireland is about to annialated effectively because SF/IRA havent lived up to their side of deals.

I can just see the DUP rushing to negotiate with SF/IRA now.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Yes but has the Minister for Justice gone on the record (no pun intended) to say he knows who the leaders of these radio stations are?? Sorry Earthman but I don't think your comparison is very good.

The stakes are very, very different.

Yes but Sand and others have presented that belief as fact on this forum many times.

And you've demanded that Sands et all demand that they provide proof.

Now you've admited they've said they were members. We know they've lied about membership. Furthermore the neogitating tactics of SF means that creating an barrier between SF and the IRA is necessary, It means that the SF leadership have plausible deniability over IRA activity and the SF leadership can walk away from talks saying they need to refer to the IRA. It's the same tactics that DeV used during treaty talks.

When the fact remains, using your logic, theres no evidence that Adams and Mc Guinness aren't members at senior level of the IRA, and that Adams and Mc Guinness have been forced to admit at a previous instance their denials of IRA membership and the level of involvement wasn't senior were untrue. They've lied about their level and the possibility of their involvement, and now their importance as a negotiating lever would be negated with their admition to their involvement.

You've just accepted Mc Guinness' and Adams word as word despite their track record, and the value of their alledged non involvement in the IRA during negotiations. Meaning they can offer veiled threats when negotiations collaspe, while denial and condemnation of puinishment shootings.

Adams and Mc Guinness have lied about their involvement with the IRA. You take their word on their lack of involvement in the IRA. You ignore the potential benefits of the denial while continuing involvement. They gain the best of both worlds.

So the cyncial attitude is based on a pramatic attitude based on past denial and therefore a natural suspicion on the level of pauslibilty of current denial and the potential gain of a denial for SF in peace negotiations.

That is basically what has been done on here many times, people have accused Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness of breaking the law and currently being members of the IRA Army Council and what happened 30 years ago does not prove that, I have seen no factual evidence to prove the accusation.

Their own admission? They're still senior members of a political party with ties to a paramilitary organisation they were once members of and denied any involvement in. The organisation still exists. Its underground.

Villain

MyCroft can you please point out where Martin McGuinness has lied about his membership of the IRA in the past??

Rock Climber

This transformation did not happen overnight, however, and is, interestingly, reflected through the authors' use of quotations from the speeches and interviews given by McGuinness down the years, beginning with hair-raising statements justifying the killing of British soldiers and ending with the Orwellian doublespeak of the peace process that became the official language of Sinn Féin. Gems from the 1970s, such as "This is a war to the end," and "I am a member of the Derry Brigade of the I.R.A. and very proud of it" are juxtaposed with his later declarations, including the often-repeated denial of I.R.A. membership, made in 1992 - "I have never said that I was in the I.R.A. I am not a member of the I.R.A. I was a republican activist in Free Derry." If anybody wants to find out about the truth, then they certainly won't learn too much from the Stormont education minister.

From this review of Martin McGuinness: From Guns to Government (Hardcover)
by Liam Clarke, Kathryn Johnston
If it's not in your collection,I can let you have a lend... or you can pick it up here

It's a cracking good read but I notice it's attracted one "bad" review in amazon from a not too impartial someone who has not reviewed any other book there and who doesnt go into any other detail.

The better review it gets though is from someone who has given a comprehensive review of it and several others
He does say though it is written from a particular standpoint which is never a good neutral starting point.
But then that didnt stop me reading Adams book either, also a cracking good read.

Stabshauptmann

Sand wrote:

Well, everyone agrees that Adams and McGuinness were senior negotiating IRA members as early as the 1970s.

Everyone agrees there is no evidence they have left the IRA.

Everyone agrees they still have a tremendous degree of control over the IRA.

Im not sure everyone agrees with that. They offer IRA acts as part of negotiations which would imply they have control, but when it suits them they are very happy to draw lines seperating themselves from the IRA. All that can be said for certain is that they have more influence than one would expect a seperate entity to have.

Everyone can say theyre on the Army Council and they wont sue.

But that means sweet fúck all. There are buckets loads of reasons why they might not sue that have been discussed to death. One thing which I think we can agree on it that ever time someone uses that line any SF supporter can use the "Bertie doesnt know" line.
How about if both sides stop using those two lines, lets just say they cancell each other out, and we move one and continue to cancell things out untill we find more evidence on one side than on the other.

Obvious conclusion is.....Theyre on the Army Council.

Another obvious conclusion is that if I have an opinion and Im confident that I arrived at it in a reasonable way, that other ppl will share this opinion :rolleyes:

SF/IRA fanboys are trying to misdirect the thread into a discussion of why Adams and Co arent arrested if theres evidence theyre Army Council members. They were obviously asleep throughout the entire peace proccess and GFA negotiations where political needs overrode the law, and the rights of victims of crime to see justice done, to get the boys out of jail early. If theres anything that shines clear as day from the former peace proccess its that political concerns override the law. Fudge, creative ambiguity and so on and so forth.

While I origionally was attacking Irish1's points, Ive thought of a few which he might have forgotton. Since you believe that the only defence SF "fanboys" have is that adams and co havent sued, please consider the following:
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.

Adams and McGuinness wont be arrested and charged for as long they are the moderate faction of SF/IRA and act as a counter balance to the raving loonies.



No, theyre part of the problem. The DUP are the new face of unionism, thanks to the rise of SF/IRA, and the DUP are being elected on one simple premise - they will not negotiate with SF/IRA, sit in government with them, or in any way co-operate with a proccess that will grant SF/IRA influence over NI. The mildest view of the peace proccess Ive heard from a DUP politician was that a comprehensive settlement was the work for another generation! And to be honest, I can't blame the DUP. Who could honestly trust SF/IRA anymore? The DUP have seen what relying on Adams word has done for the UUP and Trimble - one of the oldest, if not the oldest continuous parties in Ireland is about to annialated effectively because SF/IRA havent lived up to their side of deals.

I can just see the DUP rushing to negotiate with SF/IRA now.

The rise of the DUP will do more to strenghten SF than the SDLP. Unionists are claiming there is too much nationalist appeasement, not just concessions to SF but rerouting of parades, equal oppurtunities initiatives in employment and welfare, wasteful inquires etc. Loyalist paramilitaries are demanding grants from the Briitish goverment akin to those recieved by ex republican prisoners for community work and social amenities. They dont seem to see that that is infact what the money is been spent on!
It shows the deep seeded racism and sectarianism of the majority of unionists who dont see equal rights as fair its not just a matter of cant trust SF; I believe to be nothing more than a cover.
I was listening to Dodds recently who kept say catholic party, catholic area, etc etc. Now while you can say rightly that most nationalists are catholics and vice versa I think using sectarian language like this makes the situation in NI worse.

The DUP is not trying to defeat SF in the next elections. There were recent discussions about voting pacts and the DUP rejected the notion of asking unionists to vote SDLP rather than DUP or UUP in constituancies where neither party can hope to win seats. "Protestants should be given the choice to vote for a Protestant party". Those were Dodds words on Hearts and Minds. Nothing less than sectarian and nothing to do with stopping SF.

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

MyCroft can you please point out where Martin McGuinness has lied about his membership of the IRA in the past??

McGuniness hasnt afaik but Adams has, over and over again

[edit]Hmm, interesting post rock climber. I never heard McGuiness make that denial before. Did he give evidence in the Bloody Sunday enquiry? In what capacity(I *thought* he admitted being the Derry OC)?[/edit]

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

MyCroft can you please point out where Martin McGuinness has lied about his membership of the IRA in the past??

Rockclimber did it for me. Now would you care to answer the thrust of the debate?

earwicker

So, if Moloney is the only source, it'd be interesting to see if some of his other claims would be accepted so easily.

As far as the logic of continued membership goes: I was a member of the classics society at university. One day I stopped going and I didn't tell anyone. Does that make me a member still?

This is an emotional argument that is impossible to separate from politics. Some people look at the "evidence" and see one thing, the others look at the same "evidence" and see another. How people judge it is very much bound up with their political bias.

Bottom line: nobody knows for certain.

A number of uncomfortable things follow from the non-arrest of Adams and co. if they are indeed members of the AC:

1) It seems that FF routinely puts political expedience ahead of justice.

2) FF give tacit support to "terrorists."

3) So do the PDs.

4) So does Blair's Labour government.

5) State forces in the North are at the beck and call of government, just as has been suggested.

<edit for spelling>

Sand

Another obvious conclusion is that if I have an opinion and Im confident that I arrived at it in a reasonable way, that other ppl will share this opinion

Well, Ive yet to see Irish1 challenge this conclusion on anything other than he thinks Martin and Gerry have never lied to him, so who cares what the evidence is. And Im not asking to share this opinion, his political views no doubt mean thats impossible for him. But seeing as he started this thread trying to dispute my grounds for saying Adams and McGuinness were on the Army Council after failed attempts to censor my posts with the "report bad post" function it's gratifying to see he cant challenge that view on anything other than what he believes, without a shred of evidence.

1)While in UCD McGuiness seemed genuinly unaware of a recent IRA statement and thought he was answering questions about a previous one

I dont really have anything to go on here - I cant agree or challenge this view because Ive very little information. What makes you think he was genuinely unaware? If he was genuinely unaware, then it might have more to do with a foulup in the arranged times for SF/IRA statement releases, or indeed the whole foulup whereby SF/IRA released an undrafted statement where they offered to shoot the SF/IRA men who killed McCartney?

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.

I think Bertie may have reconsidered his remarks in the view that he should keep his options open, so that if he negotiated with Adams again he wouldnt leave himself open to charges that he was negotiating with a known crinimal. Surreal I know, but this is how peace is supposedly made:| Either way, the robbery came after the negotiations failed, and may have been meant as a lesson to the governments that SF/IRA could still launch complex operations. There is the view that SF/IRA didnt think theyd get 26 million. Adams may have also confidently believed that it would not lead to as much press as it has. SF/IRA have killed people and engaged in crime throughout the peace proccess. O Snodaighs election workers were operating a night shift long before the talks breakdown.

To be honest, I think SF/IRA have been utterly stunned by the sudden way the press - and the governments chasing public opinion - have turned on them after December, even though theyve not been doing anything different to before. Even their good buddy Vincent Browne has made slightly critical remarks.

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.

Its hard to say what might motivate internal feuds and politicking - it could be an old guard who saw "real" action back before 1994 jealously guarding their patch against the younger generation who want the rank. Or it could be a clash between crinimal gangs feuding over "spheres of influence". I cant really see Adams and McGuinness even floating disbandment if they felt their control over SF/IRA was under threat as that could be the straw that broke the camels back.

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.

I dont think the IRA-RIRA divide has ever been as wide as its been painted. All the RIRA were former SF/IRA, they equipped themselves effectively unchallenged from SF/IRA arms dumps for quite some time before Adams and co felt confident enough of SF/IRA loyalty to issue death threats against them if they continued doing so. And Id reckon most SF/IRA men would feel sympathetic to the RIRA point of view even if they didnt agree with it. The RIRA was afterall merely continuing the SF/IRA campaign, using SF/IRAs idealogy to justify it.

After Omagh and the utter failure of the RIRA campaign the RIRA cant have been anything other than demoralised and perhaps ready to co-operate, even if only on a personal level with former comrades from the old SF/IRA. RIRA co-operation with the SF/IRA would to my mind point more to the victory of Adams and McGuinness views over the views of McKevitt and Co.

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.

But they dont. Punishment beatings have been continuing whilst SF/IRA squeeze out the SDLP. Their vote in Meath remained solid - it may even have grown slightly - despite SF/IRA gutting two men like animals outside a bar and trying to undermine the police investigation! Yes, Id love to think SF/IRA punishment beatings costs them votes, but quite simply they dont. The average SF/IRA voter is either from the North where politics is war and they think peace is best won if they have the evilest psychos on their team, or from the South where what happens in Northern Irish housing estates doesnt matter as much as getting their house painted by those helpful SF/IRA election workers.

As for SF/IRA activity - theyve never stopped being active - Frank Kerr was killed in a SF/IRA bank robbery a month after the initial cease fire in 1994. That set the tone for the next 11 years until now when SF/IRA have finally been called to account - if only haltingly - on their actions.

Incidentially, that link mentions Matthew Burns as an alleged drug dealer - alleged a real understatement as he was, if I recall correctly, a kick boxing champion who never smoke or drank and was hardly living in the style of a drug dealer. It makes me highly doubtful of SF/IRA claims that their victims were drug dealers - its an all too common smear for them. Its also believed he was killed by a RIRA hitman freelancing for the local SF/IRA unit he beat up so they could maintain the pretence of their ceasefire.

Also, seeing what SF/IRA did to Eamonn Collins I being to understand the slavish adherence to the party line by SF/IRA fanboys. Christ, thats a hell of an internal disciplinary procedure.

Rockclimber did it for me. Now would you care to answer the thrust of the debate?

Hes never answered the debate, because he cant. He agrees they were senior IRA members, and he cant offer any evidence that they left the IRA. This thread has backfired on him badly.

Sand

1) It seems that FF routinely puts political expedience ahead of justice.

Theyre a political party - whats new?

2) FF give tacit support to "terrorists."

Not support as much as theyre afraid of standing up to SF/IRA, for fear of something worse. Their cowardice has contributed to the death of the peace proccess.

3) So do the PDs.

McDowell has been a real hero (I know, I know, hes desperately unpopular with some for his stances in other arenas), and is possibly the only Irish politician making a principled stance in recent memory. He took tremendous flak for attacking the SF/IRA criminality and continued activity whereas everyone else was desperately trying to ignore what he was saying. Hes been vindicated.

4) So does Blair's Labour government.

See 2.

5) State forces in the North are at the beck and call of government, just as has been suggested.

State forces are at the beck and call of government - thats the advantage of employing them over gangs of thugs in balaclavas in the policing stakes.

As far as the logic of continued membership goes: I was a member of the classics society at university. One day I stopped going and I didn't tell anyone. Does that make me a member still?

Yes, until you stopped paying your fees, which would then be evidence you were no longer a member. Especially if you were still able to speak on the behalf of the classic society. Unfortunately, seeing as SF/IRA doesnt publish a membership list - or at least not a comprehensive one:|

earwicker

SF has had and will continue to have the tacit support these parties. Like it or not, they have contributed a great deal towards "legitimising" SF.

If they truly believe that Adams is on the AC, that makes their moral and political outrage breath-takingly cynical.

The point being that all the **** flung at SF sticks (I made a pun) to other parties.

WRT McDowell, I'm fairly sure it has occurred to him that FF could partner up with SF. The Dermot Ahern kerfuffle at least held out the possibility.

earwicker

Yes, until you stopped paying your fees, which would then be evidence you were no longer a member. Especially if you were still able to speak on the behalf of the classic society. Unfortunately, seeing as SF/IRA doesnt publish a membership list - or at least not a comprehensive one:|

Forgot to address this: if the society does not have fees, then that would be anough to complicate the logic. I can speak about them, not for them.

As you point out, there is a dearth of IRA membership lists. IMO, just more evidence for agnosticism.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

Well OscarBravo, I believe Bonkeys main point is
I can see his point but I don't agree with it,

Funny that you don't agree with it seeing as they are based on your standards of proof.

...and I believe that if you used that logic you could say.... [\quote]
But if anyone says anything without using this approach, they get met with "supply proof, or withdraw the statement" routine.

And yet its unreasonable to ask you to do the same all of a sudden?

But I believe that the main point to consider in relation to this logic is that the people in question have stated they are no longer members of the IRA

Believe all you like. Someone protesting their innocence only counts as "proof" to those who have already made up their minds.

I find it hilarious though that you are questioning later on where McGuinness has ever said he was a member, and yet here saying that he has said he is no longer a member.

Contradiction much? How can you no longer be something that you claim to never have been in the first place? And if you'd like to reword that and say that they insist they were never members at all, I'd suggest then that your own belief that they were members (at least) at some point shows that they have a history of lying about this association which further renders their own protestation of non-involvement suspect.

I believe Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness when they say that they are not members of the IRA Army Council

Thats your perogative.

and I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise.

Surely what you should be saying is that you refuse to accept the validity of any of the evidence suggesting otherwise, not that you haven't seen it.

Regardless, your repitition of this mantra renders further discussion of the point fairly meaningless.

jc