Adams & McGuinness and the IRA Army Counil

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??