Adams & McGuinness and the IRA Army Counil

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

cdebru

Sand wrote:

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.





.

http://lark.phoblacht.net/32csm2803057g.html


32csm easter message 2005

mycroft

earwicker wrote:

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

It's a credible source. Back up your insinuations or offer a count source.

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?

Overly simplistic logic. If you had previously lied about your membership status, and had something to gain now by loudly announcing you were never a member or weren't now a member it'd be a better analogy.

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.

And we'd like to know. And we'd like something better than the word of someone who's previouslu lied on this very matter

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.

You're right, be a dear and run round belfast and round up all those people released by the GF agreement.

This has been the whole point of the last ten years. We're negotiating with terrorists. In negotiations like this poltical expedience is going to go ahead of justice. We're just sick at the extent SF/IRA are pushing that tolerance.

2) FF give tacit support to "terrorists."

knew to this debate are we? What do you think all the negotiations over the past ten years were? Who do you think we were negotiating with? Seeing as you're made some accusation aganist Morrison you must have a passing knowledge of the peace process, so you know that a blind eye has been turned. Spare the shock horror about FF giving "tacit" support to terrorist.

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.

Look thats really dubious reasoning. It's like Adams and Mc Guinness at a rising march suddenly slapping their forehead and and going "wtf those fellas in the balaclava's are terrorists! why didn't someone tell me."

the irish and british govt have been engaged in political talks with paramilitaries, they have to ignore certain parties to these talks "colourful" pasts. For the sake of political progress, and peace.

However we're getting sick of their continued "colourful" present. You can't really be this naive.

earwicker

Dear Mycroft:

I don't much care for your condescending tone. You might actually try reading what I wrote. I wasn't denying Moloney's analysis. Just pointing out how often it's bandied about as a sacred text my those it suits. Simple, really.

I also suggested there are other allegations in Moloney's book that might trouble your easy reading pleasure of his book: one such example: his account of Jean McConville's work as a spy.

You don't seem to disagree with my point that no-one knows for certain the status of Adams and co on the AC.

My point regarding negotiating with "terrorists" is this: the GFA (for all its shortcomings, and there are many) was a deal done with paramilitarism. Like it or not (I guess you don't), it conferred political status on the "terrorists."

It's also the hypocrisy of those who did the negotiating and who are now doing the mock-shock comical head-slapping that I was illustrating: "I can't believe they'd do this. After we gave them what they wanted." And yet, it got them votes and put their names in the history books. "You did it before, and that was okay; what do you mean you'll do it again?"

Absolutely no shock from me, although you can spare me your borderline comic-book outrage. It's too late for your outrage: all the parties I mentioned were involved in making the GFA and now it could be dying. They all share responsibility for that. And still the two most "extreme" parties in the North are growing all the time. Too bad. Screaming about it on a message board won't help.

And if you cannot see that SF was legitimated by the GFA (you may have even voted for it if you're old enough), or believe that those political minded souls who were in the room would know this, well, I can't help you.

So, let's recap. You go out of your way to answer my post by insulting me and my knowledge of the situation (and yet take the time to research my previous posts), but unfortunately fail to actually understand what I was suggesting. I see no future talking to you.

Welcome to my ignore list. You're my first.

edit for spelling

Villain

Sand wrote:

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.

I started this thread to see what evidence you had to prove your cliam and you haven't provided a shred of factual evidence, just comments from a book and what was going on 30 years ago. Your the one making the accusations not me.

Sand wrote:

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.

Backfired lol, I think most people who have read this thread will see you have failed to prove your accusation. It's only your opinion Sand and it will remain just an opinion until you can prove your accusation. So when you have some real evidence come back to me, good man

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Backfired lol, I think most people who have read this thread will see you have failed to prove your accusation. It's only your opinion Sand and it will remain just an opinion until you can prove your accusation. So when you have some real evidence come back to me, good man

He has however provided more reason to back up how he formed his opinion on whether the two guys are on the IRA council than you, which somewhat negates your statement about him.
Most people reading this thread will know it's opinions we are talking about here.

Villain

Have I accused anyone of anything Earthman?? All I have done is take the word of two people I respect to be true and until I see factual evidence that proves they are currently lying I will continue to hold that opinion. As for his reasons, all he has is extracts from a book and references to 30 years ago, if thats more of a reason to form a opinion in your eyes fair enough but I don't agree and if we all agreed there wouldn't be any debate and well politics would be a very quite place

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Have I accused anyone of anything Earthman?? All I have done is take the word of two people I respect to be true and until I see factual evidence that proves they are currently lying I will continue to hold that opinion.

Well as Bonkey said thats your perogative.
This thread has ran it's course now.
Closed