IRA man released under the GFA involved in Cork Kidnap and attempted robbery

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Getting ahead of yourself there. I was pointing out that even the Irish Independent (that fervent anti-Sinn Fein and IRA publication) has called it differebt to you

So when the Indo agrees with the Republican position, its accurate. When it disagrees with the Republican position, its lying. And its decision to gravitate between the two is - apparently - based on whether truth or fiction will do more damage?

This what you're saying?

jc

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_mouse yup it's b , have the IRA put the same input into having this guys lose his GFA entitlements because they threw him out(thats if we are to believe them) as they did to have the mccabe killers included?

The McCabe incident was sanctioned at lower levels of the IRA, this wasnt.

bonkey

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

The McCabe incident was sanctioned at lower levels of the IRA, this wasnt.

That explains why he should have been excluded, which wasn't the question.

The question was whether or not the same effort was put into ensuring he was excluded as was put into trying to make sure the McCabe killers were inculded.

Or do the IRA only believe in the importance of releasing the right people, as opposed to keeping the "wrong" people incarcerated? Its ok to release people who shouldn't be let out, but wrong to keep in those who should be?

Paddyo

He was kicked out of the Provisional IRA more than two years ago after a terrorist court martial into the activities of members who were siphoning off some of the proceeds of crimes.

I think this statement says a lot - it wasnt because of the crimes he was expelled, it was because he was siphoning off some of the proceeds!!!

Paddyo

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

So when the Indo agrees with the Republican position, its accurate.

Mibbes Aye Mibbes Naw

When it disagrees with the Republican position, its lying.

Mibbes Aye Mibbes Naw

And its decision to gravitate between the two is - apparently - based on whether truth or fiction will do more damage?

It is whatever spin they wish to use

I would have expected the Indo to have a similar slant to what was posted by RC, the fact that they did not even go that far is what I am pointing out.

rubberduckey

Just to get some opinions on 'paddyo's' view that :

"it wasnt because of the crimes he was expelled, it was because he was siphoning off some of the proceeds"

Do the people in the B camp on this thread, agree that this is accurate??

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgow wrote:

the fact that they did not even go that far is what I am pointing out.

But the issue is that the expulsion is claimed to be a fact, and the only supporting reference is that the Indo was referenced to back it up.

This is what the crux of the matter is.

You're using the Indo as a source to validate a claim, and yet readily admit that on any given issue, the Indo may or may not tell the truth, depending on what spin is this week's flavour.

If the Indo is unreliable, you can't reasonably expect us to accept what it says as any sort of reference to back up your "fact". Or...if it can back up your fact, then why can't it back up others.

So either you're offering opinion (presented as fact) which the Indo happens to agree with, or you're implicitly suggesting that the Indo is an acceptable source for providing linkage etc. to back up claims of something as fact.
As a third option (and just for completeness cause I don't think you'll go for this one) it could be that you're applying double standards as to when and why one can use the Indo as a reference.

See the problem?

The easiest solution would seem to be that we could all agree that the choice of the Indo as a reference was ill chosen...and the skeptics can sit back and wait for one of the (sure-to-exist) more accetptable sources to be produced in the stead of the Indo link.

jc

Paddyo

rubberduckey wrote:

Just to get some opinions on 'paddyo's' view that :

"it wasnt because of the crimes he was expelled, it was because he was siphoning off some of the proceeds"

Do the people in the B camp on this thread, agree that this is accurate??

The above is not my view - it is what is in the quotation.

My view is that if people are using the piece from the Indo as fact, then it means that the IRA are involved in criminal activity.

By the way and please excuse my ignorance - what is the B camp?

Paddyo

uberwolf

Another source.

todays Irish Times on teh front page acknowledges that one of the men recently
"fell foul of the organisation' and "discplined". His brother is a senior figure in the dublin IRA. The third member of the gang has never been linked before.
The first has no details given about his current status other than that which has already been given, GFA release.

Senior officer believe it was unsanctioned move by a "Provo crew" done for their own benefit without sanction.

bonkey

Paddyo wrote:

I think this statement says a lot - it wasnt because of the crimes he was expelled, it was because he was siphoning off some of the proceeds!!!

It would make some of Irish1's statements on this thread look a bit damaging to his own support of republicanism, wouldn't it...

jc

ishmael whale

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0504/print/waterford

daveirl wrote:

My logic says it's a Dublin bias in the media.

You’re so right, the fact that RTE’s website is currently leading with the closure of the Waterford Glass plant in Dungarvan is clear evidence of a Dublin bias.

On the substantive issue, from what we can gather from media reports these people are ‘dissident’ republicans, rather than current members. So the case is really just illustrative of the kind of lovely people who find membership of a paramilitary organisation an attractive proposition.

However, Paddyo’s quote taken from the Indo, suggesting they were thrown out because they dipped their hand in a flow of IRA crime-related money, is interesting. After all, what kind of offence gets you thrown out of the IRA? As we know from the McCartney case, involvement in a crime doesn’t count unless a fantastic amount of political pressure is applied.

bonkey

ishmael whale wrote:

After all, what kind of offence gets you thrown out of the IRA? As we know from the McCartney case, involvement in a crime doesn’t count unless a fantastic amount of political pressure is applied.

At a guess - stealing from the IRA will get you kicked out (or maybe killed). Stealing for the IRA, or from others won't.

jc

uberwolf

bonkey wrote:

It would make some of Irish1's statements on this thread look a bit damaging to his own support of republicanism, wouldn't it...

jc

on topic please.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

But the issue is that the expulsion is claimed to be a fact, and the only supporting reference is that the Indo was referenced to back it up.

This is what the crux of the matter is.

It was the only one I could see, there may be more. I do not have subscriptions to other newspapers and the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman have failed to mention the story. If it was reported in AP/RN, I would have quoted it from AP/RN.

You're using the Indo as a source to validate a claim, and yet readily admit that on any given issue, the Indo may or may not tell the truth, depending on what spin is this week's flavour.

I was using whatever was available to question the validity of the thread title. If the thread title has been proved to be correct, I will take stock at offering a different slant on things.

If the Indo is unreliable, you can't reasonably expect us to accept what it says as any sort of reference to back up your "fact". Or...if it can back up your fact, then why can't it back up others.

Each case taken on merits. I assume it cuts the other way as well

So either you're offering opinion (presented as fact) which the Indo happens to agree with, or you're implicitly suggesting that the Indo is an acceptable source for providing linkage etc. to back up claims of something as fact.

Aren't we all offering opinions rather than facts here?

As a third option (and just for completeness cause I don't think you'll go for this one) it could be that you're applying double standards as to when and why one can use the Indo as a reference.

I have previously stated that I will reference the Indo if I think it relevant.

See the problem?

I see an issue, not a problem

The easiest solution would seem to be that we could all agree that the choice of the Indo as a reference was ill chosen

Well, as I have said previously, I will reference to the Indo if I deem it is relevant. I do not have a sub to The Irish Times for example and I cannot get the Irish Times in Glasgow.

..and the skeptics can sit back and wait for one of the (sure-to-exist) more accetptable sources to be produced in the stead of the Indo link.

Who are the skeptics? Those skeptical of the original post thread title? or those skeptical of the validity that this person was expelled from the IRA?

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If the thread title has been proved to be correct,

Hang on - the only reason we had to believe it wasn't correct at the point that this discussion started was an article in the Indo suggesting that the IRA had claimed the men were kicked out. Nothing else.

So why does the title need to be proven correct?

Each case taken on merits. I assume it cuts the other way as well

From the references available to us, we can see that the only reason to believe these men aren't current members of hte IRA is that the Indo said in an article that the IRA made this claim.

For that to carry merit, without attributing said merit to the Indo's credibility (which you're not doing) is that you believe its true because you want to.

I have previously stated that I will reference the Indo if I think it relevant.

And it would now appear to be relevant because you want it to be. It was the only source casting doubt on the membership status, and you put faith in it.

So either "relevant" equates to "when I want it to be relevant", or you've access to other sources that you're not sharing.

I see an issue, not a problem

That, in a nutshell, is why there's a problem with the peace process. Each side see things of thei own making as issues, and those made by others as problems. So no-one needs to sort anything....simply insist that others do.

Who are the skeptics? Those skeptical of the original post thread title? or those skeptical of the validity that this person was expelled from the IRA?

Those skeptical of the argument that "they're not members cause the Indo says that the IRA said so, and ergo the title is wrong".

jc

<edit>
Crazy reasoning removed from end
</edit>

Cork

Senior SF members were said to have had prior knowledge of the NI bank raid.

The IRA has zero reason to exist other than being involved in rackets.

I think it is up to the authorities North and South to tackle organised crime whether the IRA or past members were behind it.

7 years after the GFA - the continued existance of the IRA and their army council is an insult to the Irish people.

Governments shold have not allowed their continued existance.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ishmael whale

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Which presumably means in the run of things that whatever significance the teacher college story was thought to have was ultimately deemed to be of less importance as the stories development. At any given moment in time some story is being given top billing, and its not unusual for a new story to take the top slot of a bit. I don't see what relevance location has in this.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The inclusion of Dublin in this context seems to have more to do with your oversensitivity to location, than any editorial decisions by RTE. Yesterday also saw the launch of the Central Bank Quarterly Bulletin, which gave an account of how the Irish economy is doing. Do you deem that to be 'Dublin' news because it happened in Dublin?

All of which takes us very far away from the real issue, which is the continued existence of the IRA and the implication of that fact - in Dublin, Cork and elsewhere.

uberwolf

ishmael whale wrote:

All of which takes us very far away from the real issue, which is the continued existence of the IRA and the implication of that fact - in Dublin, Cork and elsewhere.

indeed. Dave if you wish to discuss your perceptions of bias I can split the thread over to news/media if you PM me. Otherwise back on topic.