[Article] IRA still training recruits, says IMC

oscarBravo

axer wrote:

Every army needs training and new recruits.

Not if it's committed to non-violence. That's the point bonkey made more eloquently than I ever could have.

axer wrote:

Firstly it wasnt murder of gerry mccabe it was manslaughter - it wasnt premeditated to kill him. I strongly condem the killing of the Garda McCabe.

Those two statements in direct juxtaposition form one of the most blatant insults of the collective intelligence of this board's readership I have ever witnessed.

Garda McCabe was murdered. His murderers got away with a manslaughter conviction because of IRA witness intimidation.

That's a strong condemnation of the killing of Garda McCabe.

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So he is a unionist then (of some description)

And the response that the description of "unionist" defines a majority of the population of NI.

I have yet to claim that John Alderdice has a clear unmistakable bias. I cannot demonstrate something which I have yet to claim.

But you've derided the chamber in which he sits, and by implicitation derision on him, lets look at the tone of your post

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Baron Alderdice of Knock in the City of Belfast (what a load of kak that is!) is a Unionist. He supports the union of Britain and NI.

The tone and implication of this response is that (by calling it a "load of kak") you don't have much time for him, and by inference his policy that union of britain and NI. So either you were helpfully providing a one line definition of unionism, you are insulting the intelligence of all the posters on this board, by suggesting we don't know what unionism stands for; Or you are presenting his opinion that unionism is your mind, a worldview that you have a derogratory attitude towards.

That is strange. How do you deduce that I am spitting out a word and that it is dirty?

See above you mock the chamber he sits in, and by implication you mock him, why raise where he sits, and what is politics are if you didn't deride it. Why did you contribute to this? No one has refuted that he's a Unionist, so why post here, what did you feel you were bringing to this thread with the above?

Ah - slight change in the description now

No you've stated he's a unionist. I've asked how that description negates his imparliatly, you've declined to demostrate that he is less or compromised because of his politics, you've merely proved his politics and then left the implied QED that therefore he is bound to biased. Again why raise what you did in the first place?

What? That he sits in a parasitic chamber?

The Lib Dems are the largest left wing progressive party in the british chamber, you'ere suggesting that he is a unionist, and by implication his viewpoint in the IMC is under suspicion, his chamber party might suggest otherwise.

No one has objected to his description as a unionist, so therefore why raise it? What the meaning of your original post. It was not for clarification because no one objected to the description of the Baron as a unionist. So therefore why say this? What was your reason?

Originally Posted by A Dub in GlasgoBaron Alderdice of Knock in the City of Belfast (what a load of kak that is!) is a Unionist. He supports the union of Britain and NI.

I believe he is aligned to the Liberal Democracts when in sits in the parasites chamber

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Enlighten me.

what would you like to be enlightened on the fact that he was deputy director of the CIA
that the CIA would have much closer links with MI5/6 and a former deputy director of spy/intelligence gathering agency would be far more willing to accept verbatim the "intelligence" provided by agencies he would have been dealing with as a CIA deputy director

Not to mention that the CIAs history in overthrowing or assisting in the overthrow of democratically elected governments in numerous countries

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm

you can go through the list yourself for highlights

But that is basically the main reason why I would not trust anybody associated with the CIA particularly not a former deputy director

Earthman wrote:

Oh so he was personally in charge of an operation in London countering an IRA operation-links? .

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450142000?open&of=ENG-384

Commander John Grieve he was the head of the mets anti terrorist unit

Earthman wrote:

Thats laughable cdebru..

whats laughable that someone who spent most of his adult working live in the department of justice might not approach the Republican movement in an independent and impartial way

Some who had responsibility for the Gardai whom the IRA have killed members of might not be impartial.

I honestly find it laughable that you think it would be possible for him to be Independent and impartial.

Earthman wrote:

I can understand your misgivings on Alderdice, but surely even you must understand that one out of the four being from the unionist family proitects the unionists interest in their perception of impartiality.
One of the four being fromn the U.S inteligence, involves an IRA netral person in overseeing what the body is deliberating on and how its deliberating.
The other two are effectively the UK and Irish governments independent
scrutineers..

so if alderdice is there for the Unionist who is there to protect the republicans to make sure everything is impartial or that there is even a perception of impartiality

I dont consider that the CIA was ever nuetral on the IRA how could it be it considered the IRA to be a foreign terroist organisation and assisted the UK agencies against the IRA whenever it could

In fact Alderdice would be the one i would have the least misgivings about he is a unionist and it is blantantly obvious were he is coming from

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Laugh lets look at cdebru's answer



The first thing and this is always the special part of an IRA apologist is they don't offer an alternative, who could the IMC consist of, and where exactly could they gather evidence from?

Secondly as a list goes, the IMC has to report back to the parties involved in the peace process and that to me seems like a fair enought list. Who should be on it if not them? Earthman listed off fair reasons for each member.

.

Hopefully for the last time I'am a ****ing apologist for no one

now do you want me to name an alternative IMC that is ridicolous

I can tell you what is wrong with them and i already have to be an INDEPENDENT commission i would expect them to come from backgrounds outside of the UK and Ireland for a start

I would in particular not expect one of them to be a political opponent of the group he is "independently monitoring"

the CIA bloke is obviously out because I would not trust anyone from the CIA for anything


I have no problem with them taking intelligence from security sources but if it is the only source then the result is just a rewording of the intelligence brief that the security forces use so what is independent about that

no it reports back to the British and Irish Government the main problem being that if gives the secretary of state power to remove people from office which is outside the GFA which we all voted for

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

And the response that the description of "unionist" defines a majority of the population of NI.

And...? Some folk here seemed to be indicating that he was not a Unionist.

But you've derided the chamber in which he sits,

Yep

and by implicitation derision on him, lets look at the tone of your post

So the fact that I disagree with the House of Lords means that you should be able to demand that I should demonstrate a clear unmistakable bias. Nice one

The tone and implication of this response is that (by calling it a "load of kak") you don't have much time for him, and by inference his policy that union of britain and NI.

I do not have much time for the House of Lords.

So either you were helpfully providing a one line definition of unionism, you are insulting the intelligence of all the posters on this board, by suggesting we don't know what unionism stands for;

I was providing clarity where I felt it was needed

Or you are presenting his opinion that unionism is your mind, a worldview that you have a derogratory attitude towards.

Nope

See above you mock the chamber he sits in, and by implication you mock him, why raise where he sits, and what is politics are if you didn't deride it.

See above

Why did you contribute to this? No one has refuted that he's a Unionist, so why post here, what did you feel you were bringing to this thread with the above?

There was discussion as to whether Mr. Alderdice was a Unionist. I provided clarity.

No you've stated he's a unionist.

Yep

I've asked how that description negates his imparliatly, you've declined to demostrate that he is less or compromised because of his politics, you've merely proved his politics and then left the implied QED that therefore he is bound to biased. Again why raise what you did in the first place?

I stated that I believed he was a Unionist. This provided clarity to the discussion as to whether he was a unionist or not. I have not claimed that he had a clear unmistakable bias therefore there was nothing else to contribute. You jumped up and down demanding that I prove he had a clear unmistakable bias when it was not I who claimed he had. i think you protest too much.

The Lib Dems are the largest left wing progressive party in the british chamber, you'ere suggesting that he is a unionist, and by implication his viewpoint in the IMC is under suspicion, his chamber party might suggest otherwise.

See above

No one has objected to his description as a unionist, so therefore why raise it?

There seems to have been some doubt earlier

What the meaning of your original post. It was not for clarification because no one objected to the description of the Baron as a unionist. So therefore why say this? What was your reason?

There was doubt earlier. You, on the other hand, have jumped up and down stating 'He is a Unionist! He is a Unionist!... then lay into me asking 'why state that he is!!''

I think you are reading far too much into a 3 line post in this thread from me. Was it the House of Lords that got you going? (obviously off topic) I did not think you loved that institution so much but if you would like to start a thread about your love of the peerage system, I will be happy to contribute.

jman0

MT wrote:

No, my view is that Gerry and the boys are in for the long haul on this one. Maintain control through fear using intimidation and brutality in Republican areas, keep the IRA primed thus causing unionists to rush to the extremism of Paisley and his bigoted ravings and then through deliberate self-exclusion from government play the tried and tested victimhood card for all it’s worth. Malachy O’Doherty recently did a superb piece on this strategy in the Belfast Telegraph. Sinn Fein know full well the destabilising effect of an active and armed IRA in the North. Unionists will refuse to go into government while the organisation’s active and this veto by proxy on the behalf of Sinn Fein allows them to paint the opposing side as exclusionist bigots, themselves as the peace loving oppressed and the likes of Fianna Fail as craven Unionist/British lickspittles. And therein lies their route to enough seats in the Dail to force the larger ‘Republican’ party to admit them to a governing coalition.
The North will still be an unstable and volatile basket case, the IRA will still be fully armed and active in a low level campaign of brutality – all the time expanding their activities southwards – and Sinn Fein will be sitting pretty in a coalition government. In short, with this bunch in power the only thing that ever functioned successfully as a democracy on this island – the Irish Republic – will be fúcked.

Apart of the historical inaccuracy: the unionists used the "ira" card before the provos were even formed, and the old ira had long been silent/ineffectual (the men with the rusty revolvers).
Also, the North was always a "volatile basket case", it is a failed political state that was founded on sectarianism.
While I'd like to edit some of your verbage in your post, i'd have to agree with some of it. Obviously not the..."expand their actiities southwards," and that the "RoI would be fecked", but I think in a roundabout sort of way, this represents the way forward. I hope it happens in my lifetime.

jman0

MT wrote:

I’ve been searching for this for a while but came across it the other day. It’s the speech given by Prof. Liam Kennedy after the results for the West Belfast constituency were announced on May 5th. He stood in the constituency on a human rights platform in an attempt to highlight the brutality of the IRA and other paramilitaries in this part of Belfast and further afield.

That is so funny that you posted that!
I mentioned him in another thread.
There's a good article by danny morrison: http://www.dannymorrison.ie/articles/myths.php
And it states that yer Liam Kennedy got a whooping 215 votes back in 2001.
This time (after the McCartney Media Parade), Liam Kennedy got 147 votes.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

what would you like to be enlightened on the fact that he was deputy director of the CIA
that the CIA would have much closer links with MI5/6 and a former deputy director of spy/intelligence gathering agency would be far more willing to accept verbatim the "intelligence" provided by agencies he would have been dealing with as a CIA deputy director

I'd have thought that was conjecture on your part,he was in the CIA during democrat and republican presidency's

Not to mention that the CIAs history in overthrowing or assisting in the overthrow of democratically elected governments in numerous countries

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm

you can go through the list yourself for highlights

But that is basically the main reason why I would not trust anybody associated with the CIA particularly not a former deputy director

I see so, you'd have a problem in dealing with Democrat and Republican politicians in the U.S too then for the same reasons? SF dont...

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450142000?open&of=ENG-384

Commander John Grieve he was the head of the mets anti terrorist unit

yes fighting terrorism in the UK, do you have a problem with that, he is the GB representative on the commission,they did want an expert there.

whats laughable that someone who spent most of his adult working live in the department of justice might not approach the Republican movement in an independent and impartial way

The fact that you are prejudging someone whose job it was to impliment policies put foward by the elected government of the country.The fact that you think, he'll blindly accept anything put in front of him because of some bias that you are attributing to him with no evidence.

Some who had responsibility for the Gardai whom the IRA have killed members of might not be impartial.

Ah I can see it now, based on your criteria, robbers up in court next week saying to the judge...Yer honour, you cant judge me, you've put robbers behind bars before, you're clearly biased...
Cdebru, you are being ridiculous, but just to follow your logic on further, perhaps you should post here via an intermediary as you are clearly republican and ergo biased in your approach to this thread...

See where that logic goes?

I honestly find it laughable that you think it would be possible for him to be Independent and impartial.

Yet you provide me with no reason why...

so if alderdice is there for the Unionist who is there to protect the republicans to make sure everything is impartial or that there is even a perception of impartiality

The elected government of the Republic of Ireland.

I dont consider that the CIA was ever nuetral on the IRA how could it be it considered the IRA to be a foreign terroist organisation and assisted the UK agencies against the IRA whenever it could

Ergo by your standards Clinton was never neutral, yet he was welcomed.

In fact Alderdice would be the one i would have the least misgivings about he is a unionist and it is blantantly obvious were he is coming from

Nice touch cdebru,after presenting me with nothing concrete to affect the balanced make up of the IMC, you go in and effectively say its alright to have Alderdice there.
I'm not convinced -go back to the drawing board and see if you can make a more arguable case.

Otherwise, I return to the position I stated earlier, you don't like this IMC because it's telling the public that an organisation that is supposed to be interested in peace is upon evaluation of the information available actually training for another illegal war.

jman0

Regardless of the members of the IMC, it's besides the point.
The IMC is not part of the GFA in any way shape or form. It's entirely outside the terms of the agreement and calls into question both governments commitment to the GFA.
I may have respect for Alderdice as a person and a politician or I may not. It doesn't matter.
The fact is the IMC are spoon fed state propaganda and therefore will draw no other conclusions then what the state propaganda provides them.
They merely reguritate it.
They are a ruse to give a pretense of credibilty to black propaganda.
If for example this same "independant" body was formed with the intention of scrutinising the pre-Iraq war WMD intelligence to determine the legitimacy of WMD claims, they would reach the same conclusions HMG did.
Complete waste of time and money, they represent a kind of masturbatory exercise engaged by both governments for the media.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Regardless of the members of the IMC, it's besides the point.
The IMC is not part of the GFA in any way shape or form.

We know that, but the governments have to be seen to be giving the information available, the best analysis they can-I'm sure you would be complaining even more if the information was coming direct from the psni unfiltered.

It's entirely outside the terms of the agreement and calls into question both governments commitment to the GFA.

How? In actual fact it seems to do the opposite, given that it is analyising comitment to the principals of the GFA by the leading players.

I may have respect for Alderdice as a person and a politician or I may not. It doesn't matter.
The fact is the IMC are spoon fed state propaganda and therefore will draw no other conclusions then what the state propaganda provides them.
They merely reguritate it.

how do you know this? explain to me how this isn't another pre conceived opinion without the facts of the matter without telling me you don't trust the elected government of Ireland on the matter, whose representative is on the IMC.

They are a ruse to give a pretense of credibilty to black propaganda.
If for example this same "independant" body was formed with the intention of scrutinising the pre-Iraq war WMD intelligence to determine the legitimacy of WMD claims, they would reach the same conclusions HMG did.

Again explain to me how you come to this conclusion other than with your pre conceived opinions on the matter, which are just conjecture.

Complete waste of time and money, they represent a kind of masturbatory exercise engaged by both governments for the media.

Again reasonably explain to me how you come to this conclusion,otherwise,I'll have to conclude is all you can do is spout soundbites.

jman0

Earthman, ffs the IMC get their "intelligence" from the RUC, HMG and An Garda Siochana.
While the Gards may not be immediately seen to be politically prejudiced against Republicans, the other 2 are and that makes a majority.

mycroft

A Dub in glasgo wrote:

I was providing clarity where I felt it was needed

You feel you were offering clarity, I can't see the fact being disputed for a long while on this thread, is there any other reason you raised his affilation? In fact looking over this thread very few if any disagreed with the assertion of his politics, so why raise his politics as a point of clarity?

cdebru wrote:

Hopefully for the last time I'am a ****ing apologist for no one

I calls em like I sees em.

now do you want me to name an alternative IMC that is ridicolous

No it's not deriding the political affilation and make up of an organisation, without suggesting a pratical alternative, is just armchair bitching.

I would in particular not expect one of them to be a political opponent of the group he is "independently monitoring"

the CIA bloke is obviously out because I would not trust anyone from the CIA for anything

Buh? The USA helped broker the peace agreement, the CIA is the US's outside intelligence agency, so we've got an independent foreign party, who's been favourable to the Irish American and republican movement for decades, using a member of their external intelligence service, and it's not good enough for you?

I have no problem with them taking intelligence from security sources but if it is the only source then the result is just a rewording of the intelligence brief that the security forces use so what is independent about that

Again, you've no proof to back this assertion.

That is so funny that you posted that!
I mentioned him in another thread.

And whats sooooo funnier is that Morrison ignored a far bigger bloody nose in the form of a certain Cunnigham who won his seat, and whats sooooo funnier is that that shut you up on another thread.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Earthman, ffs the IMC get their "intelligence" from the RUC, HMG and An Garda Siochana.
While the Gards may not be immediately seen to be politically prejudiced against Republicans, the other 2 are and that makes a majority.

And where do you think a lot of the training is going on? Not in NI, thats for sure, it rarely did, given where the most of the hide outs and training shooting grounds have been found.
You are again displaying an opinion about the Gardaí with no evidence.
And you've certainly not provided any evidence to back up this "bias" you accuse the IMC of.
Are you saying without evidence that the Gardaí are making up what they say about the IRA?
You're already implying that the elected governments representative on the IMC is biased for no reason other than your own conjecture.
You are implying that he cannot come to an informed decision as to what the IRA are up to.
If he disagreed with the IMC's conclusions, that would be a different matter.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

You feel you were offering clarity, I can't see the fact being disputed for a long while on this thread, is there any other reason you raised his affilation? In fact looking over this thread very few if any disagreed with the assertion of his politics, so why raise his politics as a point of clarity?

Two posts above mine

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2810893&postcount=85

jman0

uh-oh, Teenager shot in Belfast:

A teenager has been shot in the leg in a paramilitary-style attack...

http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=60783&pt=n

Oh, it's in East Belfast so, nevermind. No news here. :rolleyes:

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

uh-oh, Teenager shot in Belfast:

A teenager has been shot in the leg in a paramilitary-style attack...

http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=60783&pt=n

Oh, it's in East Belfast so, nevermind. No news here. :rolleyes:

And again I'm seriouslu giving thought to a subclause of godwins law

"Now I'm not a republican/terrorist sympathiser but.......(the other side are just as bad/this wouldn't be happening if there was a proper police service)"

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

I'd have thought that was conjecture on your part,he was in the CIA during democrat and republican presidency's

So what does that have to do with what i posted

Earthman wrote:

I see so, you'd have a problem in dealing with Democrat and Republican politicians in the U.S too then for the same reasons? SF dont...

OK I don't speak for SF and I couldn't give a fiddlers what SF do with Republicans or Democrats
And Yes I would have a problem with both parties I see very little difference between them

Earthman wrote:

yes fighting terrorism in the UK, do you have a problem with that, he is the GB representative on the commission,they did want an expert there.The fact that you are prejudging someone whose job it was to impliment policies put foward by the elected government of the country.The fact that you think, he'll blindly accept anything put in front of him because of some bias that you are attributing to him with no evidence.

You asked for a link I gave you one

and yes I do have a problem because I think anyone who was involved in countering the PIRA is unlikely to be impartial in his dealings with the Provisional republican movement
And considering his Former job was with the people who are now providing evidence to him I doubt he would question what he is being told

Earthman wrote:

Ah I can see it now, based on your criteria, robbers up in court next week saying to the judge...Yer honour, you cant judge me, you've put robbers behind bars before, you're clearly biased...
Cdebru, you are being ridiculous, but just to follow your logic on further, perhaps you should post here via an intermediary as you are clearly republican and ergo biased in your approach to this thread...
See where that logic goes?

No but i would think the judge would be unacceptable if it was his house that had been robbed

do you see where the logic is going at least three of these people have been intricately involved in the situation in the North for most of their working lives
to call them Independent is a joke
what are they Independent of the british government NO
the irish government NO
unionism NO
an american administration who posters on here are all to eager to point out are no friends of the provisional republican movement NO

Earthman wrote:

Yet you provide me with no reason why...

No you just dont accept it there is a difference

Earthman wrote:

The elected government of the Republic of Ireland.

come off it then why do the unionist not just have the British government looking out for them

Earthman wrote:

Ergo by your standards Clinton was never neutral, yet he was welcomed.

was clinton in the CIA i was not aware of that but sure you can find a link

Earthman wrote:

Nice touch cdebru,after presenting me with nothing concrete to affect the balanced make up of the IMC, you go in and effectively say its alright to have Alderdice there.

I did not say that alderdice was OK i said he was the easiest to see where he is coming from and as such could never be described as Independent
of the Four he is the least spook/securicrat as mcguinness calls them

Earthman wrote:

I'm not convinced -go back to the drawing board and see if you can make a more arguable case.

I dont care for your condescending atitude
I have explained why I dont find them acceptable nor independent you have chosen not to accept those reasons and i doubt you would ever accept it so there would not be much point in trying to convince you

Earthman wrote:

Otherwise, I return to the position I stated earlier, you don't like this IMC because it's telling the public that an organisation that is supposed to be interested in peace is upon evaluation of the information available actually training for another illegal war.

you return to what ever position you want
I have told you why I dont accept what the IMC say if you choose not to believe that is your problem


I dont believe that anyone from the UK or Ireland (especially not people with links to the organisations who are providing the "intelligence") should be on a commission that is supposed to be monitoring Independently it is not just the 3 individuals I believe that if a group was to be Independent it would have to be made up from people outside of these Islands

and personally I would never trust anyone from the CIA


If you believe that the PIRA are training for another campaign then you seriously have no idea about the Provisional movement there is absolutely no desire within the provisional movement to return to armed struggle in fact the only struggle they are engaged in is how to rid themselves of the PIRA as soon as possible.

mycroft

do you see where the logic is going at least three of these people have been intricately involved in the situation in the North for most of their working lives

Please provide evidence were all three (CIA, Justice dept, and Met officer) have been intricately involved.

jman0

mycroft wrote:

And again I'm seriouslu giving thought to a subclause of godwins law

I've heard you use that phrase before but i've no idea what it means, so i googled it:

"Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that: There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law

So apparently you've lost the battle.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

I calls em like I sees em.

well i would call them like it i see em but they ban you for that

mycroft wrote:

No it's not deriding the political affilation and make up of an organisation, without suggesting a pratical alternative, is just armchair bitching.

be realistic please Mycroft the practical alternative is people who are not associated in anyway with a political party in the north or the intelligence gathering agencies
I dont think anyone fron the UK or Ireland should be on it

mycroft wrote:

Buh? The USA helped broker the peace agreement, the CIA is the US's outside intelligence agency, so we've got an independent foreign party, who's been favourable to the Irish American and republican movement for decades, using a member of their external intelligence service, and it's not good enough for you?

come on mycroft your contradicting your recent statements about how the US is a cold house for the provisionals now

and how has the US governement been favourable to the Provisionals for decades examples please

and I seriously doubt you honestly have alot of time for the CIA yourself

mycroft wrote:

Again, you've no proof to back this assertion.

tell me where else are they getting intelligence from

mycroft wrote:

And whats sooooo funnier is that Morrison ignored a far bigger bloody nose in the form of a certain Cunnigham who won his seat, and whats sooooo funnier is that that shut you up on another thread.

I presume that is a reply to someone else be a dear and put the name of the person you are quoting in the quote
otherwise it looks like you are replying to me

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

I've heard you use that phrase before but i've no idea what it means, so i googled it:

"Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that: There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law

So apparently you've lost the battle.

Boom;

jmano "christ what was that?"

mycroft "oh that was the sonic boom"

jmano "sonic what?"

mycroft "the sonic boom of my point flying waayyyyy over your head"

jmano, my point is anyone who tries to justify illegal or immoral behaviour by comparing that to equally abhorant behaviour by the otherside, has already lost the argument.

But hey there you are on another thread ranting about Robert Mc Cartney's behaviour towards a telly, so we can assume you posses the kind of moral "flexibility" necessary to be a republican.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

well i would call them like it i see em but they ban you for that

Feel free, you could use a banning. And I stand over my opinion of you.

be realistic please Mycroft the practical alternative is people who are not associated in anyway with a political party in the north or the intelligence gathering agencies
I dont think anyone fron the UK or Ireland should be on it

then whom, and how do they gather intelligence?

come on mycroft your contradicting your recent statements about how the US is a cold house for the provisionals now

yes now the change in wind has happened in the last six months, the IMC has been around for alot longer.

and how has the US governement been favourable to the Provisionals for decades examples please

Consistent visas for adams et all fundrasing trips? et all?

and I seriously doubt you honestly have alot of time for the CIA yourself

I don't, but I can provide specific examples of activity which I don't support, or object to. You can't in this instance. You merely assume anyone who works for the CIA is evil.

tell me where else are they getting intelligence from

Exactly and you've yet to provide a single example of where they could gather intelligence from, or from whom. Necessity dictates their role. You've yet to provide evidence it's skewed or they're skewing it.

I presume that is a reply to someone else be a dear and put the name of the person you are quoting in the quote
otherwise it looks like you are replying to me

That poster knows who they are......

jman0

mycroft wrote:

jmano, my point is anyone who tries to justify illegal or immoral behaviour by comparing that to equally abhorant behaviour by the otherside, has already lost the argument.

I suppose then, that you've missed the point of my linking today's breaking news about a teenager shot in east belfast.
The point was to demonstrate what a non-event that is, to (sarcasm): really moral lads like you (/sarcasm) when such deeds are performed by loyalists contrasted to the almighty whinging you "really moral lads" do when it's done by republicans.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

I suppose then, that you've missed the point of my linking today's breaking news about a teenager shot in east belfast.
The point was to demonstrate what a non-event that is, to (sarcasm): really moral lads like you (/sarcasm) when such deeds are performed by loyalists contrasted to the almighty whinging you "really moral lads" do when it's done by republicans.

And if you wanted to write a thread about unionist violence, start a new thread, and discuss it there, by putting it on here you're trying to suggest that outrage over republican violence should be put in contrast with continued unionist violence, the implication being if both sides are at it, it's not as bad. Which is a fecking joke.

Suggesting it's someone elses fault (PSNI failure), or someone else is at it (unionist terror groups), is implied justification for continued IRA violence, no one put a gun in their hands and forced them to blow off a teenagers kneecaps, end of discussion.

And raising other acts of violence to dilute the outrage is the worst kind of apologist behaviour (aside from suggesting Robert Mc Cartney was asking for trouble making rude gestures at the telly)

jman0

mycroft wrote:

And raising other acts of violence to dilute the outrage is the worst kind of apologist behaviour (aside from suggesting Robert Mc Cartney was asking for trouble making rude gestures at the telly)

I didn't say he was making rude gestures at the telly, i said he appeared to make them at the ladies sitting at the table.
When confronted he claimed he was gesturing at the telly.
It's all in that RTE dramatisation, they assured us this is a reconstruction of events as told to them by "well informed sources", so that must mean it was true.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

So what does that have to do with what i posted

The US politicians are in charge of the CIA .

OK I don't speak for SF and I couldn't give a fiddlers what SF do with Republicans or Democrats
And Yes I would have a problem with both parties I see very little difference between them

Well ok the problem here is you arent the party complaining about the IMC, and SF are and at the same time they are willing to take help from any U.S politician when it suits them, the same politicians that are over the CIA.

You asked for a link I gave you one

and yes I do have a problem because I think anyone who was involved in countering the PIRA is unlikely to be impartial in his dealings with the Provisional republican movement
And considering his Former job was with the people who are now providing evidence to him I doubt he would question what he is being told

Well then you have a problem with the Irish government for the same reason...

No but i would think the judge would be unacceptable if it was his house that had been robbed

ah but the met man or the dept of justice man or the CIA man wasn't in that position ie personally dealing with the IRA they were just doing their job as described by the laws that set their jobs up.

do you see where the logic is going at least three of these people have been intricately involved in the situation in the North for most of their working lives
to call them Independent is a joke
what are they Independent of the british government NO
the irish government NO
unionism NO

You see here in lies the difficulty with your position, you don't trust the democratically elected Irish government, the government of the people whose support you need to unite the two parts of the island Thats a very invidious position to be coming from when you are talking about partiality.

an american administration who posters on here are all to eager to point out are no friends of the provisional republican movement NO

Well they are losing patience with them thats for sure, but like do you expect members of the IMC to ignore what the IRA is doing? Thats a bit much now given what its purpose is.

No you just dont accept it there is a difference

you've provided me with nothing only your own conjecture thus far.
The only difference between your position and that of SF, is that you dont two time, ie you are consistant with respect to all of the U.S authorities apparently unlike SF and to be frank thats rather unusual but gallant.

come off it then why do the unionist not just have the British government looking out for them

Because they feel they have a united Ireland agenda?

was clinton in the CIA i was not aware of that but sure you can find a link

You know well what I'm saying, SF are willing to put down the CIA yet accept their political masters when it suits them.

I did not say that alderdice was OK i said he was the easiest to see where he is coming from and as such could never be described as Independent
of the Four he is the least spook/securicrat as mcguinness calls them

Theres more of it, you call a long standing employee of the department of justice of the democratically elected Irish government a spook securicat.
If the dept of justice is so untrustworthy, if the non SF members of the Dáil are so untrustworthy, how do they get elected in the first place.
Theres no grounds whatsoever to your position.

I have explained why I dont find them acceptable nor independent you have chosen not to accept those reasons and i doubt you would ever accept it so there would not be much point in trying to convince you

you haven't even come close to convince me as instead of offering evidence, all you can give is conjecture and diss the elected government of this country.

you return to what ever position you want
I have told you why I dont accept what the IMC say if you choose not to believe that is your problem

I've never said that I have a problem with your beliefs,I'm just asking for you to give me more than conjecture.

I dont believe that anyone from the UK or Ireland (especially not people with links to the organisations who are providing the "intelligence") should be on a commission that is supposed to be monitoring Independently it is not just the 3 individuals I believe that if a group was to be Independent it would have to be made up from people outside of these Islands

and personally I would never trust anyone from the CIA

nor from the dept of justice or the government or the Dáil, except maybe SF t.d's apparently.

If you believe that the PIRA are training for another campaign then you seriously have no idea about the Provisional movement there is absolutely no desire within the provisional movement to return to armed struggle in fact the only struggle they are engaged in is how to rid themselves of the PIRA as soon as possible.

And the provisionals do that by training?

jman0

Earthman wrote:

And the provisionals do that by training?

Maybe they are training in non-violence strategies.
You know, so they might be better able to prevent rioting, while they steward protests and marches.
Like i said earlier, your IMC report doesn't detail what sort of training, as far as i know.

gandalf

cdebru wrote:

I dont care for your condescending atitude .

OK banned for 2 weeks for an unnecessary personal insult.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Maybe they are training in non-violence strategies.
You know, so they might be better able to prevent rioting, while they steward protests and marches.
Like i said earlier, your IMC report doesn't detail what sort of training, as far as i know.

It's not my report but there is a representative of the Irish government on there looking at the same things as the other three.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

It's not my report but there is a representative of the Irish government on there looking at the same things as the other three.

Ok well you are the one with the problem of the IRA training, tell us: what training are they doing? Surely that is important.