[Article] IRA still training recruits, says IMC

jman0

jman0 wrote:

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

Perhaps you should ask the IMC

jman0

Earthman wrote:

Perhaps you should ask the IMC

I don't need to, i choose to disregard whatever they say.
However, you believe them, so ... answer the question.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

I don't need to, i choose to disregard whatever they say.
However, you believe them, so ... answer the question.

To answer that question I'd have to have access to what they have access to, and of course you know I don't.
I can however direct you to their statement if you like and to my discussion here on this thread asking for more than conjecture to ground what you and cdebru believe is their partiality.
Did it ever occur to you that I might agree with your position regarding the IMC, if you could only reasonably convince me with something other than conjecture?

cdebru's conjecture on who is impartial stretched to excluding practically everybody on the island-further testing my ability to take the conjecture seriously.

mycroft

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.

And maybe they're all wearing tut tuts and learning the dance of the sugar plum fairies......

I've stewarded marches and I didn't need to be trained by some illegal paramilitary organisation.

I do so love how you are giving the benefit of the doubt to a paramilitary organisation but happily use conjecture and speculation to dismiss representives from three elected governments.

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.

The implication of this is that this justifies what occured? Does it jamn0? Is that what you're saying, I'm assuming it does, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Earthman wrote:

Thats a very invidious position

Bonus points for using invidious, incidently didn't I see him in the lastest star wars? ba dum cha dum.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

did it ever occur to you i might agree with your position regarding the IMC, if you could only reasonably convince me with something other than conjecture?

Not for a moment Earthman.
I see that you offer only conjecture yerself, it would appear.

jman0

mycroft wrote:

The implication of this is that this justifies what occured? Does it jamn0? Is that what you're saying, I'm assuming it does, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

No mycroft. I'm entertaining a bit of victim blaming the SF basher crowd are so fond of.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

Not for a moment Earthman.
I see that you offer only conjecture yerself, it would appear.

no we have

from the OP;

The report reflects security concerns that the IRA remains “battle ready” and is continuing to train, recruit and target.

You have conjecture and speculation about the politics of the IMC, and want us to believe the IRA are recruiting and training for the south armagh brigade's performance of "south pacific"

No mycroft. I'm entertaining a bit of victim blaming the SF basher crowd are so fond of.

Really where? Where exactly has the "SF bashers" engaged in "victim blaming". Specific examples and quotes please.

See the only victim bashing I see here is apologist ilk like yourself tutting about punishment beatings and then saying "this would never happen if their was a proper police force".

Hydroquinone

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.

Are you suggesting that the IRA stewards marches and prevents rioting? How would that work? Who'd be doing the rioting?
If it was fellow republicans, surely they'd support their people and help them to riot?

And if it was anyone else, why should those rioters listen to or be stewarded by the IRA? Why should one of those rioters not ring the Gards or the PSNI and say "There's one of them stewards here, and they're all IRA now, so you might as well come and arrest him, Gard/Constable"

Though I suppose if we don't know what sort of training the IRA are doing, we might as well say that they are training to become hairdressers or bakers.
Sounds just about as likely to me as the notion that any kind of on-going training for an illegal paramilitary organisation could be anything but violent.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

I see that you offer only conjecture yerself, it would appear.

How so? I'm starting out from the position that the elected government of this country has a representative on the IMC who is satisfied with its report, wheres the conjecture on my part? I've asked for more than conjecture before I could reasonably shift my position.In fact I've asked for it all along and not got it.

jman0

Hydroquinone wrote:

Are you suggesting that the IRA stewards marches and prevents rioting? How would that work? Who'd be doing the rioting?

Sounds just about as likely to me as the notion that any kind of on-going training for an illegal paramilitary organisation could be anything but violent.

1) it is well known SF steward marches and attempt to stop rioting. SF and the IRA are the same orgainsation according to the SF Bashers on this board.
2) I already provided a link which spells out in detail anti-interrogation training a volunteer receives, this is non-violence. In fact, it s a non-violent response to state violence.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

How so? I'm starting out from the position that the elected government of this country has a representative on the IMC who is satisfied with its report, wheres the conjecture on my part? I've asked for more than conjecture before I could reasonably shift my position.In fact I've asked for it all along and not got it.

Opinion is not fact Earthman.
Conjecture:
speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture"
guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence
speculate: to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds; "Scientists supposed that large dinosaurs lived in swamps"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1

So, what are your facts then Earthman, because i haven't seen any hard evidence of any of this IMC rubbish.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Opinion is not fact Earthman.
So, what are your facts then Earthman, because i haven't seen any hard evidence of any of this IMC rubbish.

My fact is that there is an Irish Government representative on the IMC.
My opinion is that I have yet to see evidence discrediting that representative or the government who appointed him to it, or for that matter any of the T.D's in the Dáil who accept the IMC as a body credible enough to examine what paramilitaries are up to.

All you have posted thus far in relation to the IMC are mostly sound bites.

Villain

And all the IMC have is an opinion, the government of this state may accept that but obviously they don't have any real evidence if they did surely the Sinn Fein leadership would be arrested for withholding evidence, no?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

And all the IMC have is an opinion, the government of this state may accept that but obviously they don't have any real evidence if they did surely the Sinn Fein leadership would be arrested for withholding evidence, no?

Whats the arrest of the SF leadership got to do with the IMC? Are you conjecting that the IMC have something on the SF leadership?

jman0

So let me get this straight Earthman
Your "fact" about IRA training is that there is a member of the IMC that has been appointed by the RoI.
And if the IMC say so, then IRA training is therefore a fact.
That being the case, it seems strange that while such activity may be illegal under RoI law, there have been no arrests of PIRA people training.
Now if the word of the IMC is impeccable and is thereby FACT, then i don't understand why this doesn't materialise in court, why the authorities don't prosecute somebody for this IRA training that is taking place.

Maybe the reality of the situation is that IRA training is only a rumor, or maybe the word of the IMC is really just conjecture, and is not fact.
Perhaps you could expound on this Earthman because i for one, am not prepared to accept a RoI appointed member of the IMC's word as fact.
Why should we?
Did you see the piece mentioned earlier about the wrongful convictions based on lying Gardai?

Hydroquinone

jman0 wrote:

1) it is well known SF steward marches and attempt to stop rioting. SF and the IRA are the same orgainsation according to the SF Bashers on this board.
2) I already provided a link which spells out in detail anti-interrogation training a volunteer receives, this is non-violence. In fact, it s a non-violent response to state violence.

Members of SF can steward all they like, as long as it can't be proved that they belong to any illegal organisations. SF members can steward all they like till kingdom come. (Or Kingdom go, I suppose; might be more apt )

But this thread is about the IMC saying that the IRA were still training. Not SF. So when you said training might include anti-riot behaviour I presumed you meant the IRA, as distinct from SF.
I haven't said that the IRA and SF are the same. And I can't think that you are saying it now.

You're not an SF Basher. In fact, from what I've seen on here and using your own parlance; you are an SF Basher Basher. So why say now that you meant SF when the topic was the IRA ?

jman0

jman0 wrote:

So let me get this straight Earthman
Your "fact" about IRA training is that there is a member of the IMC that has been appointed by the RoI.

Yup thats a fact I presented here yes.

And if the IMC say so, then IRA training is therefore a fact.

I didnt say that,I asked where the evidence of bias was rather than the conjecture of bias and what I got back was a trail of conjecture leading back to the partiality every man woman and child on the island apparently.

That being the case, it seems strange that while such activity may be illegal under RoI law, there have been no arrests of PIRA people training.
Now if the word of the IMC is impeccable and is thereby FACT, then i don't understand why this doesn't materialise in court, why the authorities don't prosecute somebody for this IRA training that is taking place.Maybe the reality of the situation is that IRA training is only a rumor, or maybe the word of the IMC is really just conjecture, and is not fact.
Perhaps you could expound on this Earthman because i for one, am not prepared to accept a RoI appointed member of the IMC's word as fact.
Why should we?

You're conjecting again.

Did you see the piece mentioned earlier about the wrongful convictions based on lying Gardai?

Don't be dragging us off topic, set up another thread for that,I'd be afraid irish1 would report us for going off topic

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Whats the arrest of the SF leadership got to do with the IMC? Are you conjecting that the IMC have something on the SF leadership?

Was it not on the back of an IMC report that their westminister expenses were stopped due to their alleged connection with the Northern Bank Robbery???

jman0

Earthman wrote:

I asked where the evidence of bias

I see, well that will be harder to prove, if it's even possible.
However the fact that we see RoI politicians strolling about trying to bolster an ailing minority nationalist party (sdlp) isn't exactly evidence of impartiality now is it.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

I see, well that will be harder to prove, if it's even possible.
However the fact that we see RoI politicians strolling about trying to bolster an ailing minority nationalist party (sdlp) isn't exactly evidence of impartiality now is it.

ahem

anychance you'll support the claim below

jamn0 wrote:

I'm entertaining a bit of victim blaming the SF basher crowd are so fond of.

Really where? Where exactly has the "SF bashers" engaged in "victim blaming". Specific examples and quotes please.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Was it not on the back of an IMC report that their westminister expenses were stopped due to their alleged connection with the Northern Bank Robbery???

Yes but why are you bringing that up in a thread discussing what they have to say about the IRA now and an entire 7 or 8 pages devoted to the IMC's credibility?
You're bringing up an entirely different subject ie that the UK government believe that IRA activity is so inextricably linked to SF that they will sanction them when they are of the understanding that activity from the IRA is on go ing.

I suggest rather than go off topic, you take the option of the post new thread button.

jman0 wrote:

I see, well that will be harder to prove, if it's even possible.

Remind you of anything else already? Yup thats right the old addage that its hard or impossible to prove that Adams and McGuinnes are on the IRA army council.
Allied to the conjecture about that,you will see republicans protesting prove it, knowing the impossibility of that.
With regard to opinion, everyone is up against that all the time and it counts, so its best to leave many a hornets nests alone.
But again thats a topic for a different thread.

However the fact that we see RoI politicians strolling about trying to bolster an ailing minority nationalist party (sdlp) isn't exactly evidence of impartiality now is it.

With regards to the IRA? I wasnt aware that the IRA were standing for election in the north.
Go ask Irish1, I've a feeling he'll tell you that SF and the IRA are totally separate and that a vote for SF has nothing to do with the IRA-ergo from that stand point Dublin politicians associating with Belfast ones arent indicative of much besides friendly relations and certainly not indicative of the bias I've been asking for ye to show me all along.


Oh Again stay on topic folks please

jman0

mycroft wrote:

anychance you'll support the claim below

Specifically: SF bashers blaming the parents and priest during the Holy Cross "dispute".
I wasn't on this board then, nor do i know if it was even functioning; but you well know what i mean.
Also, i've heard SF bashers blaming the victims of Bloody Sunday for that massacre (not on this board......yet, but i'm watching, o yes i'm watching....)

jman0

Earthman wrote:

With regards to the IRA? I wasnt aware that the IRA were standing for election in the north.

Bait and switch Earthman eh?
You know very well the mantra of the SF bashers aboard here is and has always been, that SF/IRA are the same organisation or are so inextricably linked that you cannot separate them.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Bait and switch Earthman eh?
You know very well the mantra of the SF bashers aboard here is and has always been, that SF/IRA are the same organisation or are so inextricably linked that you cannot separate them.

Well whether they are or not is for another thread, here we are talking about the IMC, and I think we've agreed that it's difficult or impossible to go beyond conjecture when trying to stick a charge of partiality on it.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

Well whether they are or not is for another thread, here we are talking about the IMC, and I think we've agreed that it's difficult or impossible to go beyond conjecture when trying to stick a charge of partiality on it.

What about the fact, or the perseption that the IMC is very long winded in their conjecture of IRA activity yet, are very short when talking about loyalists, despite the very obviousness that the loyalists commit more violence than republicans?
That smacks of partiality.

(i'm away for weekend now, so i'll have to pick up this thread monday)

jman0

jman0 wrote:

What about the fact, or the perseption that the IMC is very long winded in their conjecture of IRA activity yet, are very short when talking about loyalists, despite the very obviousness that the loyalists commit more violence than republicans?
That smacks of partiality.

Oh I believe the pup got a smack recently too.Nothing to suggest partiality there...

(i'm away for weekend now, so i'll have to pick up this thread monday)

Thats fine,enjoy your w/end

The temptation to add , don't do anything I wouldnt do is just too great

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

Specifically: SF bashers blaming the parents and priest during the Holy Cross "dispute".
I wasn't on this board then, nor do i know if it was even functioning; but you well know what i mean.
Also, i've heard SF bashers blaming the victims of Bloody Sunday for that massacre (not on this board......yet, but i'm watching, o yes i'm watching....)

So basically you're blaming our attitude on the attitude of people from another forum/place, about another issue.

How about you stick to the facts and what the posters here say, and what you can quote instead of browbeating the members of this board with your opinion of other people.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Yes but why are you bringing that up in a thread discussing what they have to say about the IRA now and an entire 7 or 8 pages devoted to the IMC's credibility?
You're bringing up an entirely different subject ie that the UK government believe that IRA activity is so inextricably linked to SF that they will sanction them when they are of the understanding that activity from the IRA is on go ing.

I suggest rather than go off topic, you take the option of the post new thread button.

Well my first point was that IMO the IMC don't appear to be working off hard facts just opinions. Then you asked me a question so I answered it. I don't think I've gone off topic any more than normal in a thread on the IRA. Surely we should be able to discuss what the IMC are working off when they publish reports in a thread about one of their reports.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Surely we should be able to discuss what the IMC are working off when they publish reports in a thread about one of their reports.

You wanted to discuss something along the lines of Westminister surcharging on the basis of an IMC report see the quote of the reply when I asked what the relevance of the SF leadership was to this thread

irish1 wrote:

Was it not on the back of an IMC report that their westminister expenses were stopped due to their alleged connection with the Northern Bank Robbery???

Now that yellow brick road most definitely leads to entirely different topic ie the relationship between the IRA and SF and a discussion on sanctions-new thread.

Back on topic everybody - thanks

Villain

Earthman wrote:

You wanted to discuss something along the lines of Westminister surcharging on the basis of an IMC report see the quote of the reply when I asked what the relevance of the SF leadership was to this thread
Now that yellow brick road most definitely leads to entirely different topic ie the relationship between the IRA and SF and a discussion on sanctions-new thread.

Back on topic everybody - thanks

But surely the IMC's role in that matter is on topic as it relates to what the IMC have said in the past and the inaction of the PSNI to convict people, does this not show that the IMC must not be working off real facts, i.e. evidence that could get a convinction in the courts?