[Article] IRA still training recruits, says IMC

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

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?

And once again the difference between knowledge and the ability to prove it is the issue here.

What intelligence says, and what will stand up in a court of law are two different things.

For example 3 men go into a bar, known senior UVF men, and go into an upstairs room, fifteen minutes later, two senior UUP members go in and go upstairs. Now you know they're not discussing the price of cheese, but can't prove it. It, ditto intelligence sources from informers who are capable of providing info but unwilling or would expose themselves if they revealed the source, and are too valuable to expose over some political point scoring.

Really irish1 this is pretty much just common sense.

furthermore the IMC is not a investigative criminal body, their job is not to report criminals but to monitor the peace process, by their very nature they were going to be exposed to crimes and terrorists, their remit was (among others) to monitor the decommisioning process, if they started exposing criminal acts, they would be in breach of their role, fundamentally for the peace process to work alot of criminal acts have to have a blind eye turned to them.

axer

mycroft wrote:

And once again the difference between knowledge and the ability to prove it is the issue here.

What intelligence says, and what will stand up in a court of law are two different things.

For example 3 men go into a bar, known senior UVF men, and go into an upstairs room, fifteen minutes later, two senior UUP members go in and go upstairs. Now you know they're not discussing the price of cheese, but can't prove it. It, ditto intelligence sources from informers who are capable of providing info but unwilling or would expose themselves if they revealed the source, and are too valuable to expose over some political point scoring.

Really irish1 this is pretty much just common sense.

furthermore the IMC is not a investigative criminal body, their job is not to report criminals but to monitor the peace process, by their very nature they were going to be exposed to crimes and terrorists, their remit was (among others) to monitor the decommisioning process, if they started exposing criminal acts, they would be in breach of their role, fundamentally for the peace process to work alot of criminal acts have to have a blind eye turned to them.

It may be common sense but it is still just speculation as to what they are talking about.

mycroft and others,
Do you believe that the IMC report is 100% unbiased?
Do you believe that there is no reason at all to even be a little suspecious as to the unbiasedness of the commission's members?

mycroft

axer wrote:

It may be common sense but it is still just speculation as to what they are talking about.

mycroft and others,
Do you believe that the IMC report is 100% unbiased?
Do you believe that there is no reason at all to even be a little suspecious as to the unbiasedness of the commission's members?

Has anyone here demonstrated that there is a biased?

Axer you do seem fond of answering a question with a question.....

axer

mycroft wrote:

Has anyone here demonstrated that there is a biased?

Axer you do seem fond of answering a question with a question.....

Answering what question with a question? It is you who has just tried to answer a question with a question.
I will answer any question you ask of me to the best of my ability.
How come you chose to not answer the question I have just posed?

mycroft

axer wrote:

Answering what question with a question? It is you who has just tried to answer a question with a question.
I will answer any question you ask of me to the best of my ability.
How come you chose to not answer the question I have just posed?

*Thunks head aganist keyboard.*

Because you are others have dismissed the IMC as biased, and have failed to offer proof.

Repeatdly rephrasing the question of bias isn't a form of rebuttal, demostrate to me that there is a bias, stop demanding I prove your point for you.

This is pretty basic stuff here axer.

axer

axer wrote:

Do you believe that the IMC report is 100% unbiased?

It's like life Axer, nobody is 100% pristine,I havent seen evidence here either that the IMC is 100% pristine or it's 4 members.
I most definitely have seen nothing from its detractors to say otherwise either.
But I'm willing to go with it based on the fact that virtually all the elected Dáil are happy with its make up and decision process.

axer

mycroft wrote:

*Thunks head aganist keyboard.*

Because you are others have dismissed the IMC as biased, and have failed to offer proof.

Repeatdly rephrasing the question of bias isn't a form of rebuttal, demostrate to me that there is a bias, stop demanding I prove your point for you.

This is pretty basic stuff here axer.

There is no way that it can be proven without reasonable doubt that each of these members are biased BUT the makeup of the commission and their backgrounds are enough to make me suspicious of their motives and unbiasedness.
If you do not believe that the commission is biased then why wont you answer the questions I asked - its only 2 questions.

Earthman wrote:

It's like life Axer, nobody is 100% pristine,I havent seen evidence here either that the IMC is 100% pristine or it's 4 members.
I most definitely have seen nothing from its detractors to say otherwise either.

So do you believe that there is no reason at all to even be a little suspecious as to the unbiasedness of the commission's members?

Earthman wrote:

But I'm willing to go with it based on the fact that virtually all the elected Dáil are happy with its make up and decision process.

But it is not attacking the credibility of any of the parties in the dail except sinn fein (who have only 2? members in the dail) so why would the rest have a problem with it. The other parties have shown time and time again that they are worried about the increase in sinn fein support in the south. This report - attempting to blacken sinn fein - is a help to them.

mycroft

axer wrote:

There is no way that it can be proven without reasonable doubt that each of these members are biased BUT the makeup of the commission and their backgrounds are enough to make me suspicious of their motives and unbiasedness.
If you do not believe that the commission is biased then why wont you answer the questions I asked - its only 2 questions.

Again as earthman said it's not impossible;

However you've not demostrated that they are biased, you've just said theres a suspicion that they may be biased, you not given an evidence that this is true.

So do you believe that there is no reason at all to even be a little suspecious as to the unbiasedness of the commission's members?

I'll explain your logic using a parrabel.

axer "Nixon personally shot JFK"

mycroft "No he didn't"

Axer "Don't deny theres a possibility, he had means and motive don't deny theres a chance"

mycroft "okay it's not beyond on the realm of reason"

Axer "Hey everybody Nixon shot JFK, mycroft said so"

you've gone from completely dismissing the IMC's report to asking us on the basis of conjecture and speculation, to believe the IMC has a bias.

But it is not attacking the credibility of any of the parties in the dail except sinn fein (who have only 2? members in the dail)

Um no other party in the Dail has a paramilitary wing?

so why would the rest have a problem with it. The other parties have shown time and time again that they are worried about the increase in sinn fein support in the south. This report - attempting to blacken sinn fein - is a help to them.

You've now speculating that Trevor Sargent, Mary Harney, Pat Rabbite, Enda Kenny, Joe Higgin, Bertie Ahern, and Jackie Healy Ray meet once a week behind closed doors with brandy and cigars and plot the collaspe of SF's power base.

axer

axer wrote:

So do you believe that there is no reason at all to even be a little suspecious as to the unbiasedness of the commission's members?

If you want to take that approach,I may aswell and you may aswell close the door in the room and not go out anymore because I must question the slightest possibility of everything.
It's dangerous so I'm staying put.
On second thoughts,I'll carry on with my current standards, theres pubs to go to tonight

But it is not attacking the credibility of any of the parties in the dail except sinn fein (who have only 2? members in the dail)

Iirc SF have 5 Dáil members.

so why would the rest have a problem with it. The other parties have shown time and time again that they are worried about the increase in sinn fein support in the south. This report - attempting to blacken sinn fein - is a help to them.

You could look at it another way, the tribunals are on go-ing and most of the bad stuff that came out of them harms FF, yet the tribunals exist.
It would appear to be democracy in action.

shltter

Can I ask anybody if they can prove that the report and the members of the IMC are unbiased

Isn't a fact that both governments would much prefer if the SDLP were the dominant party on the nationalist side
that they believe that if the SDLP was the dominant party their job in securing a deal would be much easier
Now is it also true that 2 of the representatives on the IMC are representing their respective Governments A third is a unionist and the fourth is a representative of a foreign government very friendly with both the British and Irish Governments.

there for is it possible if not likely that the IMC are working to an Agenda that both Governements would prefer ie the undermining of Sinn Fein and hopefully there replacement as dominant nationalist party with the SDLP which would make both governments jobs much easier in eventually convincing the DUP to share power if the deputy first minister was from the SDLP

If that is not the agenda why were people closely linked with the establishment in both countries chosen for the IMC why not as in the case of the decommissioning body were people not chosen from countries with not particular interest one way or the other

Surely if the IMC was made up of a norwegian and a south african some one from the UN or something it would add credibility to the report and make it harder for republicans to dismiss

the Irish government also has another obvious motive for wanting to undermine SF the growth of the party in the 26 counties and noone can ignorre or deny the obviious shift that took place in the governments atitude to SF after the last local elections
and compounded by the European elections

Yes nobody can prove definite Bias just as Supporters of the IMC cannot prove Unbias I dont expect that we will find a memo anywhere detailing the planned bias
But by selecting people so closely associated with the establishment for what is supposed to be independent monitoring the governments have at the very least left themselves open to calls of bias surely if the facts are as the IMC say there is no need to have people so closely linked to both governments to deliver such a report .

shltter

shltter wrote:

Can I ask anybody if they can prove that the report and the members of the IMC are unbiased

When you start asking that question, you must ask it of everybody about everything everywhere-cue everything everywhere grinding to a halt while we sort that one out.

Isn't a fact that both governments would much prefer if the SDLP were the dominant party on the nationalist side
that they believe that if the SDLP was the dominant party their job in securing a deal would be much easier

For to run with that line of reasoning you would have to think that politicians down here are of the view that connections with the IRA today harm SF's vote in NI, and of course they don't and politicians here are savvy enough to know that.

Now is it also true that 2 of the representatives on the IMC are representing their respective Governments A third is a unionist and the fourth is a representative of a foreign government very friendly with both the British and Irish Governments.

Is this another way of dissing the democratically elected government of the 26 counties and of course the Dáil for not disapproving of their representative on the IMC? Thats getting a bit tired in this thread methinks.As regards the U.S, It's already been pointed out that republicans are happy to use them when it suits them, so that accusation holds no water either.You cant be crying bias with one thing they do and happily accepting their help in other matters.

there for is it possible if not likely that the IMC are working to an Agenda that both Governements would prefer ie the undermining of Sinn Fein and hopefully there replacement as dominant nationalist party with the SDLP which would make both governments jobs much easier in eventually convincing the DUP to share power if the deputy first minister was from the SDLP

more conjecture based on the previous conjecture.

If that is not the agenda why were people closely linked with the establishment in both countries chosen for the IMC why not as in the case of the decommissioning body were people not chosen from countries with not particular interest one way or the other

Again this is based on the conjecture that they are biased and that the Dáil is biased and ergo the people of Ireland who voted for that Dáil are biased.

Surely if the IMC was made up of a norwegian and a south african some one from the UN or something it would add credibility to the report and make it harder for republicans to dismiss

I'd imagine they'd still be saying the Gardaí are biased.

the Irish government also has another obvious motive for wanting to undermine SF the growth of the party in the 26 counties and noone can ignorre or deny the obviious shift that took place in the governments atitude to SF after the last local elections
and compounded by the European elections

Well I think you'll find that McDowell was always never missing an opportunity to speak his mind on this topic for a long time prior to those elections.
Ahern on the other hand didnt speak his mind on the subject as negatively or as often as now untill more than 7 months after those elections and after the Northern bank robbery and after the negotiations for the last settlement broke down.

That 7 month wait for this obvious shift that you speak of makes it rather less obvious than you make out.

shltter

well obviously it is conjecture as I said no one can prove that the IMC was set up to be biased
But it is also Conjecture to base an opinion on the belief that the IMC is unbiased as there is no evidence to prove they are not

and in fact the report of the IMC could be dimissed as conjecture as no proof is provided to establish what it alleges is fact

So if your reply is my arguement is just conjecture then I'am afraid so is yours that the IMC is unbiased
and we can dismiss the IMC report as conjecture

"Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork."

shltter

shltter wrote:

But it is also Conjecture to base an opinion on the belief that the IMC is unbiased as there is no evidence to prove they are not.

No generally when there is no evidence to say that someone is not something then it is not conjecture,it is fact.

and in fact the report of the IMC could be dimissed as conjecture as no proof is provided to establish what it alleges is fact

You would have to ask the Irish government that as their representative is on the IMC and reporting to them.You are not ever going to get the Gardaí to publish their inteligence, that would be ridiculous.
In fact you are now conjecting as to what is being put in front of the IMC.

So if your reply is my arguement is just conjecture then I'am afraid so is yours that the IMC is unbiased
and we can dismiss the IMC report as conjecture

Nice try but see above.

"Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork."

Again all you are doing now is conjecting on what evidence is in front of the IMC without seeing it yourself.
Whereas what I am doing is accepting the confidence of the democratically elected Dáil in the process.

shltter

Earthman wrote:

No generally when there is no evidence to say that someone is not something then it is not conjecture,it is fact.

like if there is no evidence that they are unbiased

Earthman wrote:

You would have to ask the Irish government that as their representative is on the IMC and reporting to them.You are not ever going to get the Gardaí to publish their inteligence, that would be ridiculous.
In fact you are now conjecting as to what is being put in front of the IMC.


Nice try but see above.

No it is conjecture unless your suggesting that the IMC has all the evidence and facts in front of them which you have no way of knowing

Earthman wrote:

Again all you are doing now is conjecting on what evidence is in front of the IMC without seeing it yourself.
Whereas what I am doing is accepting the confidence of the democratically elected Dáil in the process.

and so are you

the Dail did not establish the IMC or vote on who its representative to the IMC should be

but even if they had it would not prove that they were wrong unless you are saying the Dail is infallible

shltter

shltter wrote:

like if there is no evidence that they are unbiased

I'd have to ask what you would be complaining about in that circumstance, seeing as you are putting it like that.

No it is conjecture unless your suggesting that the IMC has all the evidence and facts in front of them which you have no way of knowing

I've not conjected what the IMC has in front of them,I've said that what is put in front of them comes from several sources including the Gardaí.There is a huge difference.

the Dail did not establish the IMC or vote on who its representative to the IMC should be

I've two facts that I can give you in relation to that and one is that the Irish government put their own representative onto the IMC and the second is that the Dáil overwhelmingly passed a motion recentlypartly based on information put foward by the IMC.Both of those are indicative of the Dáils confidence in that body.

but even if they had it would not prove that they were wrong unless you are saying the Dail is infallible

Well to be frank with you on this issue,I'd have to take them seriously as we are talking about the bulk of the islands political representatives.

shltter

sorry
like there is no evidence that they are NOT unbiaised

shltter

Earthman wrote:

I'
I've not conjected what the IMC has in front of them,I've said that what is put in front of them comes from several sources including the Gardaí.There is a huge difference.


I've two facts that I can give you in relation to that and one is that the Irish government put their own representative onto the IMC and the second is that the Dáil overwhelmingly passed a motion recentlypartly based on information put foward by the IMC.Both of those are indicative of the Dáils confidence in that body.

Well to be frank with you on this issue,I'd have to take them seriously as we are talking about the bulk of the islands political representatives.

well the name of the thread is that the IMC says the IRA is still recruiting and training
now if to ask if the IMC is an biased body is conjecture to insist they are not is equally conjecture

and irrespective of how the Dail votes if they voted based on the conjecture of the IMC report the vote is conjecture ie a decision based on not all the facts

since the IMC do not provide any solid basis for the allegations other than intelligence from various groups and as recent events in Iraq have shown intelligence is merely conjecture

shltter

shltter wrote:

now if to ask if the IMC is an biased body is conjecture to insist they are not is equally conjecture

Oh I see you are only asking if the IMC is biased, you're not telling us that it is? Well asking about something isn't conjecture at all-stating it would be-so after all this you're not convinced yourself then because you're only asking the question, you're not stating it?

and irrespective of how the Dail votes if they voted based on the conjecture of the IMC report the vote is conjecture ie a decision based on not all the facts

Hang on now where are you getting that the IMC is basing its findings on conjecture-Are you conjecting again?

since the IMC do not provide any solid basis for the allegations other than intelligence from various groups and as recent events in Iraq have shown intelligence is merely conjecture

I doubt that the Gardaí inteligence that led them to Lusk during the week was mere conjecture.
Also the Gardaí to the best of my knowledge were never in Iraq, nor had they anything to do with it.

shltter

Earthman wrote:

Oh I see you are only asking if the IMC is biased, you're not telling us that it is? Well asking about something isn't conjecture at all-stating it would be-so after all this you're not convinced yourself then because you're only asking the question, you're not stating it?

well stating that it maybe biased obviously as i have already stated bias or unbias can not be proven either way

Earthman wrote:

Hang on now where are you getting that the IMC is basing its findings on conjecture-Are you conjecting again?

No that is a fact look up the definition of Conjecture to form an opinion without all the evidence as the IMC could not have all the evidence or people would have been arraested and charged with the offences in the report

Earthman wrote:

I doubt that the Gardaí inteligence that led them to Lusk during the week was mere conjecture.
Also the Gardaí to the best of my knowledge were never in Iraq, nor had they anything to do with it.

obviously intelligence agencies can be right but so can conjecture

but the IMC does not just base it opinions on garda intelligence
and intelligence agencies wether Irish british or american use similar methods of gathering intelligence

shltter

shltter wrote:

well stating that it maybe biased obviously as i have already stated bias or unbias can not be proven either way

You shouldn't be changing your position from statement to question and back to statement again, it's either one or the other, you've clarified that its your statement so we are back to conjecture.

No that is a fact look up the definition of Conjecture to form an opinion without all the evidence as the IMC could not have all the evidence or people would have been arraested and charged with the offences in the report

you don't know what evidence the IMC has so you are conjecting again and quite frankly repeating the same stuff without answering any of my pleas to provide more than conjecture.

obviously intelligence agencies can be right but so can conjecture

So you've now decided that you are right and thats that eh? nothing else needed.

But the IMC does not just base it opinions on garda intelligence
and intelligence agencies wether Irish british or american use similar methods of gathering intelligence

We dont know what is in front of the IMC and you are just conjecting again...

shltter

Earthman wrote:

You shouldn't be changing your position from statement to question and back to statement again, it's either one or the other, you've clarified that its your statement so we are back to conjecture.

I never stated as a fact that they are biased. I gave an opinion that they maybe I have already stated a few times that at this time bias or a lack of it cannot be proven
So I have an opinion that they maybe you have an opinion that they may not be

Earthman wrote:

you don't know what evidence the IMC has so you are conjecting again and quite frankly repeating the same stuff without answering any of my pleas to provide more than conjecture.

well are you saying that the IMC have all the evidence to form their opinion available to them
How do you know this as no proof is provided in their reports as to how they came to their conclusions
If you are saying that they have concrete irrefutable proof to back up these allegations why has that evidence not been acted on to bring people to justice or even charge people
the only logical conclusion is that they are basing there allegations and assesments on the partial evidence and hearsay of intelligence reports not on anything concrete that could be brought to court
ie conjecture

Earthman wrote:

So you've now decided that you are right and thats that eh? nothing else needed.

No i have merely stated that conjecture can actually turn out to be correct that would include mine yours and the IMCs

Earthman wrote:

We dont know what is in front of the IMC and you are just conjecting again...

we know that what ever is in front of them in regards to the allegations against the PIRA and SF no one has been charged with training people
none of the leadership of SF have been charged in connection with the Northern Bank robbery which one would expect if there was evidence that they gave approval and had prior knowledge for example so whatever they have it is not all the facts or evidence
and as such it is conjecture

shltter

shltter wrote:

I never stated as a fact that they are biased. I gave an opinion that they maybe I have already stated a few times that at this time bias or a lack of it cannot be proven
So I have an opinion that they maybe you have an opinion that they may not be

I'm glad you are clarifying your opinion as opinion,I think I've already stated that I've allowed that it is just your opinion.
We all have opinions on everything including on the IMC, but trying to ascertain what the IMC has seen to come to its view would be just conjecture.

well are you saying that the IMC have all the evidence to form their opinion available to them

I get the feeling you'd like me to say that,I have said many times I don't know what the IMC has in front of it, but the government does have access to the information provided by the Dublin authorities

How do you know this as no proof is provided in their reports as to how they came to their conclusions

how do I know that you have not got knowledge of what the IMC has in front of them? ah come on now don't start getting that ridiculous.

If you are saying that they have concrete irrefutable proof to back up these allegations why has that evidence not been acted on to bring people to justice or even charge people

Perhaps they don't want to comprimise their inteligence, that however would be conjecture.You'll either have to ask the authorities providinfg information to the IMC what it is, or break into their offices to find that one out.

the only logical conclusion is that they are basing there allegations and assesments on the partial evidence and hearsay of intelligence reports not on anything concrete that could be brought to court

No that would be conjecture.
You can conject in another thread as to why the authorities don't press charges,this ones about the IMC.

No i have merely stated that conjecture can actually turn out to be correct that would include mine yours and the IMCs

Oh so you were saying then that you could be wrong? I could be too by the way but I'd rather not conject about it,I'd prefer to deliberate on something more concrete.

we know that what ever is in front of them in regards to the allegations against the PIRA and SF no one has been charged with training people
none of the leadership of SF have been charged in connection with the Northern Bank robbery which one would expect if there was evidence that they gave approval and had prior knowledge for example so whatever they have it is not all the facts or evidence
and as such it is conjecture

As per above, conjecture as to what the authorities decide to do can go to another thread, rather than one to discuss the IMC.

shltter

It is part of any discussion on the IMC if what they are alleging is to be treated as anything other than conjecture the obvious question is why is it not acted on.

If the authorities that give the intelligence to the IMC have anything concrete then surely it would be acted on particularly the allegations in relation to the northern bank robbery or the training allegation if there is proof that this training is happening why are these people not arrested

the IMC is producing reports and making allegations upon which the secretary of state can remove parties from office without ever having to back up these claims or prove any of them
Surely this is undemocratic at the very least

shltter

shltter wrote:

It is part of any discussion on the IMC if what they are alleging is to be treated as anything other than conjecture the obvious question is why is it not acted on.

no its not, its dragging the thing off course alltogether, you could start to a new thread though and link back to this one.

If the authorities that give the intelligence to the IMC have anything concrete then surely it would be acted on particularly the allegations in relation to the northern bank robbery or the training allegation if there is proof that this training is happening why are these people not arrested

We would have to conject as to what the authorities are doing, there could be as I said earlier an on going inteligence operation that they dont want to comprimise-now thats for a different thread.

the IMC is producing reports and making allegations upon which the secretary of state can remove parties from office without ever having to back up these claims or prove any of them
Surely this is undemocratic at the very least

The IMC is providing information to the democratically elected authorities.
As you know, no sanctions have been leveled at SF politicians south of the border.
The sanctions in the North though were put to a democratic vote in the House of Commons.
Now I know that you may not agree with the House of commons juridiction in the North but thats a separate matter and again a separate tangent for a separate thread.
In relation to the IMC, the democratically elected Dáil have indicated their satisfaction with it given that they overwhelmingly passed a motion recently based in part on an IMC report.

Now have you anything new to add or must we continue to circle the wagons?

Villain

Earthman can I ask why you constantly insist on new threads been created surely it would be better to let a dicussion broaden rather than start a new thread everytime a related matter is brought up??

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Earthman can I ask why you constantly insist on new threads been created surely it would be better to let a dicussion broaden rather than start a new thread everytime a related matter is brought up??

I would suggest you bring that up in the discussion on the rules thread and not be off topic with it here.

shltter

Earthman wrote:

Now have you anything new to add or must we continue to circle the wagons?

Not much point in contributing if you simply rule anything off topic or conjecture

circling the wagons is definitely what seems to have been happening here as any
awkward point is ruled as conjecture or off topic open a new thread

shltter

shltter wrote:

Not much point in contributing if you simply rule anything off topic or conjecture

circling the wagons is definitely what seems to have been happening here as any
awkward point is ruled as conjecture or off topic open a new thread

Now I dont think thats a fair conclusion given that I've indicated a willingness to discuss any side points with you in any relevant thread.

axer

Earthman wrote:

I would suggest you bring that up in the discussion on the rules thread and not be off topic with it here.

I believe the comments made earlier are related to this thread - they are not off topic. It goes back to the credibility of the report. If the report is so true and accurate - why is the evidence collected/used not used to bring the sinn fein leadership to court and prosecuted for being members of the IRA?
If it is not based on hard evidence then it is conjecture. So what use is it?
The fact remains that the members of the commission cannot be seen as totally independant when they either come from the states involved in the peace process or from states that are very close allies of the states involved. I will admit that I cannot say beyond reasonable doubt that each member is biased - but there is reason to believe that they are not. As said earlier the members should have been picked from countries that have absolutely *nothing* to do with the peace process or have had *nothing* to do with it in the past. This would rule out the possibility of biasedness of the members. That would be fair, as then they could be fully objective to the evidence presented to them or that they collect.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

I would suggest you bring that up in the discussion on the rules thread and not be off topic with it here.

Done.