Mc Cartney prime time

mycroft

on tonights Mc Cartney prime time the sisters refuting IRA claims that'd the IRA had offered to shoot the killers the IRA merely remarked they were so indifferent to the killers they'd be willing to shoot the killers in the morning.

Which implies the IRA are willing to cut supporters off with the greatest of ease.

And the IRA were less interested in justice to the family but more willing to cut off a limb to defend themselves at will.

It makes a mockery of offers of IRA justice for the victims of violence from IRA members and displays the nature of the IRA williness to sacrifice it's own members for good PR.

Flukey

Well this is the IRA we are talking about after all. They work by their own set of rules and logic.

jman0

mycroft wrote:

on tonights Mc Cartney prime time the sisters refuting IRA claims that'd the IRA had offered to shoot the killers the IRA merely remarked they were so indifferent to the killers they'd be willing to shoot the killers in the morning.

Actually she said that the IRA told her these people (who commited the murder) meant nothing to them, that they'd be willing to shoot them in the morning. She then told the RTE nterviewer she interpreted this to be an offer to shoot the killers.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Actually she said that the IRA told her these people (who commited the murder) meant nothing to them, that they'd be willing to shoot them in the morning. She then told the RTE nterviewer she interpreted this to be an offer to shoot the killers.

And of course the PIRA in their statement on march 8th left everybody in no doubt that they offered to shoot them.

Villain

What I can't understand is that the IRA were willing to shoot them, but aren't willing to force them to go to the PSNI or even the Police Ombudsman or Solicitor etc and give themselves up?

jman0

irish1 wrote:

What I can't understand is that the IRA were willing to shoot them, but aren't willing to force them to go to the PSNI or even the Police Ombudsman or Solicitor etc and give themselves up?

That's easy irish1.
The offer to shoot them, is a result of a court martial procedure their members would agree to upon volunteering.
The idea of forcing someone to go to the RUC would be 1) inconsistant with ideology and 2) do mean hog-tie them and drop them infront of barracks? Or somehow physically force them to sign confessions to the police (which obviously is not the IRA's job, that is what the RUC do)

jman0

I thought the RTE dramatisation highlighted the gulf of mistrust and suspicion catholic enclaves in belfast hold toward the police.
This is a result of years police brutality and the politically unionst/loyalist nature of the RUC.

What a difference Patten could have made.
Republicans were actually willing to participate in the Patten compromise.
Unfortunately HMG decided that wasn't necessary and ignored Patten.
Now look where we are.

Villain

jman0 wrote:

The idea of forcing someone to go to the RUC would be 1) inconsistant with ideology and 2) do mean hog-tie them and drop them infront of barracks? Or somehow physically force them to sign confessions to the police (which obviously is not the IRA's job, that is what the RUC do)

You obviously didn't read all my post or just decided to ignore parts of it, I didn't say they should just force them to go to the PSNI only I added

or even the Police Ombudsman or Solicitor etc

and while I can see why they wouldn't want to march them into a PSNI barracks as it would be seen as some sort of defeat they could persuade them to go. The men that carried out this murder are not republicans in my mind but just mindless thugs who must be brought to Justice and if the IRA can't get over their hurdle to make sure the family gets justice they are just as bad imo.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

I thought the RTE dramatisation highlighted the gulf of mistrust and suspicion catholic enclaves in belfast hold toward the police.
This is a result of years police brutality and the politically unionst/loyalist nature of the RUC.

Brillant the stabbing beating and gutting of robert mc cartney is the RUCs fault.....

The men that carried out this murder are not republicans in my mind but just mindless thugs

The difference is, most of us don't differentate between the IRA and mindless thugs anymore, because of instances like this.

jman0

irish1 wrote:

You obviously didn't read all my post or just decided to ignore parts of it...

Sorry, the Police Ombudsman may be viewed as an extension of the police, or perhaps just a pointless and toothless entity anyway, I'm not sure the way the IRA view it. It may be seen as a small and meaningless sop to Nationalists since Patten Recommendations were shot down by HMG. And therefore, some republicans will pay it no heed.
Solicitors? I dunno...could or would the IRA force these people to give statements to a solicitor? I guess i'm not sure why. I'm not sure there's any point really.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

The difference is, most of us don't differentate between the IRA and mindless thugs anymore, because of instances like this.

Well I don't hold much respect if any for the IRA either but I think most people accept in this case that the IRA had nothing to with the Murder other than that members (now ex-members) of the group were involved.

jman0

mycroft wrote:

Brillant the stabbing beating and gutting of robert mc cartney is the RUCs fault.....
.

While not the perpetrators, they are the organisation responsible for law and order aren't they?

Villain

jman0 wrote:

Sorry, the Police Ombudsman may be viewed as an extension of the police, or perhaps just a pointless and toothless entity anyway, I'm not sure the way the IRA view it. It may be seen as a small and meaningless sop to Nationalists since Patten Recommendations were shot down by HMG. And therefore, some republicans will pay it no heed.
Solicitors? I dunno...could or would the IRA force these people to give statements to a solicitor? I guess i'm not sure why. I'm not sure there's any point really.

Well I'm not sure either but I would have thought you might be able to make a legal Affidavit before one of them, which the PSNI could then use as evidence. I don't accept that the IRA can't do anything else.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

Sorry, the Police Ombudsman may be viewed as an extension of the police, or perhaps just a pointless and toothless entity anyway, I'm not sure the way the IRA view it.

You don't know, you just assume. I've met Nuala Ni Luan, and one of the first acts she changed the rules of engagement and investigation protocals of the use of live ammo by the PSNI.

Her investigation into police failures into the Omagh bombing led to the retirement of the chief constable.

So toothless? Phulzeee....

Solicitors? I dunno...could or would the IRA force these people to give statements to a solicitor? I guess i'm not sure why. I'm not sure there's any point really.

And I think the family of Robert Mc Cartney would disagree on that final point.......

Well I don't hold much respect if any for the IRA either but I think most people accept in this case that the IRA had nothing to with the Murder other than that members (now ex-members) of the group were involved.

And involved, and threaten the witnesses and this intimidation is carried on. The IRA have provided a handy frame work for a shield for the murderers and are therefore complicit.

swiss

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2402552&postcount=13

I hate to dredge up old posts, but the above sums up my position quite nicely.

jman0

mycroft wrote:

And involved, and threaten the witnesses and this intimidation is carried on. The IRA have provided a handy frame work for a shield for the murderers and are therefore complicit.

Complete rubbish mycroft. The IRA not to mention Gerry Adams have stated there is no intimidation, the IRA made that quite clear and Gerry has said time and again that those responsible should turn themselves in.
In fact, apparently Gerry Adams has acquired a new nick out of this: "Gerry the tout"

If you believe the IRA are complicit then talk to the bloody police and ask them to make some arrests for christsake. Probably better than whinging about it here.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

Complete rubbish mycroft. The IRA not to mention Gerry Adams have stated there is no intimidation, the IRA made that quite clear and Gerry has said time and again that those responsible should turn themselves in.
In fact, apparently Gerry Adams has acquired a new nick out of this: "Gerry the tout"

Nice ignore the first part where I rip to shreds your dig at the ombudsman.

The empty words of the IRA run contray to the actual events and lack of witnesses. Saying one thing, while events run the opposite direction, prove you wrong.

If you believe the IRA are complicit then talk to the bloody police and ask them to make some arrests for christsake. Probably better than whinging about it here.

Theres little point making arrests if you can't prove anythng.

And what the wtf is the above? I wasn't in the bar, and btw telling people to SHTFU and get off the internet is the last argument of a desperate failed position.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

And involved, and threaten the witnesses and this intimidation is carried on. The IRA have provided a handy frame work for a shield for the murderers and are therefore complicit.

IMO thats just an unfounded accusation.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

IMO thats just an unfounded accusation.

It's always nice to put up an unsupported rebuttal, but why don't you explain how you came to that conclusion.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

IMO thats just an unfounded accusation.

A defence of the IRA, from someone who claims they don't support it.

Interesting

Villain

I haven't defdended anyone Rock Climber and instead of just jumping into the middle of a discussion with a one liner about me why don't you try discussing the issue at hand. :rolleyes:

I never said that the IRA hadn't intimidated people I just said that IMO MyCroft's statement was just an unfounded accusation as he didn't back his claim up.

I'm quite sure there is members within the IRA who would intimidate witnesses.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

I haven't defdended anyone Rock Climber and instead of just jumping into the middle of a discussion with a one liner about me why don't you try discussing the issue at hand.

Nah, it just looked like you didn't apply the usual Shinner doublethink encoder to your post before submitting it.It just looked like you rushed in yourself with an unfiltered message of defence for the IRA.But don't worry, we all make mistakes in our plans, we're all just human after all

I never said that the IRA hadn't intimidated people I just said that IMO MyCroft's statement was just an unfounded accusation as he didn't back his claim up.

Heh-the post encoder must be missing a valve today. You rush in to defend the IRA's honour because mycroft has accused them of something that you yourself are quite sure is going on... you even confirm this in the post you used to defend yourself-It does kind of expose the behind the scenes opinions in your posts...

I'm quite sure there is members within the IRA who would intimidate witnesses.

Anything but consistency in your posts but heck nothing new there.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

I haven't defdended anyone Rock Climber and instead of just jumping into the middle of a discussion with a one liner about me why don't you try discussing the issue at hand. :rolleyes:

A one liner?

Um hello

Irish1 wrote:

IMO thats just an unfounded accusation.

I never said that the IRA hadn't intimidated people I just said that IMO MyCroft's statement was just an unfounded accusation as he didn't back his claim up.

So basically you're saying that you don't disagree with my statement but at the same time its an unfounded accusation. Wow, contradict much? Oh I'm sorry I forgot, you're a Sinn Fein/IRA supporter..... :rolleyes:

The fact that witnesses haven't come forward, with any real evidence, including a proposed SF councillor is implicit evidence of IRA intimidation.

I'm quite sure there is members within the IRA who would intimidate witnesses.

So let me, and the rest of us, get this straight, you're sure that there are members within the IRA who would use intimidation, you're also sure that the IRA wouldn't intimidate. Do you not see the paradox, that the IRA provide these thugs with a organisation that inspires intimidation, that they can utilize to intimidate?

Villain

mycroft wrote:

A one liner?

Um hello

Ok a one liner + 1 word

So basically you're saying that you don't disagree with my statement but at the same time its an unfounded accusation. Wow, contradict much? Oh I'm sorry I forgot, you're a Sinn Fein/IRA supporter..... :rolleyes:

The fact that witnesses haven't come forward including a proposed SF councillor is implicit evidence of IRA intimidation.

I said your statement was an unfounded accusation, and that it is, that doesn't mean it's not possible. I could say Tony Blair is gay, thats an unfouded accusation doesn't mean it's not possible though.

So let me, and the rest of us, get this straight, you're sure that there are members within the IRA who would use intimidation, you're also sure that the IRA wouldn't intimidate. Do you not see the paradox, that the IRA provide these thugs with a organisation that inspires intimidation, that they can utilize to intimidate?

Can you show me where I said I'm

sure that the IRA wouldn't intimidate.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I said your statement was an unfounded accusation, and that it is, that doesn't mean it's not possible. I could say Tony Blair is gay, thats an unfouded accusation doesn't mean it's not possible though.

I see and would you say in the same post that you're pretty sure that he is?
Some consistency would be just great.

Honestly irish1,my best advice to you would be to have a cup of coffee and then come back to us.
I've just had a Latté, it was delicious

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

on tonights Mc Cartney prime time the sisters refuting IRA claims that'd the IRA had offered to shoot the killers the IRA merely remarked they were so indifferent to the killers they'd be willing to shoot the killers in the morning.

Can someone maybe explain to me some things....

Either the sisters' story, or the media's representation of hte sisters' story is suddenly changing. Why?

Its not like there's new evidence which has made the sisters realise that what they thought they heard wasn't what they heard, and only now do they know.

So why the change in stories after so long, and who is behind it?

Have the sisters changed their fundamental message?

Or have they simply decided (ad if so, for what reason) that now is the time to correct the long-standing misconception that has been the consistent media-interpretation of what they originally said?

Or is the media simply choosing its timing to bring new interest to a flagging news item, particularly since there's nothing new to keep public indignation against the IRA (and by extension Sinn Fein) nice and fresh?

I mean seriously...I honestly can't fathom this. Why is this "new" revelation, well, new? Why this and why now?

jc

Villain

Earthman wrote:

I see and would you say in the same post that you're pretty sure that he is?
Some consistency would be just great.

Honestly irish1,my best advice to you would be to have a cup of coffee and then come back to us.
I've just had a Latté, it was delicious

Show me where I said I was pretty sure the IRA are intimadating???

I believe what I said was I

I'm quite sure there is members within the IRA who would intimidate witnesses

There is a difference between saying the IRA as an organisation would intimate people and saying members of the group would.

Oh and I don't like coffee

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Ok a one liner + 1 word

Wow. Don't give up the day job, Jerry Seinfeld can handle the competition.

I said your statement was an unfounded accusation, and that it is, that doesn't mean it's not possible. I could say Tony Blair is gay, thats an unfouded accusation doesn't mean it's not possible though.

Oh c'mon this is very lame. You implied my accusation wasn't true.

Can you show me where I said I'm

In as many words.

irish1 wrote:

IMO thats just an unfounded accusation.

unfounded=untrue.

I must admit I have enjoyed the level of debate during your bannage.

irish1 wrote:

There is a difference between saying the IRA as an organisation would intimate people and saying members of the group would.

Brillant so where does the behaviour of it's members differentiate from the behaviour of the organisation.

I do find it fascinating that someone who claims not to support an organisation spends so much time defending it's "honour".

Villain

mycroft wrote:

Wow. Don't give up the day job, Jerry Seinfeld can handle the competition.

Nah I wouldn't like the spotlight

Oh c'mon this is very lame. You implied my accusation wasn't true.


unfounded=untrue.

Actually unfouded means "Not yet established" check a dictionary if you don't believe me

I must admit I have enjoyed the level of debate during your bannage.

Ahh did I spoil your fun, so sorry, there is an ignore button you could use, but somehow I think you enjoy replying to me

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Can someone maybe explain to me some things....

Either the sisters' story, or the media's representation of hte sisters' story is suddenly changing. Why?

In last nights programme they said that the impression they got from what the IRA said was they would shoot them if thats what the sisters wanted.That doesnt appear to be different with what they said at the time or the IRA statement about it.

Its not like there's new evidence which has made the sisters realise that what they thought they heard wasn't what they heard, and only now do they know.

So why the change in stories after so long, and who is behind it?

Have the sisters changed their fundamental message?

I don't think they are changing their fundamental message at all,thats not what I saw on the programme, they did however expand a bit that they understood the IRA as saying they would kill the killers, something which the IRA confirmed by statement.

Or have they simply decided (ad if so, for what reason) that now is the time to correct the long-standing misconception that has been the consistent media-interpretation of what they originally said?

iirc, they didnt say or disagree last night with what was the IRA interpretation of what was offered.

Or is the media simply choosing its timing to bring new interest to a flagging news item, particularly since there's nothing new to keep public indignation against the IRA (and by extension Sinn Fein) nice and fresh?

I mean seriously...I honestly can't fathom this. Why is this "new" revelation, well, new? Why this and why now?

jc

Is there a new revelation, or was there just a prime time reconstruction last night which we are talking about today.
Iirc there was nothing on morning Ireland or any of the news programmes about it today or in the papers that I saw today.
So based on that ,I doubt if theres any media conspiracy, given that the media are largely talking about other things today.
I'd put the programme down as just fitting into whatever primetime slot there was available to be honest with an added touch of the producers recognising that the topic would gather a lot of viewers.

mycroft

bonkey wrote:

Can someone maybe explain to me some things....

Either the sisters' story, or the media's representation of hte sisters' story is suddenly changing. Why?

Its not like there's new evidence which has made the sisters realise that what they thought they heard wasn't what they heard, and only now do they know.

So why the change in stories after so long, and who is behind it?

Have the sisters changed their fundamental message?

Or have they simply decided (ad if so, for what reason) that now is the time to correct the long-standing misconception that has been the consistent media-interpretation of what they originally said?

Or is the media simply choosing its timing to bring new interest to a flagging news item, particularly since there's nothing new to keep public indignation against the IRA (and by extension Sinn Fein) nice and fresh?

I mean seriously...I honestly can't fathom this. Why is this "new" revelation, well, new? Why this and why now?

jc

bonkey I'm assuming you didn't see the story. The sisters account was compelling, they said "with the benefit of hindsight" they didn't recall the offer to shoot was ever put on the table.

The media storm over the IRA statement swept up the debate, and the outrage, by everyone over what the IRA claimed to say, took over.

Considering how SF/IRA like to keep things vague, plenty of implied statements, and vague threats, it is more than concievable that the exhausted sisters got swept up in the language and tone of the debate, and only "with the benefit of hindsight" could clarify what was said.

The program was not exactly an investigation more a timeline of the events, what happened and what was said when.