Mc Cartney prime time

irish1

irish1 wrote:

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

I believe what I said was I

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

Lol I'm starting to think you've put the valve back in that encoder that RC was talking about.
The difference I am seeing is from splitting hairs,it's very thin given that these intimidators, you conceded you're fairly sure exist are also by your surety IRA members that havent been expelled.

Call me picky but if their superiors arent aware of that, twasn't a latté I had here it was fresh water from the planet jupiter I was drinking.
Also if there are as you are pretty sure IRA members doing this intimidation, they are known in the locality why are their superiors allowing them to get away with it ? I'd suggest complicity to be honest.

jman0

What i couldn't understand is why did Robert McCartney make rude gestures toward those ladies in the first place, was it because they were blocking his view of the tele? (yet the ladies may have been sitting there first so...)
I know his excuse when confronted was that he was actually making rude gestures to the tele but c'mon, he's a grown man why would someone make rude gestures to a tele? Was he that childish?

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Nah I wouldn't like the spotlight

It's an awkward place shining light on your worldview.

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

So why raise it?
You've said it was unfounded, which implied it's not yet proven, which implies you don't believe it. You've said members of the IRA would intimidate and then you've said it's unproven that the IRA did intimidate?

You're just going to wriggle around with semantics.

So lets clarify. Do you believe that members of the IRA are and have intimidated witnesses in this case, and do you believe that they used their status in the IRA to intimidate witnesses? See you can dance around the issue, but the fact remains if members of the organisation use their status in the organisation to gain advantage then the organisation is complicit.

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

Enjoy would be too pleasant a word.

Villain

jman0 wrote:

What i couldn't understand is why did Robert McCartney make rude gestures toward those ladies in the first place, was it because they were blocking his view of the tele? (yet the ladies may have been sitting there first so...)
I know his excuse when confronted was that he was actually making rude gestures to the tele but c'mon, he's a grown man why would someone make rude gestures to a tele? Was he that childish?

What difference does it make, I know guys who make rude gestures every sat night, but they don't get killed for it.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

What i couldn't understand is why did Robert McCartney make rude gestures toward those ladies in the first place, was it because they were blocking his view of the tele? (yet the ladies may have been sitting there first so...)
I know his excuse when confronted was that he was actually making rude gestures to the tele but c'mon, he's a grown man why would someone make rude gestures to a tele? Was he that childish?

Yeah it's all his fault............... He brought it on himself.

The childish defence.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

So why raise it?
You've said it was unfounded, which implied it's not yet proven, which implies you don't believe it. You've said members of the IRA would intimidate and then you've said it's unproven that the IRA did intimidate?

You raised the accusation I said it was unfounded because you didn't provide any proof. I said imo I believe members would intimate I never said I had proof they did or are currently intimadating

You're just going to wriggle around with semantics.

Nope just speaking english and saying it as I see it.

So lets clarify. Do you believe that members of the IRA are and have intimidated witnesses in this case, and do you believe that they used their status in the IRA to intimidate witnesses? See you can dance around the issue, but the fact remains if members of the organisation use their status in the organisation to gain advantage then the organisation is complicit.

I believe it's possible I don't know if it has happened I have seen no evidence and even if they did how would I know what way they intimated people. I believe the members who murdered Mr McCartney were acting alone and not on behalf of the IRA, other members could be doing the same in reagrds to intimidation, I don't know.

Enjoy would be too pleasant a word.

Ok how about "like".

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

You raised the accusation I said it was unfounded because you didn't provide any proof. I said imo I believe members would intimate I never said I had proof they did or are currently intimadating

You've claimed that it was an unfounded accusation, why say that if you don't dispute it.

Nope just speaking english and saying it as I see it.

wriggling around as per usual.

I believe it's possible I don't know if it has happened I have seen no evidence and even if they did how would I know what way they intimated people. I believe the members who murdered Mr McCartney were acting alone and not on behalf of the IRA, other members could be doing the same in reagrds to intimidation, I don't know.

And again just repeating your position doesn't clarify it.

Do you not agree that the IRA facilitate this intimidation you believe is occuring, by providing these bullys with the framework for this intimidatation to work, to with IRA membership, and therefore the IRA are complicit.

Ok how about "like".

More like, endure.

jman0

irish1 wrote:

What difference does it make, I know guys who make rude gestures every sat night, but they don't get killed for it.

That sure is true irish1, but are they in a known republican pub, filled with known ira people?
The sisters claim Robert would have been very cognisant of his surroundings, which begs the question: why would someone fling rude gestures around the place in a pub filled with people who may have a tendency toward violence?
And then, engage a slaging match with those very same people?
Sounds like someone with a rather cavalier attitude of there own safety to me.

sceptre

jman0 wrote:

What i couldn't understand is why did Robert McCartney make rude gestures toward those ladies in the first place, was it because they were blocking his view of the tele? (yet the ladies may have been sitting there first so...)
I know his excuse when confronted was that he was actually making rude gestures to the tele but c'mon, he's a grown man why would someone make rude gestures to a tele? Was he that childish?

Heck, I don't know, why don't you ask him?

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Sounds like someone with a rather cavalier attitude of there own safety to me.

You are begining to sound like someone with a cavalier attitude towards right and wrong.
Like questioning what McCartney was doing rather than like the rest of us questioning what his murderers were doing.

oscarBravo

jman0 wrote:

why would someone fling rude gestures around the place in a pub filled with people who may have a tendency toward violence?
And then, engage a slaging match with those very same people?

Maybe he was under the impression that they were committed to peaceful and democratic means, and were prepared to put their homicidal psychoses permanently beyond use?

Pity nobody got photographic proof.

AmenToThat

Earthman wrote:

Like questioning what McCartney was doing rather than like the rest of us questioning what his murderers were doing.

Hes has every right to question who or what he wants.
Who knows if McCartney and Devine didnt go looking for trouble that night?
I know nothing about McCartney's history or even if he has one but Devine is up on attempted murder charges from a couple of years ago so I would suggest hes no angel.
Plus we have only RTE's word for what happened in the bar on the night and in the weeks leading upto the murder.
Its interesting that when the gardai shot those two men yesterday or even when a gangster is shot in a feud the general attitude on here is one of 'thats one less of the bastards'.
Whos to say that McCartney and Devine were any better than these typse?
Do any of you know for certain that they were honest law abiding citizens? Indeed McCartney had a girlfriend and child but Im sure the same could be said about those guys shot at the post office yesterday or the drug dealer shot in west Dublin this morning.
Thats not to say they deserved what happened to them and I personally hope the killers are brought to justice Im simply pointing out the hypocrisy that runs through this board.

mycroft

AmenToThat wrote:

Hes has every right to question who or what he wants.
Who knows if McCartney and Devine didnt go looking for trouble that night?
I know nothing about McCartney's history or even if he has one but Devine is up on attempted murder charges from a couple of years ago so I would suggest hes no angel.
Plus we have only RTE's word for what happened in the bar on the night and in the weeks leading upto the murder.
Its interesting that when the gardai shot those two men yesterday or even when a gangster is shot in a feud the general attitude on here is one of 'thats one less of the bastards'.
Whos to say that McCartney and Devine were any better than these typse?
Do any of you know for certain that they were honest law abiding citizens? Indeed McCartney had a girlfriend and child but Im sure the same could be said about those guys shot at the post office yesterday or the drug dealer shot in west Dublin this morning.
Thats not to say they deserved what happened to them and I personally hope the killers are brought to justice Im simply pointing out the hypocrisy that runs through this board.

So without a shred of evidence or anything to support it, you draw a comparsion between a murdered man, and some bank robbers.

The hyprocrisy of members of this board? Attempting to slur a dead mans memory to fanagle some kind of clupability for his killers?" Sure he may have been looking for trouble", a nice sly west belfast style whispering campaign aganist someone who can't defend themselves and you haven't got a shred of evidence aganist.

I'm just simply pointed out the moral cowardice of this kind of post.

AmenToThat

AmenToThat wrote:

Hes has every right to question who or what he wants.

Indeed he does but this is a discussion board, so if a poster posits something many would find objectionable-expect challenge

Who knows if McCartney and Devine didnt go looking for trouble that night?
I know nothing about McCartney's history or even if he has one but Devine is up on attempted murder charges from a couple of years ago so I would suggest hes no angel.

Devine wasnt the one murdered.

Plus we have only RTE's word for what happened in the bar on the night and in the weeks leading upto the murder.

Are you suggesting that Robert McCartney wasnt murdered?

Its interesting that when the gardai shot those two men yesterday or even when a gangster is shot in a feud the general attitude on here is one of 'thats one less of the bastards'.

Interesting in what way exactly? Interesting that the guys were told to put down their weapons,what weapon was McCartney wielding? I understand that the Guards tried to recuss one of the Robbers and he was brought to hospital. What efforts did the expelled IRA members make to bring McCartney to hospital?
I appreciate that you are coming to this from a totally different angle than most, but don't be digging a hole for yourself, theres a hornets nest down there,I doubt you'd see Gerry Adams using the line of reasoning, you've just used, he'd know that it wouldnt wash with the public.

Whos to say that McCartney and Devine were any better than these typse?
Do any of you know for certain that they were honest law abiding citizens? Indeed McCartney had a girlfriend and child but Im sure the same could be said about those guys shot at the post office yesterday or the drug dealer shot in west Dublin this morning.
Thats not to say they deserved what happened to them and I personally hope the killers are brought to justice Im simply pointing out the hypocrisy that runs through this board.

I wouldnt call it hypocrisy to condem illegal activity whilst congratulating law enforcement albeit law enforcement that tragically resulted in the loss of two lives,it would be more than a tad invidious to do so.
I'm being kind using the word tragedy, there are many, many who would say they got what they deserved given that they were pointing a gun in the first place and going on recent episodes would probably have shot the post mistress if there had have been no Garda there.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

MT

Ah yes, get a few apologists going and the ifs, buts, whatabouts, sophistry and general pettifogging when confronted with the barbarity of their feted freedom fighters brings a whole new meaning to a moral quagmire. Human rights are suddenly forgotten and hypocrisy becomes the dish of the day.

One of the most obvious lies in this whole squalid affair is the risible claim that McCartney’s slaying was nothing to do with the IRA. No, it was just a few rotten apples, a few of the brave boyos gone off the rails. I mean you know how it is, try struggling for human rights and equality 24/7 and well it’s the sort of thing that could happen to anyone. The stress of being the perennial good guys, striving against the monstrous British empire simply all got a little too much. Hey, they just flipped and dragged two men outside a pub and gutted and stamped one of them to death. The other being left for dead. No biggy, happens to all over worked freedom and justice campaigners now and again.

Setting aside the fact the Republicans denied any IRA involvement at all from the outset, the current line that responsibility begins and ends with a few rogue elements is utter hogwash. The IRA selected these people, it provided them with training and when they did show signs of psychopathy – some might say that’d be hard to spot given the organisation’s pedigree – it singularly failed to remove them from a position of threat to the public. Then there’s decommissioning and disbandment. Had this happened years ago there simply would have been no weapons, training, culture of violence etc. for these thugs to have availed of. And another thing that isn’t mentioned enough is the psychology of IRA membership. This is a group that lauds illegal violence and retaliation in particular. Surely it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that such an ethos would have a disastrous affect on any potential lose cannon.

So, that’s the grounding and education in a culture of brutality but what about the organisation's behaviour during and after the event. Well, it seems someone at a high level must have been involved for why send in the specialists to cleanse the crime scene of any forensic evidence? Why go to these lengths to stymie the convictions of several wild nutcases? And what about one of those nutcases in particular? From what I’ve heard the ringleader in McCartney’s slaying had went off the rails ever so violently before. Would such leniency of judgement be granted to the army of Gardai if such characters were kept with a record of depraved violence? But of course the legitimate organisations of the state never benefit from republican double standards. Indeed, the republican movement would seemingly like to have it both ways. Their misdeeds can be rationalised and explained away but woe betide the state if it slips up even once.

What about the intimidation of witnesses which was so effective/threatening that in the region of 50 witness suddenly developed selective amnesia. Does anyone really believe that the ‘few bad apples’ involved would have had anything like the authority or the numbers to issue and sustain so many threats. Could the dozen rogues really have put the fear of god into an entire area without the say so of someone further up the chain of command?

Then there’s the whole whispering campaign and threats orchestrated against the victim’s sister. Even worse, a whispering campaign was also initiated to smear the good character of Robert McCartney. Indeed, smears being a favourite tactic of republicans, I’m surprised they didn’t attempt to brand him as a covert unionist.

So without even covering Sinn Fein’s disgusting behaviour towards this bereaved family the IRA’s conduct alone has been nothing less than reprehensible. What sort of stone age justice were they attempting to imitate with an offer to kill the offending ‘bad apples’ without even a trial to ascertain if these were indeed the real culprits and not simply convenient scapegoats. So much for republicans condemnation of the Diplock courts or the Special Criminal Court. Then there was the very real possibility of implicating the sisters in another savage killing. Thankfully the courageous McCartney women were sustained with a moral compass that functions.

So, all in all, I’d say the IRA and their apologists have got a fúcking cheek to suggest the armed wing can wash their hands of all responsibility. And they wonder why there’s hostility to the ‘cause’ on these boards and just about everywhere else.

mycroft

MT wrote:

Ah yes, get a few apologists going and the ifs, buts, whatabouts, sophistry and general pettifogging when confronted with the barbarity of their feted freedom fighters brings a whole new meaning to a moral quagmire. Human rights are suddenly forgotten and hypocrisy becomes the dish of the day.

One of the most obvious lies in this whole squalid affair is the risible claim that McCartney’s slaying was nothing to do with the IRA. No, it was just a few rotten apples, a few of the brave boyos gone off the rails. I mean you know how it is, try struggling for human rights and equality 24/7 and well it’s the sort of thing that could happen to anyone. The stress of being the perennial good guys, striving against the monstrous British empire simply all got a little too much. Hey, they just flipped and dragged two men outside a pub and gutted and stamped one of them to death. The other being left for dead. No biggy, happens to all over worked freedom and justice campaigners now and again.

Setting aside the fact the Republicans denied any IRA involvement at all from the outset, the current line that responsibility begins and ends with a few rogue elements is utter hogwash. The IRA selected these people, it provided them with training and when they did show signs of psychopathy – some might say that’d be hard to spot given the organisation’s pedigree – it singularly failed to remove them from a position of threat to the public. Then there’s decommissioning and disbandment. Had this happened years ago there simply would have been no weapons, training, culture of violence etc. for these thugs to have availed of. And another thing that isn’t mentioned enough is the psychology of IRA membership. This is a group that lauds illegal violence and retaliation in particular. Surely it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that such an ethos would have a disastrous affect on any potential lose cannon.

So, that’s the grounding and education in a culture of brutality but what about the organisation's behaviour during and after the event. Well, it seems someone at a high level must have been involved for why send in the specialists to cleanse the crime scene of any forensic evidence? Why go to these lengths to stymie the convictions of several wild nutcases? And what about one of those nutcases in particular? From what I’ve heard the ringleader in McCartney’s slaying had went off the rails ever so violently before. Would such leniency of judgement be granted to the army of Gardai if such characters were kept with a record of depraved violence? But of course the legitimate organisations of the state never benefit from republican double standards. Indeed, the republican movement would seemingly like to have it both ways. Their misdeeds can be rationalised and explained away but woe betide the state if it slips up even once.

What about the intimidation of witnesses which was so effective/threatening that in the region of 50 witness suddenly developed selective amnesia. Does anyone really believe that the ‘few bad apples’ involved would have had anything like the authority or the numbers to issue and sustain so many threats. Could the dozen rogues really have put the fear of god into an entire area without the say so of someone further up the chain of command?

Then there’s the whole whispering campaign and threats orchestrated against the victim’s sister. Even worse, a whispering campaign was also initiated to smear the good character of Robert McCartney. Indeed, smears being a favourite tactic of republicans, I’m surprised they didn’t attempt to brand him as a covert unionist.

So without even covering Sinn Fein’s disgusting behaviour towards this bereaved family the IRA’s conduct alone has been nothing less than reprehensible. What sort of stone age justice were they attempting to imitate with an offer to kill the offending ‘bad apples’ without even a trial to ascertain if these were indeed the real culprits and not simply convenient scapegoats. So much for republicans condemnation of the Diplock courts or the Special Criminal Court. Then there was the very real possibility of implicating the sisters in another savage killing. Thankfully the courageous McCartney women were sustained with a moral compass that functions.

So, all in all, I’d say the IRA and their apologists have got a fúcking cheek to suggest the armed wing can wash their hands of all responsibility. And they wonder why there’s hostility to the ‘cause’ on these boards and just about everywhere else.

And that is singularly the best post on the whole situation I've read in long while, and combined with bonkey's demolition of Irish1's logic re Adams/Mc Guinness IRA membership, [_dathi_]'s backpeddling and Sand's collection of SF quotes from the Portadown news as the finest posts on the ongoing farce.

MT

Thanks. Just trying to peer through the web of lies and hypocrisy that surrounds the Republican Movement.

pogoń

Agreed, excellent post MT.

It's a great shame not many Unionists seem to get on to boards.ie.

If they did there would be a far less jaundiced view of 'the South'.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

and combined with bonkey's demolition of Irish1's logic re Adams/Mc Guinness IRA membership,

What logic, that it hasn't be proven?????

I don't remember Bonkey proving anything either, others made accusations I asked for proof and I all I got was "well it's only my opinion".

Bertie Ahern is a member of the IRA*


*oh and If you ask for proof I'm just going to say it's my opinion :rolleyes:

Villain

MT wrote:

So without even covering Sinn Fein’s disgusting behaviour towards this bereaved family the.

Oh no please do "cover" it, I'd be very interested to know what disgusting behaviour your referring to.

shltter

MT wrote:

Ah yes, get a few apologists going and the ifs, buts, whatabouts, sophistry and general pettifogging when confronted with the barbarity of their feted freedom fighters brings a whole new meaning to a moral quagmire. Human rights are suddenly forgotten and hypocrisy becomes the dish of the day.

One of the most obvious lies in this whole squalid affair is the risible claim that McCartney’s slaying was nothing to do with the IRA. No, it was just a few rotten apples, a few of the brave boyos gone off the rails. I mean you know how it is, try struggling for human rights and equality 24/7 and well it’s the sort of thing that could happen to anyone. The stress of being the perennial good guys, striving against the monstrous British empire simply all got a little too much. Hey, they just flipped and dragged two men outside a pub and gutted and stamped one of them to death. The other being left for dead. No biggy, happens to all over worked freedom and justice campaigners now and again.

So can you name any organisation that does not have any bad apples

I dont think the IRA has taken the atitude that this is no biggy they alledgedly offered to shoot the individuals

MT wrote:

MT wrote:

Setting aside the fact the Republicans denied any IRA involvement at all from the outset, the current line that responsibility begins and ends with a few rogue elements is utter hogwash. The IRA selected these people, it provided them with training and when they did show signs of psychopathy – some might say that’d be hard to spot given the organisation’s pedigree – it singularly failed to remove them from a position of threat to the public.

there was no IRA involvement there was the involvement of IRA members which is a completely different thing

how would you suggest that the IRA remove these people from a position of threat to the public

MT wrote:

Then there’s decommissioning and disbandment. Had this happened years ago there simply would have been no weapons, training, culture of violence etc. for these thugs to have availed of. And another thing that isn’t mentioned enough is the psychology of IRA membership. This is a group that lauds illegal violence and retaliation in particular. Surely it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that such an ethos would have a disastrous affect on any potential lose cannon.

yes IF

but if the brits had just left then the IRA could have disbanded years ago

besides which they did not use any IRA weapons unless your suggesting that the IRA is responsible for sewer rods and kitchen knives
and as for a training and culture of violence people manage to stab and kill other people all the time with out any paramilitary involvement

MT wrote:

So, that’s the grounding and education in a culture of brutality but what about the organisation's behaviour during and after the event. Well, it seems someone at a high level must have been involved for why send in the specialists to cleanse the crime scene of any forensic evidence? Why go to these lengths to stymie the convictions of several wild nutcases?

what specialists were sent in the IRA crime scene cleaners for gods sake talk about building your arguement up

the people involved in the murder did a clean up and on top of that the PSNI did not preserve the scene and the bar staff cleaned the bar that night

MT wrote:

And what about one of those nutcases in particular? From what I’ve heard the ringleader in McCartney’s slaying had went off the rails ever so violently before. Would such leniency of judgement be granted to the army of Gardai if such characters were kept with a record of depraved violence? But of course the legitimate organisations of the state never benefit from republican double standards. Indeed, the republican movement would seemingly like to have it both ways. Their misdeeds can be rationalised and explained away but woe betide the state if it slips up even once.

well apart from the fact that your going on nothing substantiated can you provide any links oe evidence to back up the claim

the British army has a history for example of readmitting people convicted of very serious charges including murder upon their release from prison

MT wrote:

What about the intimidation of witnesses which was so effective/threatening that in the region of 50 witness suddenly developed selective amnesia. Does anyone really believe that the ‘few bad apples’ involved would have had anything like the authority or the numbers to issue and sustain so many threats. Could the dozen rogues really have put the fear of god into an entire area without the say so of someone further up the chain of command?

Now this is were the whole arguement really falls on its arse

first we know that upto a dozen people were involved could they intimidate 50 people of course they could

secondly the main problem is that there were not 50 witnesses or anything like that
the assault that killed robert mccartney took place outside the pub in the street
people in the pub saw the altercation a bottle and alledgedly devine produce a knife they did not see the assualt that killed mr mccartney so any evidence tehy can give would be pretty useless to a murder investigation

only people who actually witnessed the killing would be of any use to the investigation

MT wrote:

Then there’s the whole whispering campaign and threats orchestrated against the victim’s sister. Even worse, a whispering campaign was also initiated to smear the good character of Robert McCartney. Indeed, smears being a favourite tactic of republicans, I’m surprised they didn’t attempt to brand him as a covert unionist.

what smears

MT wrote:

So without even covering Sinn Fein’s disgusting behaviour towards this bereaved family the IRA’s conduct alone has been nothing less than reprehensible. What sort of stone age justice were they attempting to imitate with an offer to kill the offending ‘bad apples’ without even a trial to ascertain if these were indeed the real culprits and not simply convenient scapegoats. So much for republicans condemnation of the Diplock courts or the Special Criminal Court. Then there was the very real possibility of implicating the sisters in another savage killing. Thankfully the courageous McCartney women were sustained with a moral compass that functions.

what disgusting behaviour

see you cant have it both ways criticisse the IRA for doing nothing and condemn them for offering to do the only real thing that they could do to their members involved

people who join the IRA submit themselves to the justice system that operates with in the IRA .It obviously in no way would be a justice system that anyone would operate in a democratic society but the IRA cannot have an open court and a jury panel nor can it operate a prison to house people who have breeched its rules

MT wrote:

So, all in all, I’d say the IRA and their apologists have got a fúcking cheek to suggest the armed wing can wash their hands of all responsibility. And they wonder why there’s hostility to the ‘cause’ on these boards and just about everywhere else.

how do you want them to exercise the responsiblity they have for the now former members that committed this crime
examples please

I would imagine your self and compatriots on boards do not need an excuse to be hostile to republicans or the "cause" and if it was not robert mccartney it would be something else

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

What logic, that it hasn't be proven?????

I don't remember Bonkey proving anything either, others made accusations I asked for proof and I all I got was "well it's only my opinion".

Bertie Ahern is a member of the IRA*


*oh and If you ask for proof I'm just going to say it's my opinion :rolleyes:

wow repress much?

If you recall the debate went, adams has lied about his status as a member of the IRA, and therefore any claims about his statements vis a vie his current membership can and should be viewed with suspicion. You've yet to provide any other evidence thats he's not lying still.

Oh no please do "cover" it, I'd be very interested to know what disgusting behaviour your referring to.

Well we can look at Alex Maskey's first statements re the murder calling it knife culture, Adams first statement slipping in the manslaughter along side murder, and Mc Guinness's thinly veiled "careful now" threat.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I don't remember Bonkey proving anything either, others made accusations I asked for proof and I all I got was "well it's only my opinion".

In fairness, Bonkey made some fair points here regarding how your position on that matter seems to be a position of faith, given that the people you were defending had previously lied on the matter.
In such a case, yup you would want to have a pretty strong faith in them to take their word on the matter now as they could still be lying.

That said, anyone in SF who is asked whether they are in the IRA are in the unenvy-iable position of being directly asked whether they are in an illegal organisation.
A yes answer in public would have to prompt Garda action as it would be a public admission of a crime.
Anyone looking for that wont get it, but they do have past denials which when changed to admissions that they were members but arent anymore are defacto damaging to trust.

Now if one wants to discuss this further open a new thread and I'll gladly participate there again, but this is about McCartney primetime and not the "are they in the IRA question."

shltter

shltter wrote:

So can you name any organisation that does not have any bad apples

Depending on the degree of badness,I doubt that he could.I'd be pretty certain though that most decent people would be of the view that you couldnt get much worse than the apples we're talking about here ie murderers

I dont think the IRA has taken the atitude that this is no biggy they alledgedly offered to shoot the individuals

Alledgedly? They did offer to shoot them, they're on record as saying so.

there was no IRA involvement there was the involvement of IRA members which is a completely different thing

There is the argument that once you open the pandora's box of violence and training violence and give these people their platform, then those that opened the box must take responsibility for the mistake of opening the box.

how would you suggest that the IRA remove these people from a position of threat to the public

Well this is a lesson really and ultimately,hopefully eventually the standing down/disbandment of the IRA.
But in the meantime,they should be made pariah's untill they turn them selves in and admit what they did.According to the sisters that is not happening.

but if the brits had just left then the IRA could have disbanded years ago

I see...so we should all take up violence to get what we want when the ballot box doesnt immediately deliver it,I dont think thats what you want is it?
Given where we are now the IRA (using the common reasoning for their existance of protecting nationalists) could have stood down a long time before they did and saved a lot of lives in the process and leave the resolution to democracy.

besides which they did not use any IRA weapons unless your suggesting that the IRA is responsible for sewer rods and kitchen knives
and as for a training and culture of violence people manage to stab and kill other people all the time with out any paramilitary involvement

I refer you to the pandora's box I mentioned above ie no IRA in 2005=no difficultywith the surrender vibes in dealing with the crime.

what specialists were sent in the IRA crime scene cleaners for gods sake talk about building your arguement up

It's not unreasonable to assume that those that did the clean up being trained IRA members would have the knack of evidence hoovering.

the British army has a history for example of readmitting people convicted of very serious charges including murder upon their release from prison

And thats a justification for what exactly, do you agree with everything the British Army does? I doubt you do.

Now this is were the whole arguement really falls on its arse

first we know that upto a dozen people were involved could they intimidate 50 people of course they could

secondly the main problem is that there were not 50 witnesses or anything like that
the assault that killed robert mccartney took place outside the pub in the street
people in the pub saw the altercation a bottle and alledgedly devine produce a knife they did not see the assualt that killed mr mccartney so any evidence tehy can give would be pretty useless to a murder investigation

They would or should be able to paint the picture of who was argue-ing though.

only people who actually witnessed the killing would be of any use to the investigation

Not strictly the case.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

wow repress much?

If you recall the debate went, adams has lied about his status as a member of the IRA, and therefore any claims about his statements vis a vie his current membership can and should be viewed with suspicion. You've yet to provide any other evidence thats he's not lying still.

So if a person tells a lie once then everything he says after that has to be as suspicious???

I'm sure you have lied at some stage in your life does that mean that everyone should be suspicious of what you say now???

I wouldn't agree with that logic what so ever.


As for me providing evidence that he's not lying well I'm not the one that has made the accusations, all I did was ask people to provide proof to prove their claims.

Earthman I was going to start another thread for this post but I thought it would be pointless, if I was start doing that you'd have threads all over the place. If you really want to move this to a new thread feel free, but you closed the one about this topic after only a few pages here or reopen that one and move it there if you like.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

So if a person tells a lie once then everything he says after that has to be as suspicious???

Oh FFS, if they've lied about this very matter before, and continuation of this lie helps their position then yes you can be suspicious.

Once more around the goldfish bowl

As for me providing evidence that he's not lying well I'm not the one that has made the accusations, all I did was ask people to provide proof to prove their claims.

So let me get this straight, he's lied before on this matter, this lie helps his bargaining position, and can offer no evidence that he's not lying now? You can offer no prove that he's not lying, and have to take it as a matter of face. We can offer evidence that he has previously lied on this matter, and you only have your faith in him to counteract this suspicion.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

Oh FFS, if they've lied about this very matter before, and continuation of this lie helps their position then yes you can be suspicious.

Once more around the goldfish bowl

Easy now mycroft, I'm being civil here you could at least do the same.

You don't know if he is lying now do you? Do you know for a fact Gerry Adams is currently a member of the IRA??

mycroft wrote:

So let me get this straight, he's lied before on this matter, this lie helps his bargaining position, and can offer no evidence that he's not lying now? You can offer no prove that he's not lying, and have to take it as a matter of face. We can offer evidence that he has previously lied on this matter, and you only have your faith in him to counteract this suspicion.

He has not being arrested with membership, I have seen no factual evidence to prove he is currently a member and I believe what he says, so why would I accept he is a member?. IMO if people make an accusation they should be able to prove it, in this case there is no proof just opinion.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

You don't know if he is lying now do you? Do you know for a fact Gerry Adams is currently a member of the IRA??

Actually Is it even possible to know for a fact that he was ever in the IRA based on that logic given that he has changed his position on membership.
It would be a logical stand point to doubt his word at being in the IRA at any point as much as it is to doubt that he's not in it, if one doesnt trust him for lying about it.

Earthman I was going to start another thread for this post but I thought it would be pointless, if I was start doing that you'd have threads all over the place. If you really want to move this to a new thread feel free, but you closed the one about this topic after only a few pages here or reopen that one and move it there if you like.

I'd be reluctant to do that as we were circling the wagons in it.
But if you want a new thread on the topic I'll happily move all this there.

Meanwhile any further off topic stuff in this thread will go to the recycle bin and thats an order!