Mc Cartney prime time

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

I don't believe I have said anything about the side being worse in realtion to this murder

So two out of three then. Still makes it valid, given that there was a delete-as-applicable there.

I didn't defend it at all I tried to explain why people aren't going to the police that is very different from defending them

You have defended Sinn Fein's exhortation that people go to whomsoever they feel comfortable going to rather than the only authorities who can actually use the information in the legal pursuit of justice.

If you don't feel comfortable being described as defending Sinn Fein's stance, then I can reword it and say that you have supported their stance or that you just agree with it.

At the end of the day, you are either supporting, agreeing with, or defending the direct implication that justice will suffer because people don't trust the police, and that this is the problem of the police and not the people. Ergo, the police are at least partly to blame for the lack of justice.

I don't believe I ever used such a sentence

I don't believe I suggested that you ever said it verbatim.

You have said that what happened to McCartney wasn't right. Only a handful of posts ago you were complaining about the differing visibility of certain murders. You have defended/supported/agreed with Sinn Fein's "cautions" to the sisters.

Sounds very much like "Of course I want justice, but..." to me, especially when we compare your stance re: Sinn Fein against the criticism of them not cooperating with the search for justice with your insistence that you want to see justice done.

I mean...seriously...tell me which of the following is not an accurate statement regarding your position...

I want justice, but think the McCartney sisters should be careful of getting poltiically involved.
I want justice but think that its ok that witnesses not come forward
I want justice, but think that if witnesses don't come forward it has to be because they don't trust the police, not because they're scared of the IRA.

You may not have said these things together, I accept that. You say you want justice, and then support the arguments which are exactly the principle threats to justice being done.

So you may well have never used that sentence, but it accurately describes the arguments that you've made.

I said IMO they should be careful about getting involved in party politics as it won't help their case, that just my opinion.

So are you denying that you've ever said that Sinn Fein were correct to take this stance? Or are you agreeing with me that this bit applies to you? I'm not sure whether this is acceptance or denial.

Take out the while and you have "check"

Leave it in and you do too.

You agree with (i.e. support) the concept of non-cooperation with the relevant authorities, which means that you want justice but with certain proviso's.

I think I have answered all the points

And the more you answer, the more it looks like the article was accurately depicting your stance, albeit in a manner thats less flatteringly worded then your own posts, and which doesn't try and avoid putting the conflicting bits together.

jc

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Anyway, good to see that arrests have finally been made.

Yeah. I'm wondering what will now happen to all of those phonecall-making, toilet-going, didn't-see-a-thing pub-goers now that there's actual suspects arrested.

Will they now come forward and say "OK...I wasn't co-operating up till now, but you've got the right guys", or will they continue to support their own version fo justice by deciding that even though the untrustworthy police have made arrests, they should neither confirm nor deny that the right people were caught.

Of course, I'm wondering what all those "why haven't the police made arrests from Devine's testimony then" posters are gonna come up with now. Blame the police for acting too quickly, or on too little information, perhaps?

jc

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Thats just a sweeping remark that doesn't reflect my position at all MyCroft, if you had bothered to read my posts on this situation you would know that.

As bonkey summed it up, those different qualifications could be applied to you, or any other republican sympathiser on this thread, it's the but's that matter.

Villain

bonkey wrote:

So two out of three then. Still makes it valid, given that there was a delete-as-applicable there.[/quote/

Actually I'd say 1 out of 3 but we won't argue over 1 "check"

bonkey wrote:

You have defended Sinn Fein's exhortation that people go to whomsoever they feel comfortable going to rather than the only authorities who can actually use the information in the legal pursuit of justice.

If you don't feel comfortable being described as defending Sinn Fein's stance, then I can reword it and say that you have supported their stance or that you just agree with it.

At the end of the day, you are either supporting, agreeing with, or defending the direct implication that justice will suffer because people don't trust the police, and that this is the problem of the police and not the people. Ergo, the police are at least partly to blame for the lack of justice.

Nope I didn't support or defend them I tried to explain why IMO they were saying what they were. Also correct me here if I'm wrong but did Sinn Fein not say people should go to the PSNI if they feel comforbable with that??

bonkey wrote:

I mean...seriously...tell me which of the following is not an accurate statement regarding your position...

I want justice, but think the McCartney sisters should be careful of getting poltiically involved.

IMO getting invovled in politics won't help their cause, that just my opinion.

bonkey wrote:

I want justice but think that its ok that witnesses not come forward

Most certainly NOT, I think anyone who knows anything should come forward, as I said I wasn't supporting people who resfused to got the PSNI I was simply offering my opinion on WHY they haven't

bonkey wrote:

I want justice, but think that if witnesses don't come forward it has to be because they don't trust the police, not because they're scared of the IRA.

Nope as I have said here before I am sure people are being intimidated by members of the IRA

bonkey wrote:

You may not have said these things together, I accept that. You say you want justice, and then support the arguments which are exactly the principle threats to justice being done.

So you may well have never used that sentence, but it accurately describes the arguments that you've made.

No it does not again you obviously haven't read all my posts in this thread.

bonkey wrote:

So are you denying that you've ever said that Sinn Fein were correct to take this stance? Or are you agreeing with me that this bit applies to you? I'm not sure whether this is acceptance or denial.

I think I answered that above I agree with Martin McGuinness that they should avoid getting involved in party politics as it won't help their cause imo.

bonkey wrote:

Leave it in and you do too.

You agree with (i.e. support) the concept of non-cooperation with the relevant authorities, which means that you want justice but with certain proviso's.

No I don't.

bonkey wrote:

And the more you answer, the more it looks like the article was accurately depicting your stance, albeit in a manner thats less flatteringly worded then your own posts, and which doesn't try and avoid putting the conflicting bits together.

jc

Read all my posts

MT

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If so, what are the chances of a 'fair' trial? 'Fair' in the lowest form as it will be the Diplock system that will be used if these ever come to trial.

If this sentiment is adopted by the Republican Movement throughout any prospective trial it will signify breathtaking hypocrisy. Republicans and apologists on this board were falling over themselves in their rush to defend the IRA’s kangaroo court when ‘trying’ three of the McCartney murder suspects. Where was your criticism then of the unfair trial held by Sinn Fein’s armed wing?

Yet again, the double standards of Republicans laid bare for all to see. The IRA were excused as ‘doing all they could’ when holding a secret ‘investigation’ and ‘trial’ that guaranteed absolutely no acceptable standards of justice. Then to top it all they issued the death penalty. And yet in light of all this there was nothing but rationalisation and whataboutery in their attempts to deflect criticism of the closed world of barbaric militaristic justice dished out by the ‘community defenders’. Now if the state seeks to prosecute the thugs involved in the killing it is entirely predictable that Republicans will attempt to undermine any conviction attained with cynical shrieks of ‘unfair trial’.

Personally, I have no love of the Diplock courts but they provide a hell of a lot more chance of a fair trial than IRA kangaroo courts. Furthermore, if found guilty, the defendants won’t be taken to the nearest bog and shot in the back of the head. And we all know why Diplock courts are necessary in the societal basket case that is NI. Juries wouldn’t have a chance in the North given the ‘Ra’s propensity to intimidate anything that threatens its twisted reign of brutality. Just look at what happened to the jury in the Garda McCabe murder.

But please enlighten us further A Dub in Glasgo. You clearly don’t approve of the Diplock courts, but what of the IRA’s secret trial. Do you approve of trials hidden from the public? Do you believe the judge in the Ra trial was independent and impartial? Indeed, given your dislike of Diplocks, do you have any idea whether the IRA availed of a jury? What right of appeal did the three on trial have? And finally, did you agree with the sentence – the death penalty?

In short, which is preferable – Diplock or secret IRA kangaroo courts?

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Nope I didn't support or defend them I tried to explain why IMO they were saying what they were. Also correct me here if I'm wrong but did Sinn Fein not say people should go to the PSNI if they feel comforbable with that??

The implication of your position is that you're sympathetic or understanding of what they were (to use your all to vague language) you wear your politics too much on your sleave to pretend to play devils adovocate.

And SF started by saying solicitor or priest then eventually said PSNI, the implication of the caveat that you and they raise is that it's okay by you and them to not go to the police.

IMO getting invovled in politics won't help their cause, that just my opinion.

Why and you'll notice they haven't despite yours and mc guinness heartfelt concern, I think that is again an insinuation which we've heard before that they are being manipulated by "enemies of republicanism"

Most certainly NOT, I think anyone who knows anything should come forward, as I said I wasn't supporting people who resfused to got the PSNI I was simply offering my opinion on WHY they haven't

An opinion you've raised consistently giving it the implied support that you understand and are sympathetic to them not going forward. "Saying they should, but I can see why they don't" implies you understand and in someway sympathise with their position.

Nope as I have said here before I am sure people are being intimidated by members of the IRA

And again with a caveat but there are legitmate concerns about the PSNI/why aren't the PSNI doing more/the unionists are at worse and you don't hear about it, (hint hint all this hullabloo is orchestraed by "enemies of republicism")

No it does not again you obviously haven't read all my posts in this thread.

No I have thats why I raised my orginal cut n paste post from "I support the sisters fight for justice, but (theres always a but Irish1)

I think I answered that above I agree with Martin McGuinness that they should avoid getting involved in party politics as it won't help their cause imo.

And the first party to parade them out was.......can you guess?

The threat from Mc Guinness was just that, a threat.

No I don't.




Read all my posts

I have, you're disingenious, claiming you're playing devils adovocate and showing sympathy, when you leave all your calls for justice with , well and I'll take the words of the poet "Sir Mixalot" out of context....

"I like big buts.............

Villain

MyCroft I'm too busy to address each point on its own.

I have to say though you are wrong about my opinion in this case, I am not sympathetic towards the people who won't go to the PSNI, I have said I understand I never said I agreed with it and that does not in anyway mean I support their position.

I also have never mentioned how unionists are worse in this thread, so stop putting words in my mouth.

I haven't used buts at all, the only thing I have said that others may not agree with is they shouldn't get involved in party politics and thats just my opinion not a threat. I just thing they might loose some of the support of the community if they get too involved in politics. They may however gain from it, it's just a matter of opinion.

I think what bugs you and other anti SF people here is that you don't believe I'm being honest when I slate the IRA for thier lack of co-operation or that I realy want the McCartney sisters to get justice.

Well I can honestly say I am being honest and I fully support their search for Justice, no buts, they must get justice and Sinn Fein and every republican along with everyone else should do everything they can to ensure that happens.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

bonkey wrote:

Nope I didn't support or defend them I tried to explain why IMO they were saying what they were.

Further down you say that anynoe who knows something should come forward.
So, have I misunderstood you? You are opposed to recommendations that these people do anything other than go to the police if they know something?

Also correct me here if I'm wrong but did Sinn Fein not say people should go to the PSNI if they feel comforbable with that??

Sinn Fein said people should go to who they were comfortable with, whether it be the PSNI or someone else.

Can you just clarify - you disagree with this stance?

You believe that people should come forward to the relevant authorities regardless of whether they feel comfortable with the PSNI or not? Yes - I know you've clarified why they mightn't, but I'm not interested in the people themselves.

What I'm asknig, though, is whether or not Sinn Fein were out of order in suggesting that people do anything other than going to the authorities with information. You believe the people shouldn't do anything but come forward, and Sinn Fein suggested alternatives. But you've yet to come out and say they were wrong to do so, and that doing so is not helping the case for justice.

In short...either admit they're at least part of the problem here, or admit that you're not willing to do so.

Nope as I have said here before I am sure people are being intimidated by members of the IRA

And Sinn Fein are giving them a lovely cover to hide under by puiblically saying "don't go to the PSNI if you're not comfortable with going to them". Meanwhile, the other arm of the organisation is ensuring that (at least some of) the people will most certainly feel uncomfortable going to the PSNI, because they'll have been threatened to the effect that doing so will put their lives in risk.

Nice double-tap. Bad Cop says "Tell and we'll get you". Good Cop says "don't tell if you're not comfortable telling". Now, unless you believe that the two organisations have absolutely nothing to do with each other, that must - at the very least - call the sincerity of Sinn Fein's cooperation into question.

No it does not again you obviously haven't read all my posts in this thread.

Yes. I have read them. I've re-read them. I still can't find the bit where you agreed that Sinn Fein was wrong - if not actively attempting to obstruct justice - in telling people not to go to the proper authorities if they weren't comfortable doing so.

Can you point it out to me please? You obviously have read your own posts, so I'm sure you can show me where this happened.

I've found spots where you've dodged such questions, but not one where you've answered them. The inference from this refusal is as clear as the inferences that people take from Sinn Fein's refusals to make similar condemnations. If someone is unwilling to say something is wrong...one has to wonder why.

So I'm inferring from your refusal to condemn that you want justice, but...

Show me where I'm wrong. Show me where you have condemned, criticised, or otherwise faulted Sinn Fein for suggesting to people that its ok not to give information to the police that would help bring killers to justice.

Because otherwise there's still that big but hanging around: I believe they should have justice but won't fault Sinn Fein for taking a stance opposed to what I am willing to say is the right thing to do.

jc

Villain

Bonkey I think Sinn Fein should have told people to go to the PSNI, so yes imo they were wrong in that they didn't come out straight away and tell people that despite all the issues they have for the sake of Justice in this case they should go to the PSNI with any information they have.

I have never said I supported Sinn Fein's position here I only ever said I understood it.

MT

irish1 wrote:

Sinn Fein asked people to go to what authority they felt comfortable with, if you knew anything about the nationalists community in the north you would know they don't trust the PSNI. I don't expect you to understand that but I would have thought you might at least accept it. As for the Sinn Fein Candiidate she said she didn't see anything how can you be sure she did??

Sinn Fein deliberately diverted people away from the police for no other reason than to protect their cohorts in the IRA. If they were really concerned about the ‘comfort’ of the people in their areas they would have spoken out against the IRA’s witness intimidation from the outset. Indeed, it’s particularly ironic for SF to claim that the PSNI is a cause of discomfort to people in republican fiefdoms. As far as I can see the lion’s share of misery in such places emanates from the paramilitary stranglehold maintained by the IRA. It’s not the police that’s knee capping people, carry out punishment beatings, racketeering, smuggling and murdering innocent men outside pubs. The police aren’t banishing people from their communities because they had the cheek to stand up to their suffocating control. No, it happens to be the IRA that’s guilty of operating this oppressive regime. And where is the criticism from apologists directed at this vile tyranny. The silence of republicans when confronted with IRA malfeasance is deafening when contrasted with their complaints about the police.

I believe the people in republican areas are simply far too terrified to speak out against the arbitrary and violent policing dished out by the ‘community defenders’. Yet, Sinn Fein cunningly justify the ‘Ra’s brutal role in their areas by sparing no opportunity to alienate Northern Catholics from the police. Instead of accepting responsibility and taking their seats on the policing board and encouraging Catholics to avail of the positive discrimination currently operated by the PSNI they’ve done the exact opposite. Their seats remain empty, denying SF voters a say over policing, they discourage young Catholics – no doubt with the help of a bit of ‘Ra intimidation – from joining and at every turn attempt to insinuate into their supporters minds that policing in NI is some sort of vast loyalist conspiracy. This plays perfectly into the hands of the Army Council who can then claim to be the only true purveyors of order and justice in republican areas. Thus, their reign of crime and violence can continue unchecked by the void left where the PSNI should be. Of course, the useful idiots in the republican movement never fail in their willingness to defend this outrageous state of affairs.

As for me not understanding how Northern nationalists think, I happen to live in a nationalist area in NI. I’m a good deal closer to where the problems occur than someone in Carlow. Had many dealings with the PSNI down there?

And as Sand explained, the SF candidate was exposed as liar so her three monkeys charade carries absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

irish1 wrote:

Martin McGuinness urged the McCartney family to stay out of party politics, saying they could risk losing popular support for their campaign. Which imo is a valid point. Sinn Fein wanted to ammend the motion that is why they voted against it.

Sorry, I’m not credulous enough to swallow the retrospective rationalisations of the republican movement. Both incidents were PR disasters for Sinn Fein. By both threatening the courageous sisters and then refusing to support funding for a civil case they were rightly portrayed as callous and machiavellian. Your version of past events is the made to order airbrushed history packaged by Connolly House. If I were you it’d go back in tomorrows post as it’s a dud.

irish1 wrote:

Any evidence at all here or you just making this up??

Here no evil, see no evil… Interestingly, apologists also denied there was every a campaign of witness intimidation.

irish1 wrote:

Has the PSNI not questioned Mr Devine can he not give some evidence that could be used to charge someone?

I think we all know why Devine has failed to provide the police with any information. He clearly fears for his life. And why wouldn’t he when he holds the key to a scandal that could seriously damage Sinn Fein and the IRA’s aspirations for power. Knowing of the IRA’s campaign of witness intimidation he’d be fully aware of their determination to bury the details of this slaying. Having already insulted the ‘Ra by escaping their death squad once and knowing full well their fury at his survival, he’s not going to wave a red rag at the bull a second time. The power of fear so effectively deployed by the Provos throughout the troubles has triumphed yet again. Devine will most likely never talk. Furthermore, his silence is an indictment of Sinn Fein’s ‘concern’ for the McCartney family. Behind the crocodile tears and feigned ‘we share you pain’ statements, the movement must have trouble believing their luck. With the continuing silence of all present at the scene, their boyos will never be put behind bars.

irish1 wrote:

So why did the majority of nationalists vote for Sinn Fein I mean if everything you said is true the majority of nationalists must be deluded!

Yes, sadly they are. The North was long ago driven into sectarian animosity bordering on psychosis. All the two hate ridden and bitter ethnic tribes care about is screwing over the other side. Each is entirely consumed by their persecution complex. They exist in a warped delusion that all their woes can be blamed on others and the sectarian enemy in particular.

In the North’s game of tribal one-upmanship you don’t vote for the party that can best improve the lot of the greatest number of people. This might be the practise in genuine democracies but not in NI. Here people vote for the ethno-religious demagogues that can best articulate their grievances. In the zero sum world of northern politics collective communal advancement has been superseded by a grim determination to hold the other tribe back. When grants become available the first question asked are not those concerning community need but how much are themmuns getting. Responsibility, compromise and hard choices have all been eschewed in favour of the much more emotionally satisfying culture of victimhood and the blame game. And of course the two parties that have benefited must from this victim/saint miasma are the recklessly irresponsible Sinn Fein and the DUP.

These two ethno-religious entrepreneurs perfectly embody the lunacy of northern society. They blame everyone but themselves, fulminate with self-righteous anger and are devoid of any sense of responsibility. For as long as their influence holds sway the North will put off meaningful compromise forever. The polarisation will become exacerbated and the persecution complex more entrenched. That’s why the North has no economy to speak of. No one will take responsibility and encourage inward investment or start up their own business. All they want to do is live off the English taxpayer, ‘cos them fúckers owes us’. The refusal to take responsibility is also the root of the endless whataboutery. Everyone else is to blame.

Northern Ireland may have a thin veneer of a democratic vote but there is no democratic or civic society to speak of. Accordingly, the ‘mandates’ of the DUP and Sinn Fein should be taken with a pinch of salt. They didn’t earn them like political parties elsewhere, they simply wailed and whinged the loudest. ‘Vote for us and we’ll turn you into the greatest victims history’s ever known.’ Deluded is too mild a description.

A Dub in Glasgo

MT wrote:

If this sentiment is adopted by the Republican Movement throughout any prospective trial it will signify breathtaking hypocrisy. Republicans and apologists on this board were falling over themselves in their rush to defend the IRA’s kangaroo court when ‘trying’ three of the McCartney murder suspects. Where was your criticism then of the unfair trial held by Sinn Fein’s armed wing?

Yet again, the double standards of Republicans laid bare for all to see. The IRA were excused as ‘doing all they could’ when holding a secret ‘investigation’ and ‘trial’ that guaranteed absolutely no acceptable standards of justice. Then to top it all they issued the death penalty. And yet in light of all this there was nothing but rationalisation and whataboutery in their attempts to deflect criticism of the closed world of barbaric militaristic justice dished out by the ‘community defenders’. Now if the state seeks to prosecute the thugs involved in the killing it is entirely predictable that Republicans will attempt to undermine any conviction attained with cynical shrieks of ‘unfair trial’.

Personally, I have no love of the Diplock courts but they provide a hell of a lot more chance of a fair trial than IRA kangaroo courts. Furthermore, if found guilty, the defendants won’t be taken to the nearest bog and shot in the back of the head. And we all know why Diplock courts are necessary in the societal basket case that is NI. Juries wouldn’t have a chance in the North given the ‘Ra’s propensity to intimidate anything that threatens its twisted reign of brutality. Just look at what happened to the jury in the Garda McCabe murder.

The most important word there is at the start and it is if. What if the Diplock system convicts the wrong people?... you happy with that

But please enlighten us further A Dub in Glasgo.

I am against Diplock style courts where ever in the world they are to be found.

You clearly don’t approve of the Diplock courts,

Correct

but what of the IRA’s secret trial.

Ah.. a quick insertion of whataboutery

Do you approve of trials hidden from the public?

No

Do you believe the judge in the Ra trial was independent and impartial?

No

Indeed, given your dislike of Diplocks, do you have any idea whether the IRA availed of a jury?

Probably not

What right of appeal did the three on trial have?

Probably none

And finally, did you agree with the sentence – the death penalty?

No

In short, which is preferable – Diplock or secret IRA kangaroo courts?

Neither

---

You are not adverse to answering posts here with the classic case of whataboutery yourself or does that particular phrase only apply to the opinions you disagree with?

bonkey

Is it certain that its the Diplock system which will be used?

Genuine question - I don't know the legal system in the North well enough to know that this is or isn't a certainty.

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Is it certain that its the Diplock system which will be used?

Genuine question - I don't know the legal system in the North well enough to know that this is or isn't a certainty.

jc

Not necessarally, a quick google found NI murder jury trial 1 and this also suggests murder trials by jury can be done in the North.

I dont know enough about this either, and am open to correction but it appears non jury trials would be for paramilitary murders whereas this one if/when it occurs would be non paramilitary if the guys have been expelled from the IRA.

That said which is better a judge deciding in a transparent manner or a jury that could be intimidated?

MT

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What if the Diplock system convicts the wrong people?... you happy with that

Of course not. I have always argued for justice for the McCartney family, not a miscarriage of justice. I too have reservations about the use of Diplock courts in NI but unfortunately paramilitary intimidation of juries leaves no alternative. However, what I find even more objectionable is the Republican tactic of insinuating that Diplocks are part of a repressive British conspiracy and well, er… we’d be better off leaving justice in the control of the ‘Ra. This, of course, has been a long running tactic of the republican movement. Knowing full well that it’s the IRA and other paramilitaries that have made jury trials impossible, they rant and rave that it’s actually an evil anti-Irish policy by the British. This in turn gives cover to the armed wing to hold secret kangaroo courts. After all, can’t let volunteers be tried by rigged Brit courts, we’ve got to do it ourselves. It’s another one of those long running lies used to sustain attempts to alienate northern nationalists from the judicial system. Clever, I’ll grant them, but repugnant.

Then there’s the whole issue of punishment. If a Diplock trial does go wrong and there is a miscarriage of justice, the innocent defendant ends up in jail with the right of appeal. But what happens after an IRA ‘trial’. The innocent defendant is carried in a car boot to a back road or bog near the border. There they are unceremoniously shot in the back of the head and their remains buried in an unmarked grave. There’s no right of appeal and given past experience their family most likely won’t here of their grim fate for years if at all. Put simply, if you are unlucky to suffer a miscarriage of justice during your trial it would be infinitely better that it be in a Diplock court as opposed to some secret bunker surrounded by homicidal maniacs from the IRA. Furthermore, given the utter dearth of judicial standards in a provo trial a miscarriage of justice is most likely guaranteed. Particularly, if your scalp needed for political/power struggle reasons.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I am against Diplock style courts where ever in the world they are to be found.

But what if jury trials of republicans are impossible due to intimidation of jurors by the IRA?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Ah.. a quick insertion of whataboutery

It is not whataboutery in the slightest. Criticism of the IRA’s kangaroo courts has been my position throughout this whole affair. By again raising this unjust practise I am highlighting the whataboutery of republicans who have defended the armed wing’s use of rigged trials and yet never failed to complain of injustice whenever Diplock trials have been used in the past. The republican movement have been guilty of hypocrisy here while in contrast I have held to a consistent call for real justice throughout. Pointing out the inconsistencies of the republican movement is not whataboutery but part of a logical attack on their abuse of justice. Whataboutery describes an attempt to divert attention from your own failings by highlighting the failings of the other side. There was no such whataboutery in my post.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You are not adverse to answering posts here with the classic case of whataboutery yourself or does that particular phrase only apply to the opinions you disagree with?

There was no whataboutery in my post, simply a sustained attack upon the hypocrisy of the republican movement. My stance on justice and human rights has been consistent throughout my analysis of this squalid debacle. And coming from an apologist for an organisation that specialises in whataboutery, your accusation is ironic in the extreme.

MT

Earthman wrote:

I dont know enough about this either, and am open to correction but it appears non jury trials would be for paramilitary murders whereas this one if/when it occurs would be non paramilitary if the guys have been expelled from the IRA.

But the crux of this issue is whether they were expelled from the IRA for genuine reasons or merely political expediency. For if it was the latter, there’s every possibility that the provos will still view the defendants as their fellow travellers. And if that’s the case then juror intimidation is entirely predictable. So a Diplock trial may still be necessary even if the suspects have been expelled. The last thing anyone should want is for someone to have to endure weeks of terrifying intimidation and possibly death if the violence gets out of hand.

However, the best way to ensure a jury can operate in peace is for Sinn Fein to declare publicly their support for the trial. This might ward off the neanderthals in the armed wing. Better still the IRA could decommission and disband before any trial begins thus removing one of the greatest obstacles blocking universal jury trials in the North.

MT

I see The Portadown News has taken Sinn Fein to task this week.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Not necessarally,
...
That said which is better a judge deciding in a transparent manner or a jury that could be intimidated?

Fair point.

What I was more thinking of, though, is that it would mean that one should not be comparing the merits or lack thereof of an IRA internal trial against a Diplock, rather than against the possibility of a Diplock trial and the possibility of the presumably least-worst-option (if not more) of a "proper" trial.

jc

bonkey

MT wrote:

However, the best way to ensure a jury can operate in peace is for Sinn Fein to declare publicly their support for the trial.

Coupled with an IRA statement that they no longer have any interest in the processing of the case, having both concluded their own prosecution of the matter and their association with the individuals involved.

I know, I know....the IRA would never make such a statement of defeat or weakness or whatever it is...

...but you know what? That excuse wears thin after a while coming from anyone who professes to anything more than lipservice to a peace process.

The IRA don't even need to validate a proper trial - just make a statement that they no longer will have anything to do with the individuals and the affair.

I'm betting its still too much to ask and/or expect.

jc

mycroft

I have to say though you are wrong about my opinion in this case, I am not sympathetic towards the people who won't go to the PSNI, I have said I understand I never said I agreed with it and that does not in anyway mean I support their position.

Then why raise it, and why constently defend SF and SF's actions? Again you cannot try to pretend to play devils adovcate your political bias is too obvious, drop the pretence.

I also have never mentioned how unionists are worse in this thread, so stop putting words in my mouth.

You've mentioned "other" murders in the north commited by others, who are these others we're not talking about? You keep your position so intentially murky we have to draw inference to what you're getting it. It's convient for you.

I haven't used buts at all, the only thing I have said that others may not agree with is they shouldn't get involved in party politics and thats just my opinion not a threat. I just thing they might loose some of the support of the community if they get too involved in politics. They may however gain from it, it's just a matter of opinion.

And you sidestepped the Mc Guinness warning them not to get into politics but dragging them up at the Ard Feis.

Again diluting your position down, you may not have used the word "but" but theres always a subclause, a qualifier "What about other murders/what about their politics etc etc etc......

I think what bugs you and other anti SF people here is that you don't believe I'm being honest when I slate the IRA for thier lack of co-operation or that I realy want the McCartney sisters to get justice.

You don't slate the IRA, you offer mild meek criticism with one hand and then toe SF party line with the other. You offer platitutes of support but theres always a but Its disingenious.

To call the mild mannered calls for justice while blaming everyone else for the lack of arrests, suggesting that the SF councillor in the bar really didn't see anything, why hasn't devine made a statement, and of course you understand why people don't come forward, and then suggest your primary interest in this matter is Mc Cartney justice, is comical.

Well I can honestly say I am being honest and I fully support their search for Justice, no buts, they must get justice and Sinn Fein and every republican along with everyone else should do everything they can to ensure that happens.

While at the same time you understand how people don't go to the PSNI
:rolleyes:

irish1 wrote:

Bonkey I think Sinn Fein should have told people to go to the PSNI, so yes imo they were wrong in that they didn't come out straight away and tell people that despite all the issues they have for the sake of Justice in this case they should go to the PSNI with any information they have.

I have never said I supported Sinn Fein's position here I only ever said I understood it.

So just out of curiousity how many of SF's positions are you going to "understand" but "not support", till you finally stop supporting them?

Adubinglas wrote:

Ah.. a quick insertion of whataboutery

No it's fairly fundamental irony. Railling aganist the inherant injustice of one legal system while supporting a cause which has engaged in torture, kangaroo courts, juryless trials, summary execution and doesn't have a court of appeal.

I mean it would be funny but too many people are buried in unmarked graves in Nth Ireland after IRA "justice" for me to laugh.

But Dubinglas what alternative do you offer? While terrorist groups intimidate witnesses and have a track record on both sides of intimidating and murdering members of the legal profession and jurors, what possible solution do you offer?

Sand

Where have I defended Sinn Fein's actions on this matter??

Do you vote for SFIRA?

sceptre

Sand wrote:

Do you vote for SFIRA?

Oh now that's a little doubly loaded. Whatever your opinions on the connections between SF and the RA or your views on the effective fusion of the two at higher levels, SFIRA aren't a registered political party (and personally I'm rather glad of that as I prefer my terrorists to wander about out of fatigues and wearing a shiny pair of shoes). Sinn Fein are though, so that might be a better question, especially given that the quoted post referenced "Sinn Fein".

Villain

mycroft wrote:

comment 3

"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."

So you don't have much respect for the IRA you just vote for their political wing?

I have voted for Sinn Fein in the past and may do so again and yes I have no respect for the IRA.

mycroft wrote:

"IMO thats just an unfounded accusation."
Comment 18

Is defence of the IRA providing a handy shield in the form of it's structure

Nope didn't defend it at all, just stated what you said was an unfounded accusation, I'd say the same thing if you accused the DUP of being terrorists without offering any proof.

mycroft wrote:

Comment 21
"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."

Is a piece of backpeddling by you, now you're saying that you're sure that there are members just my accusation is an unfounded one.

No backpeddling at all, your accusation remains unfounded despite what my opinion is

mycroft wrote:

Comment 28
"Show me where I said I was pretty sure the IRA are intimadating???"

Now you're back peddling on your back peddling

And in the same comment

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

Now it's IRA members but not the IRA as a group.

If you can't distinguish between some members and the organisation thats fair enough but I can, like the Morris tribunal some members of the Gardai were engaged in corruption but that doesn't mean the Gardai as an organisation were, (now I am aware thats not a great example as the Gardai are a professional police force whereas the IRA are and illegal terrorist group, but I think you get my point)

mycroft wrote:

Comment 37
"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"

Now it's you believe they could you don't know if they are, but it's possible but unfounded

Your accusation is still unfounded as you haven't offer any proof, as I already said my opinion doesn't provide you any proof to prove your accusation.

mycroft wrote:

Comment 58
"o if a person tells a lie once then everything he says after that has to be as suspicious???"

is a defence of Adams and IRA membership

Actually it was a question hence the "??" at the end.

mycroft wrote:

Comment 70
"I see Congressman Peter King has upset the government by saying that the murder of Mr Mccartney was the sort of "pub dispute that could have happened in any city in the US"

Again why raise this, unless you feel the killing the aftermath didn't have wider politcal ramifications

Why raise it? because I thought it was an interesting article.

mycroft wrote:

Comment 92
"Sinn Fein asked people to go to what authority they felt comfortable with, if you knew anything about the nationalists community in the north you would know they don't trust the PSNI. I don't expect you to understand that but I would have thought you might at least accept it. As for the Sinn Fein Candiidate she said she didn't see anything how can you be sure she did?? "

Again a defence of SFs actions and the SF councillor.

Not a defence just a statement, as for the candidate I asked how can you be sure she did see something?

mycroft wrote:

same comment

"Sinn Fein wanted to ammend the motion that is why they voted against it."

Defence of SF action.

Not a defence an explanation.

mycroft wrote:

and

"Any evidence at all here or you just making this up??"

In reference to the IRA's habit of making witnesses disappear in the 80s/90s., thats a Defence

Asking for evidence is a defence :rolleyes: Come on serioualy mycroft.

mycroft wrote:

"Has the PSNI not questioned Mr Devine can he not give some evidence that could be used to charge someone?

Shifting the blame to the victim

No shifting of blaim, just a question I didn't know the answer too.

mycroft wrote:

And comment 107
"Thats one isolated incident Cork, a truly tragic one but many many murders have occured up North and got very little media attention down South."

Thats the classic now I'm not defending this but......

No defence just a valid point about media coverage.

mycroft wrote:

Seriously Irish1 this is a fecking joke by now.

Nope it's just my opinion and the way your twisting it.

mycroft wrote:

You were the one assuring us that Mc Guinness was warning them to stay out of party politics, but then sf invite them to their rally, it's an odd warning if that was it's direction and then they invited them to the rally, unless the warning was for something else. Like be careful of whose party politics you avoid/snub

To let them hear what they had to say, as I asked are you critising the sisters for going??

mycroft wrote:

Reall from where I stand you're doing both.

NO WAY.

mycroft wrote:

So basically despite all the evidence to the contray?

Without SF there wouldn't be a peace process.

Regards,

Alan

ps wrote that in a hurry so sorry if there is any typo's

mycroft

Where have I defended Sinn Fein's actions on this matter??

This is just about as disingenious as you can get

irish1 wrote:

"Sinn Fein asked people to go to what authority they felt comfortable with, if you knew anything about the nationalists community in the north you would know they don't trust the PSNI. I don't expect you to understand that but I would have thought you might at least accept it. As for the Sinn Fein Candiidate she said she didn't see anything how can you be sure she did?? "

The above is a defence. Clearly, it's meant as a rebuttal, it's a defence.

irish1 wrote:

Originally Posted by 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.

as is this.

and

irish1 wrote:

I see Congressman Peter King has upset the government by saying that the murder of Mr Mccartney was the sort of "pub dispute that could have happened in any city in the US"

He also said "there is no evidence it was sanctioned by the IRA" and that "we shouldn't rush to be too sanctimonious" abouts it's impact.

and all this

irish1, in response to MT wrote:

Sinn Fein asked people to go to what authority they felt comfortable with, if you knew anything about the nationalists community in the north you would know they don't trust the PSNI. I don't expect you to understand that but I would have thought you might at least accept it. As for the Sinn Fein Candiidate she said she didn't see anything how can you be sure she did??


[Quote=
Originally Posted by MT]
At this stage any party with even a shred of decency or concern for the family would have reprimanded these party hopefuls for their wanton disregard for the relatives plight, but did SF. Of course not. And of course their contempt for the sisters was further demonstrated with Marty ‘peace and justice’ McGuinness’s threat over the sisters courageous campaign to do right by their brother. To top it all, when the family has a chance of gaining substantial compensation through a civil suit, Sinn Fein refused to back the motion in the European Parliament providing funding for the case.

Martin McGuinness urged the McCartney family to stay out of party politics, saying they could risk losing popular support for their campaign. Which imo is a valid point. Sinn Fein wanted to ammend the motion that is why they voted against it.



[Quote=
Originally Posted by MT]
Throw in the whispering campaign against the sisters – even the apologists on this board know full well who started that – and the cunningly bemused queries by several republicans with regards funding for the McCartney sisters, ie. them traitors is in the pay a the Brit bastards, and other smears about their brother’s and their own characters and the movement had mounted a full on hatchet job. And had this took place in the mid 90’s, that hatchet job would have been a lot more literal. [/QUOTE]



Any evidence at all here or you just making this up?? [/QUOTE]

and then this

irish1 wrote:

Thats one isolated incident Cork, a truly tragic one but many many murders have occured up North and got very little media attention down South.

And then you have the audacity to ask us

Irish1 wrote:

Where have I defended Sinn Fein's actions on this matter??

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and tastes great with plum sauce, it's a duck.

If the body of your posts consistently question those who attack SFs stance while the body of your posts defend SFs stance you have the termity to ask us "when have I defended SFs action on this matter?" Thats a laugh Irish1 and an insult to the intelligence of the other posters here.

I'm not going to bother responding to another one of your long winded replies but to say this. To have the audacity to post consistently defending the actions of SF leadership, justifying their policy, and defended their leadership and then go "whoa when I have defended SFs actions in this matter" is just, well words fail me, Shltter, jamn0, Amen to that, at least they admit what they are and what they stand for, you talk their talk but when forced to confront the less pleasant realities of your politics, you slither away, claiming deniability.

Let me make it simple to you irish1 you may not have said it, but every fibre of your posts says you do, and then feebly trying to dance away because you haven't straight out said your position is an insult to the other posters on this board.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and tastes great with plum sauce, it's a duck.

If the body of your posts consistently question those who attack SFs stance while the body of your posts defend SFs stance you have the termity to ask us "when have I defended SFs action on this matter?" Thats a laugh Irish1 and an insult to the intelligence of the other posters here.

I'm not going to bother responding to another one of your long winded replies but to say this. To have the audacity to post consistently defending the actions of SF leadership, justifying their policy, and defended their leadership and then go "whoa when I have defended SFs actions in this matter" is just, well words fail me, Shltter, jamn0, Amen to that, at least they admit what they are and what they stand for, you talk their talk but when forced to confront the less pleasant realities of your politics, you slither away, claiming deniability.

Let me make it simple to you irish1 you may not have said it, but every fibre of your posts says you do, and then feebly trying to dance away because you haven't straight out said your position is an insult to the other posters on this board.

As I said in the other thread, I have voted for SF and may do so again and yes I support them but that doesn't mean I support their every action and I certainly don't support the IRA. I enjoy discussing politics and I know a bit about Sinn Fein so I post information about their viewpoint, if I support that viewpoint I will say so. However in this case I don't happen to support what the party has done, all I have said is I understand why they have as would anyone who has any knowledge of the party. Now if you want to keep quoting the same replies I have made and try and say their in support of Sinn Fein fine do that, however I know what I wrote and why I wrote it.

If I didn't post Sinn Fein's side would this thread even still excist?? I doubt it, I mean look at the thread on the Morris tribunal only lasted 5 or 6 posts, why? Well probably cos everyone's in agreement that what happened was awful. You see with only one side of the story well you don't really have a story, or at least you don't have a discussion and well I thought this was a discussion board, no

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

As I said in the other thread, I have voted for SF and may do so again and yes I support them but that doesn't mean I support their every action and I certainly don't support the IRA. I enjoy discussing politics and I know a bit about Sinn Fein so I post information about their viewpoint, if I support that viewpoint I will say so. However in this case I don't happen to support what the party has done, all I have said is I understand why they have as would anyone who has any knowledge of the party. Now if you want to keep quoting the same replies I have made and try and say their in support of Sinn Fein fine do that, however I know what I wrote and why I wrote it.

Riiiiiiiggggghhhhttttttt...........

See what we have here in a case of intellectual dishonesty. You refute what posters say, hold a position, and then when challenged on this you go "hey when did I explicitly say "I support Sinn Fein""? When your posts defend Sinn Fein members and individuals, party policy, you challenge other posters assertions, and then when forced to face the difficult implications of your position, when the going gets a little tough, you spout the glib statement about SF democratic mandate working for peaceful resolution and and btw I'm not going to answer some of the more challenging ramifications of my argument because I didn't "explicitly" say that this was my point of view.

As I've said you wear your politics a little too openly, to try this pretence of playing devils adovcate.

If I didn't post Sinn Fein's side would this thread even still excist?? I doubt it, I mean look at the thread on the Morris tribunal only lasted 5 or 6 posts, why? Well probably cos everyone's in agreement that what happened was awful.

Shltter, Amen to That, and Jamn0 were doing a more honest argument for your side.

You see with only one side of the story well you don't really have a story, or at least you don't have a discussion and well I thought this was a discussion board, no

And it's nigh on impossible to discuss anything with you, because of the cowardice of your arguments. You present a position, you challenge other posters, you defend Sinn Fein members, and Sinn Fein policy, and then when an awkward question is posed to you go "hey I only understand their argument, I don't support it", thus leaving you off the hook as it were. As I said it's intellectually dishonest, insulting to the intelligence of the rest of this community, and you should be more than a little embarssed that after pages and pages of defence and rebuttal of Sinn Fein's position and behaviour, you go "Hey when did I (explicitly) say I support Sinn Fein in this matter", when it gets a little difficult for you.

A Dub in Glasgo

2 men have now been charged

1 with mudering McCartney
1 with attempted murder of Devine

Probably another 12-18 months before these go to trial

county

irish1 wrote:

I have voted for Sinn Fein in the past and may do so again and yes I have no respect for the IRA.

i`am sorry but sinn fein/ira are the same even the dogs on the street know that

pogoń

irish1 wrote:

Without SF there wouldn't be a peace process.

Without SF/IRA there would be no need for a peace process.

A Dub in Glasgo

pogo&#324 wrote:

Without SF/IRA there would be no need for a peace process.

How far back do you want to go?

Without the brutality of the NI state, there would be no need for a peace process.

Without the British presence in Ireland, there would be no need for a peace process.

This is not a discussion on the connection between SF and the IRA (unless you are making a point in relation to McCartney) and its not a discussion on the peace process.

Back on topic folks.