[article] Resignations from IRA Army Council (apparently)

rsynnott

I'd be surprised if a FARC-run Columbia was any better off than the current one; people are terribly corruptable, and no doubt a few large bribes would have it firmly back under the control of the multinationals...

That said, yes, FARC at least does have a cause that makes some vague sense.

Hobbes

sceptre wrote:

Mike, as per usual rules, please add your own views.

Thought if you used the [article] tag its ok.

righthand

irish1 wrote:

Rock climber the biggest word in that quote of yours is "suspected" all anyone has here is opinions no one has every produced evidence that the IRA are dealing drugs or that Adams is on the IRA army council, all people have is a list of stories that anyone could make up, oh and that he lied 30 years ago.

On Marian Finucane's last show a month ago, one of her guests was Fr. Alec Reid.

Marian wrote:

"In the early years he was known as the priest from Belfast. He was involved to what to the outsider, looked like cloak and dagger negotiations, that paved the way for people of very different beliefs could live side by side. Although he spent 40 years at Clonard Monastery in republican west Belfast, he says he has been all round the world and several other places beside. Fr. Alec Reed you are very welcome indeed to the program."

Fr.Reid wrote:

"Basically, now there are 2 organizations and Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness certainly for years are not members for years of the Army Council and I have meet the Army Council . I met them. And I know they are not even although they are accused of being. There is a definite, if you work in that there is a situation, you can see there is a clear distinction between SF and the IRA because SF would talk you me about what they were going to have to say to the IRA, how if you like, persuade them, who they were friendly with they knew the people who were if you like more flexible more willing....

I've transcribed the show. As it was her last it is still up on RTE 'Marian Finucane Show'. Listen in for a whole lot more. She couldn't shut him up. He was involved before the 'troubles' began and was intimately involved throughout. I listen a lot to RTE and do not remember Fr.Reid being interviewed previously. By the way, it is as if it never happened as far as RTE News is concerned. Big scoop - buried! Wrong data. See how long it is until they take off the link.

Now for a real rant. Who benefited out of this constant doubting of ADAMS? It certainly did nothing to aid the peace process. To me it seemed like some perverted game between the journalists to trip him up and score points. They hardly ever came out even. I'll keep the juicy bits for now.


Teaser. Name the trade unions that conspired with the employer, to sack a good employee on trumped up charges of double jobbing, because her face did not fit with her 'green' image in an 'un-green' environment!!! Full points for the name of the employee.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Thought if you used the [article] tag its ok.

It's been practice that the board requires that you add your views when posting an article.
The guidelines state that you must be willing to do so.
The mods interpretation of this in every case that I've seen since that rule was put up has meant that any poster who puts up an article as a new thread must include their own comments on it-otherwise the thread is binned.

tomMK1

murphaph wrote:

Because in a democratic society the police must have proof before they arrest and charge people for crimes. Knowing it is one thing-proving it is another. The aforementioned scumbag gangs don't deal in 'due process', they deal in drugs.

but how does anyone be of the 'knowing' of these things without any proof whatsoever? what your saying, correct me if Im wrong, is its OK to suppose someone is doing something and then publish it in a paper (?) and take that as fact. Personally , I like some proof to go with these things.

Victor - are you sure of that? Plus, if they were members of the army council then they wouldnt just be charged with IRA membership, but with the all new 'directing terrorism' thing wouldnt they?

Sherlock

How could they be charged with "directing terrorism" when the IRA have apparently got out of the terrorism business?

supersheep

tomMK1 wrote:

but how does anyone be of the 'knowing' of these things without any proof whatsoever? what your saying, correct me if Im wrong, is its OK to suppose someone is doing something and then publish it in a paper (?) and take that as fact. Personally , I like some proof to go with these things.

Journalists have confidential sources, who will speak to them but not to the cops. I'm guessing the Indo or someone spoke to an IRA member who told them. Either that or someone in Intelligence... There is proof, but not the kind that will stand up in a court of law.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

AmenToThat

supersheep wrote:

just pointing out that the gap in evilness between FARC and the Colombian government is less wide than the gap between the IRA and the British or Irish government.)

In your opinion, it is my opinion that the British government is one of the biggest terrorist organizations on the planet and the fact that its democratically elected if anything makes the deeds committed under the name of 'Britian' over the centuries across the planet even more disgusting.

IRA violence while shocking in nature was carried out in the name of uniting the island under one government and ending the influence and oppression of a foreign power. Much of the violence committed by Britain across the globe over the centuries was done in the name of the accumalation of wealth for the elite of British society and is now being continued by a Labour government with the only purpose of standing by a true superpower in the hope that some of the 'glory' and wealth will rub off and Britain can again feel good about herself as a genuine world power.
That is the true gap between the deeds of the IRA and those of Her Majesty's Government.

oscarBravo

AmenToThat wrote:

IRA violence while shocking in nature was carried out in the name of uniting the island under one government and ending the influence and oppression of a foreign power.

Oh. Well, that's all right then.

Stabshauptmann

Another thought crossed my mind:
Adams and co try to deny that they're on the army coucil, they succed in this for years but latly ppl have become increasingly convinced that they are on said council.
Its not good PR, so they quit.

Rather cynical I know, but they might in fact, be quiting a position they never held because its the only way to convince ppl they dont

Not my opinion, but Ive invested heavily in tinfoil

Hydroquinone

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Another thought crossed my mind:
Adams and co try to deny that they're on the army coucil, they succed in this for years but latly ppl have become increasingly convinced that they are on said council.
Its not good PR, so they quit.

I like that. It makes sense to me. Seems to me that Adams is one of those figures who will go down in history as a person about whom very little is ever truly known, without dispute. Unfortunately there are people who would believe that the moon was made of green cheese and peopled by five headed moonpeople, if Gerry said it and there are people who believe Gerry Adams is the very personification of evil upon this earth and that he eats British babies in Protestant baby sauce for breakfast.

When you have such divisive opinions, whatever the authorities do with this latest action it will not be believed by some and seen as an "I told you so" by others. I'm not really looking forward to seeing it we put him in prison for membership of an illegal organisation of if the UK arrests him as part of their new directing terrorism law. If not, well then, the terrorists have won, to quote a phrase you see on the American boards quite a lot. And if we do, or the UK does, then the prospect for serious unrest and a basklash of some proportion is pretty huge.

As an exercise in forcing both governments' hands, it's a masterstroke. But will either have the brass neck to call his bluff? I wonder.

Mighty_Mouse

I'm not really looking forward to seeing it we put him in prison for membership of an illegal organisation of if the UK arrests him as part of their new directing terrorism law.

Am I right in thinking you believe the brits are going to Gerry Adams in prison under new anti-terrorism legalisation?

Are you well at all?I could actually see the brits agreeing to delist the IRA as an active terrorist organisation or something as part of a new deal to get stormont up and running. Which is going in the opposite direction really.

tomMK1

Sherlock wrote:

How could they be charged with "directing terrorism" when the IRA have apparently got out of the terrorism business?

the IRA is still an illegal organisation isnt it?

the point im trying to make here is that IF adams and co are on the army council and IF such proof exists, then why arent they arrested? If its proof that wont stand up in a court of law then is it proof or hearsay?

The answer is they arent being arrested because theres no proof in the first place to back up the claims - but by golly it keeps people reading warped newspapers such as the indo.

Its amazing how some times proof is required, and other times (like the so called bank robbery and this army council lark) the fact there is no evidence is proof enough in itself. Kinda bit like a mob mentality.

Hydroquinone

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Am I right in thinking you believe the brits are going to Gerry Adams in prison under new anti-terrorism legalisation?

Are you well at all?I could actually see the brits agreeing to delist the IRA as an active terrorist organisation or something as part of a new deal to get stormont up and running. Which is going in the opposite direction really.

I'm very well, thanks. Hope you are too.

If you read the whole of that post you will see that I was musing on the chances of either government doing anything whatsoever at all about it. But if you choose to pick one bit of it to suggest that I'm sick in the head, then there's not a whole lot I can do about that, now is there?

supersheep

AmenToThat wrote:

In your opinion, it is my opinion that the British government is one of the biggest terrorist organizations on the planet and the fact that its democratically elected if anything makes the deeds committed under the name of 'Britian' over the centuries across the planet even more disgusting.

IRA violence while shocking in nature was carried out in the name of uniting the island under one government and ending the influence and oppression of a foreign power. Much of the violence committed by Britain across the globe over the centuries was done in the name of the accumalation of wealth for the elite of British society and is now being continued by a Labour government with the only purpose of standing by a true superpower in the hope that some of the 'glory' and wealth will rub off and Britain can again feel good about herself as a genuine world power.
That is the true gap between the deeds of the IRA and those of Her Majesty's Government.

You can't really say that the deeds committed by Britain five hundred years ago were the fault of the current government - or even of any government which approaches democratic by our standards.
The British government has done less wrong in modern Northern Ireland than the Colombian government has done in modern Colombia. No death squads clearing favelas of street kids...
@TomMK1 - Courts require a level of proof that newspapers don't - if newspapers required that level of evidence, news would come out maybe years after events occurred...

tomMK1

supersheep wrote:

You can't really say that the deeds committed by Britain five hundred years ago were the fault of the current government - or even of any government which approaches democratic by our standards.
The British government has done less wrong in modern Northern Ireland than the Colombian government has done in modern Colombia. No death squads clearing favelas of street kids...

i dont think you need go back hundreds of years to find deeds committed by britain in the north of ireland. no death squads? what about the SAS in the mid 80s - like those who tried murder to Bernadette Devlin (theres a dispute over if it were the SAS or the UDA - Devlin claims it was both) or the three fellas killed outside Omagh and then had weapons planted in their car in 1988?

Not trying to troll, but thats what I mean - to see bad deeds by britain one only needs to go back a handful of years.

@TomMK1 - Courts require a level of proof that newspapers don't - if newspapers required that level of evidence, news would come out maybe years after events occurred...

Thats true - but thats because newpapers dont need to tell the truth - they just need to sell newspapers

Mighty_Mouse

When you have such divisive opinions, whatever the authorities do with this latest action it will not be believed by some and seen as an "I told you so" by others.

I dont see why anyone has to anything about an Irish Independant newspaper article. Indo says they have. SF say the were never on it in first place.

I'm not really looking forward to seeing it we put him in prison for membership of an illegal organisation of if the UK arrests him as part of their new directing terrorism law.

Do you think this is even slightly possible?

If not, well then, the terrorists have won, to quote a phrase you see on the American boards quite a lot

But if this crazy act doesnt happen, the terrorists have won?

. And if we do, or the UK does, then the prospect for serious unrest and a basklash of some proportion is pretty huge.

ok now you've lost me a little! Are you saying it should be done or it shouldn't. Or merely talking about the reactions to an impossible situation?

As an exercise in forcing both governments' hands, it's a masterstroke. But will either have the brass neck to call his bluff? I wonder.

Now I'm officially lost. I have to ask..........what you talking about?

Do you think it's possible the indo made it up or based it on dodgy sources and therefore Gerry will read it and smile, Berti will read it and smile, Tony will read it and smile, Ian will read it and put it in his file of reasons for not going into goverment with republicans?

End of story

Hydroquinone

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Or merely talking about the reactions to an impossible situation?

Hallelujah! That's exactly what I'm merely talking about. Eggggzackleee.

Musing, that's all it was; musings on a situation that no one here knows the truth about. And even if we did it would make feck all difference because we're only ordinary internet wafflers with no authority to do anything whatsoever about it.

See here when I said this:

whatever the authorities do with this latest action it will not be believed by some and seen as an "I told you so" by others.

Option 1 - Govt. decide there's no case for him to answer. Result? Republicans say "Yah boo. Told you so". Anti-republicans don't believe it and are convinced there's a cover-up
Option 2 - Govt. decide there is enough evidence to arrest him. Result? Anti- Republicans say "Yah boo. Told you so". Republicans don't believe it and are convinced there's a cover up.

Does that make it any clearer for you?

And to actually answer your question - do I think it's possible that the Indo is telling lies? Yup. I do. Do I think it's possible I think they're telling the truth? Yup, I do.
Fortunately, I'm not Michael McDowell or Peter Hain and neither are you (or are you? If you are, what ther hell are you doing on here? Haven't you got a proper job? ). So it's not up to me or you or anyone else on here what either government does about these claims. But I'll be interested to see what happens; if anything, in the months to come.

supersheep

tomMK1 wrote:

i dont think you need go back hundreds of years to find deeds committed by britain in the north of ireland. no death squads? what about the SAS in the mid 80s - like those who tried murder to Bernadette Devlin (theres a dispute over if it were the SAS or the UDA - Devlin claims it was both) or the three fellas killed outside Omagh and then had weapons planted in their car in 1988?
Not trying to troll, but thats what I mean - to see bad deeds by britain one only needs to go back a handful of years.

I know - don't think for a second that I'm supporting them. My mum was in Dublin the day of the Dublin/Monaghan bombings - and if British military intelligence weren't involved, I'll eat my hat. Hard to imagine the UVF pulling off such sophisticated bombs.
Thing is, though, they are not the Colombian government. Admittedly, it seems to have cleared up its act somewhat in the past few years, but the right-wing militias that have slaughtered innocent children are still government sponsored. Imagine how much worse it would be if the British government said to the UVF, "Kill all the Catholics you want buddies, wipe that scum off the street", which is what seems to have happened there.

Sand

The "So why isnt Gerry Adams arrested" things comes up a fair bit. Basically, the mystery is removed around the same time as naiviety. Hume didnt hold secret talks with Adams because he led a party with ...oooh 5% of the vote or somesuch. He held talks with him because he was heading up an organisation that kidnapped mens families and threatened to murder them unless they acted as unwilling suicide bombers - for the good of all Ireland of course.

The exact same reason applies to why he is not arrested. Adams is the boss, hes not the doer. He doesnt go out and kneecap people or robs banks personally. Arresting him wouldnt stop a single punishment beating or prevent a single act of crime, because he doesnt do them. The organisation he leads does.

Adams is left "immune" for the same reason its understood that heads of state and politicians are not targetable ( i.e. a ban on assassinations ) in war or other conflict. Hes a point of contact. If he was jailed, the damage to the provos would be minimal, if anything they would gain from their by now famous self pitying victimhood. However, the governments would lose a person they could talk to and reach deals with.

The papers arent bound by such political concerns. They are free to say what the dogs on the street know. Hell, the worst youll get from Martin McGuinness if you say hes a member of the IRA is a boring letter of denial.

And as for the SFIRA statement later this week, let me spoil it for those of you foolish enough to be holding your breath for another "historic" moment. Itll be a lot of feel good ****e and buzz words about what heroes the IRA are, how they respect their "good friends" SF, and what a bunch of ungrateful bastards the Brits and the Prods and the McCartneys are, itll contain a lot of airy fairy vague promises that will sound amazingly like a lot of promises they made way, way back in the GFA and since then.

But nothing will actually change.

AmenToThat

supersheep wrote:

You can't really say that the deeds committed by Britain five hundred years ago were the fault of the current government

Thats not what Im saying, Im claiming that the British government in all its forms, from the days of monarchy to the days of a limited vote right up the the present 'new Labour' have been involved in actions around the world that have been nothing more than acts of terrorism on a massive scale.

supersheep wrote:

The British government has done less wrong in modern Northern Ireland than the Colombian government has done in modern Colombia. No death squads clearing favelas of street kids...

But certainly a 'shoot to kill' policy and where this created scandals they simply gave the Loyalist death squads free reign to carry out their blody work.
But your right, not as bad as one of the most curropt and murderous governments currently recognized by the world community...........

marco murphy

Could adams and his chums be trying to say ''We resigned, if the IRA do anything its not in our hands..? ''

Villain

Sand wrote:

The "So why isnt Gerry Adams arrested" things comes up a fair bit. Basically, the mystery is removed around the same time as naiviety. Hume didnt hold secret talks with Adams because he led a party with ...oooh 5% of the vote or somesuch. He held talks with him because he was heading up an organisation that kidnapped mens families and threatened to murder them unless they acted as unwilling suicide bombers - for the good of all Ireland of course.

The exact same reason applies to why he is not arrested. Adams is the boss, hes not the doer. He doesnt go out and kneecap people or robs banks personally. Arresting him wouldnt stop a single punishment beating or prevent a single act of crime, because he doesnt do them. The organisation he leads does.

Adams is left "immune" for the same reason its understood that heads of state and politicians are not targetable ( i.e. a ban on assassinations ) in war or other conflict. Hes a point of contact. If he was jailed, the damage to the provos would be minimal, if anything they would gain from their by now famous self pitying victimhood. However, the governments would lose a person they could talk to and reach deals with.

The papers arent bound by such political concerns. They are free to say what the dogs on the street know. Hell, the worst youll get from Martin McGuinness if you say hes a member of the IRA is a boring letter of denial.[/

Once again Sand offers these allegations without any proof, I really would love to see you back up those accusations. I mean ffs I could say “Sand is a drug dealer who is not arrested because he controls a gang of armed men, if he was to be arrested that control would be gone and the gang would kneecap people and rob banks”

Wait you want proof??? Emmmmm…. Lets see if I say it’s my opinion now is that ok?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sand wrote:

And as for the SFIRA statement later this week, let me spoil it for those of you foolish enough to be holding your breath for another "historic" moment. Itll be a lot of feel good ****e and buzz words about what heroes the IRA are, how they respect their "good friends" SF, and what a bunch of ungrateful bastards the Brits and the Prods and the McCartneys are, itll contain a lot of airy fairy vague promises that will sound amazingly like a lot of promises they made way, way back in the GFA and since then.

But nothing will actually change.

I think you could be proven wrong within the next month, we’ll just have to wait and see though.

marco murphy

and what a bunch of ungrateful bastards the Brits and the Prods and the McCartneys are

Dont be stupid :rolleyes:

tomMK1

irish1 wrote:

I think you could be proven wrong within the next month, we’ll just have to wait and see though.

It wouldnt surprise me if whatever the IRA decided to do just wasnt good enough. there are many people who seem to have invested so much hatred in Sinn Fein and the IRA that even if republicans did what was asked of them, there'd still be reasons found to keep such arguments going.

marco murphy

I dont see what wouldnt be good enough. Disband,decommision...stop smuggling etc. What more can people want.

tomMK1

you try convincing most of monaghan, louth, south tyrone and armagh to stop smuggling. this myth that the IRA are responsible for smuggling misses that fact that people on the border smuggle, included in that are republicans and IRA people - but its because the border is there and is being taken advantage of.

The only way to get rid of smuggling is get rid of the border - so theres your first problem.

Second problem - decomission? i doubt that will happen. guns will be left buried, just like what happened after the civil war - so there'll be another stumbling point with people demanding decommisioning. Besides, guns can be easily bought so decommissioning was (and always has been) a red herring

what about demands for all IRA people to hand themselves in? someone will ask that i betcha

What about IRA finances? People will be looking for that too.

My point is, for some people, disbanding, decommissioning etc etc wont be good enough, as really, their last reasons for being awkward will have vanished and they'll think up more reasons to stand in the way of peace.

supersheep

I don't think anything will be good enough for Paisley. He'll want the IRA to take off their trousers, salute the Union Jack while wiping their a*ses on the tricolour, apologise to every Protestant victim, renounce Catholicism, and then say, "We still don't feel like going into government with them... Until they also do..."
But seriously, think it will take a LOT for the DUP to be satisfied. A long period of inactivity, total disbandment, total disarmament (I wouldn't be surprised if the DUP tried to make a fuss about any guns the IRA might have lost in arms dumps they've forgotten about...) and who knows what else...

tomMK1

i honestly would like to see the ira, uda, uvf, realIRA - all the paramilatry groupings, plus the british army and the PSNI all decommisson. take out all the guns and there might be peace.

I fear the Irish political parties more than the unionists when it comes to not being satisfied with what the IRA do. Paisley at least leds his people who live there, as does adams, but the irish government looks in from the outside and represents a lot of people who dont really understand whats going on.