They're back....

mycroft

bonkey wrote:

I challenge both mycroft and you to post up the name of the newspaper and the publication date of the paper containing the articles you both respectively claim to be in possession of.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=71487993825&p=7y487994z3x&n=71487994312
The article includes the link to the classic "apology but not really an apology' from Adams, and Mc Laughlin's denial.

But I suspect ISAW would despite "not being a Marxist" or a "Sinn Fein member" would take one of those slurry milkshakes.

ISAW wrote:

The thread is about the Colombia three being back in Ireland.

I 'm curious to know why someone who's so quick to bring in non sequiturs about Saddam Hussein, is demanding the thread be brought back on topic.
:rolleyes:

I also accept that SF may also have a role in answering this main issue.

And again I'm not eager in seing these men back in a prison, however considering your absolute defence of SF's word on all issues relating to this,when my entire point is whether the men are guilty or not, the act of traveling under false passports is naturally dubious and SF's inexplicable behaviour, and therefore should we not question their commitment to democratic principles[/b] in contrast to your offering the benefit of the doubt to SF to an absurd degree makes me sceptical of the above statement by you.

ISAW

mycroft wrote:

And again, and you're really beginning to miss this
A)

A: You claimed they were arrested with terrorists in a terrorist area. You stated that the IRA and SF lied about them being there on their business. You claimed they were there on either SF or IRA business and you claimed that they were caught with terrorists. according to you they are terrorists and that is a fact. But you have not produced any evidence about this so called "fact" which is really your opinion. You now are claiming after all that thay you have no idea if the whole thrust of your argument based on "facts" like this has any basis and that you really don't believe it at all.
As regards SF that to me is a seperate they have questions to answer and there should be some sort of an enquiry but FIRST one must decide what people are accusing the three of doing and what should be done if they are guilty of anything. You have produced nothing on this. do you think they should go back to Colombia for example?
Furthermore other parties have been in similar circumstances (not just on this island) and yes ther were enquiries there also.

B: You snipped the background material on FARC.
Colombia produces approximately 80% of the world's cocaine 70% of the heroin consumed on the east coast of the US. drugs trade in Colombia is controlled Cartels and Right Wing Paramilitaries in collusion with senior forces in the Colombian Army. US DEA has repeatedly acknowledged in testimony before US congress that the FARC is not involved in international drugs trafficking. Guerrillas remainfocused on taxation of illicit crops and pursing on the agenda of the peace talks the need to provide an economic alternative for peasants. This is part of the 12 point agenda agreed between the Colombian Government and the FARC.

What you fail to realise is that there is a difference between the reasons for doing something and the justification of it. I accept the reasons FARC and the IRA have for violence are wholly different from the reasons Loyalists use violence. This is important since some day one has to think about removing the reasons and that involves different actions in different circumstances. this does not mean I justify the violence.

Now the whole idea of an anti cartel Marxist group running drugs is not logical. Why are they "taxing" the cartels then? Well they want money for weapons and troops. Now suppose the US stepped in and said the US would pay them twice the money they get from the Cartels. they would probably wipe out all the cartels in their area. But that would mean the military regime would topple and an anti globalisation anti trans nationsl corporation left wing government would be sponsored by the US - not good for corporate america?
so that isnt really probable either.

One point being made in relation to Saddam is that he existed with US sponsorship just as other similar right Wing Groups do in Colombia. Another point is whether you adopt double standards and only apply criticism to FARC really because you do not like SF or the IRA but you appeal to moral arguments which can also be applied elsewhere and you do not condemn it elsewhere.

I'm someone who thinks that trying to excuse someone's reprenhensible actions by pointing out the worse deeds by the other guy isn't acceptable.

Im someone who doesn't use a moral argument on one group and ignore it on another. If something is wrong it is wrong for any groups. So why do you not condemn all such actions? Why single out the FARC? Is it because you think you can then claim links to the IRA? Look you have neglected to pay attention to the whole idea of conflict resolution. I referred above to the difference between "reasons" and "justifications" for violence. Please think about that. If you go to try solve these situations then a constant tirade of "we all know you are drug dealing murderers" made in total ignorance oif the history of the conflict is not going to get you anywhere.

One can only conclude you dont want discussion debate or a solution. You just want to rant and bash SF and the IRA. Why? Why dont you apply the same standards to other groups?

Or to put it another way do you think the US justication for the invasion of Iraq was acceptable because of the "Saddam oppressed his people" routine?

I don't think the current invasion and occupation of Iraq was acceptable. I also have opposed Saddam since 1982 when the US were his pals (and the French I might add). I oppose any misuse of force or abuse of human rights (including Saddam as a prisioner I might add). I dont support SF or the IRA. I am here to discuss the rights of the Colombia Three and what should happen to them.

Seeing as I never said they were on IRA business you may be waiting awhile.

Several times you said they were captured in a terrorist area with terrorists. several times you pointed to the "fact" of one being a convicted IRA bomber. Now let us get things straight, are you now claiming that non of the three are IRA?

And again you'll notice I did in fact quote one of their responses (seriously ISAW are you reading my posts?) and I did point out that several of the men made vague references to threats on their life, but the closest any of them came to specifing a threat was the mention of his solicitor's father's murder.

Your argument is that they disnt get killed so they werent in danger. It just does not hold any water. first the three have repeatedly pointed to dodgey situations e.g one being locked up in a communal cell with convicted right wing paramilitaries. Furthermore 25 defence lawyers have been killed since 1998. Urgent action appeals for protection of defense lawyers have been issued by International human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch. Two such appeals were issued in 2002 concerning the threes lawyers
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR230642002?open&of=ENG-COL
PUBLIC AI Index: AMR 23/064/2002

UA 180/02 Fear for safety 14 June 2002

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR231082002?open&of=ENG-COL
PUBLIC AI Index: AMR 23/108/2002

UA 287/02 Fear for safety/Death threats 20 September 2002

Which was hardly relevant to a "potential threat" the three faced, now is it? If they were under threat? Why? Two weren't convicted terrorists (and you doubt the third was) why the necessitity for false passports?

I can go into the reasons why someone with leftist leanings or an ex convict of a leftise group might feel under threat when locked up in a cell with serveral right wing paramilataries. I can also go into similar feelings for a white Supramicist locked up in a cell full of black Panther members. there are a whole list of similar happenings to the three. But I wont since I think that Amnesty alone is enough to convince most sensible people.
I started a campaign to free a Chinese student from China to return here to do his studies. He isnt dead now either. Others in similar circumstances were killed. I would be particularly baffeled if you claim he wasnt in danger because he is living today!

I do so adore this double standard. Whenever a member of the CIA or MI6 is found with a false passport their behaviour and actions are questioned. "Why did they have them?", "what had they planned?" And yet we're supposed to believe theres an plausible and genuine and peaceful reason the columbian three traveled using false passports.

You were already give the reasons.And it is not for the state to act in the same way as terrorists.

We must (and should) be suspicious when members of the security services use false IDs, but when former republican terrorists (and ordinary republicans)do, we should give them the benefit of the doubt?

Both should be given the benefit of the doubt. If you cant prove what they did they are assumed innocent.

Did I claim they were training FARC?

Let me be quite frank. Are you now admitting you do not believe they were terrorists training FARC or meeting with FARC to plan terrorist activities?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=71487993825&p=7y487994z3x&n=71487994312
States this is the first time SF made any form of admission that they got it wrong. It's an "apology" it's not close to an explanation.

You are turning logic on its head. You claim was that SF denied they knew the three and not that SF later accepted they knew them. My point was that I did not think SF denied them thirty days after they were arrested. I accept I might be wrong but as yet you have produced nothing to show me I am wrong. the above does not do so!

The article is unambigious in its assertion that it was on Oct 21, 12 weeks (far in excess of your 30 days) that the first admission by SF or Adams occured on this date.

You have it arseways again! The point is whether SF denied it 30 days after the arrest! they may well have but you have not shown me that did!

ISAW

mycroft wrote:

from, oh look! the article I quoted
http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/6087546?view=Eircomnet
Still refuting James Monaghan is a convicted bomber? because I see little point in arguing in someone who's reaction to indigestable evidence is to go "la la la la I'm not listening"

Now you can refute, it but the examiner is one of the most respected papers in Ireland, you want to deny it I'd suggest you find some evidence, rather that scoffing, I've a respected source, what have you got?

You cant shift the burden like that! this all came out of a discussion about speed of communications. You suggested that on hearing of the arrest that SF continually deinied they knew the three. I stated I might be wrong but I would be surprised if SF denied the three thirty days later. You have not produced anything to support you claim that SF denied the three any time around thiorty days later or later. Indeed I even stated that three weeks later they probably didnt deny them since they probably knew of the link by then. You havent produced a singlke reference showing SF denying them 21 days later and as I stated I might well be wrong. But you havent shown I am!

Furthermore, this like the other articles I've posted you've picked selective quotes to have read and ignored facts when it suits you.

Unlike you who picks no quotes? Do you know how a reference woirks. One makes a point. One then makes a quote from literature to support the point and supplies a reference to the source of the quote. You apparently think giving a reference is enough without showing a selected quote from it which is what one is meant to do

Still refuting James Monaghan is a convicted bomber? because I see little point in arguing in someone who's reaction to indigestable evidence is to go "la la la la I'm not listening"

I never claimed he was not a convicted IRA man, bomber or otherwise. where did I? If you continue in claiming this you are calling me a liar.

I asked you to support you list of "facts". This was one you eventually supported. I have no idea when ou originally posted it if you knew any of them had been convicted and what for.

ISAW

I 'm curious to know why someone who's so quick to bring in non sequiturs about Saddam Hussein, is demanding the thread be brought back on topic.
:rolleyes:

I already explained how that pointed to double standards on your part.

And again I'm not eager in seing these men back in a prison,

then whay post as "facts" about being convicted terrorists or them being arrested with terrorists?

however considering your absolute defence of SF's word on all issues relating to this,

where have I done that? I told you already that I dont support SF and they can defend themselves. I have no idea what SF have said on this and it doesnt really interest me in proving them liars. My interest is that the three get justice.

when my entire point is whether the men are guilty or not, the act of traveling under false passports is naturally dubious and SF's inexplicable behaviour, and therefore should we not question their commitment to democratic principles

You contradict yourself again. Above when I pointed to the main issue of the guilt or innocence of the three and thenm getting justice you point out you are more interested in what SF have to say about that issue than that issue itself!

in contrast to your offering the benefit of the doubt to SF to an absurd degree makes me sceptical of the above statement by you.

I dont think it was absurd that SF leadership didnt know about the issue for about three weeks after the arrests. I dont seriously believe they did know. Maybe they are lying and did know but I believe what the three said from the outset. Whether I believe it or not if You believe they were up to nefarious purposes then care to produce some evidence?

mycroft

ISAW wrote:

A: You claimed they were arrested with terrorists in a terrorist area. You stated that the IRA and SF lied about them being there on their business.

And again for the hard of bloody thinking.

A) I never said they were there on IRA business, and I never said the IRA did.
I clarified that they had not been caught with terrorists, but both they and FARC admitted meeting in FARC territory. Trying to win points on these issues is just weak.

according to you they are terrorists and that is a fact.

really? Where exactly did I say that?

But you have not produced any evidence about this so called "fact" which is really your opinion.

This torturous logic of yours is getting very tedious. Asking me to support a fact that I never claimed. I merely pointed out there are questions about this trip that neither the men nor SF have adequately answered. And they should at least try.

FIRST one must decide what people are accusing the three of doing and what should be done if they are guilty of anything. You have produced nothing on this. do you think they should go back to Colombia for example?

Your inability and unwilliness to read what I wrote is phenominally tedious. I never suggested they return to Columbia.

And seeing as we both agree that SF have questions to answer, (which is my entire point) I don't see what we are arguing about.

However and this is the hilarious part. you say SF "have questions to answer" and but you've spent the past four pages suggesting SF don't have any questions to answer and defending their actions to an absurd degree, what questions do you feel SF have to answer?

Furthermore other parties have been in similar circumstances (not just on this island) and yes ther were enquiries there also.

Your point being? Seeing as you seem (by your posts) to feel SF have done nothing wrong, and for that neither do SF, and theres no enquiry planned by SF, what is your point?

What you fail to realise is that there is a difference between the reasons for doing something and the justification of it. I accept the reasons FARC and the IRA have for violence are wholly different from the reasons Loyalists use violence. This is important since some day one has to think about removing the reasons and that involves different actions in different circumstances. this does not mean I justify the violence.

Why are they "taxing" the cartels then? Well they want money for weapons and troops. Now suppose the US stepped in and said the US would pay them twice the money they get from the Cartels. they would probably wipe out all the cartels in their area. But ?
so that isnt really probable either.

Seriously what is the point of the pseudo realistic John Clancy esque waffle?

Rambling points about the geo politcal landscape aside. You accept that FARC commit terrorist acts and fund themselves through drugs.

One point being made in relation to Saddam is that he existed with US sponsorship just as other similar right Wing Groups do in Colombia. Another point is whether you adopt double standards and only apply criticism to FARC really because you do not like SF or the IRA but you appeal to moral arguments which can also be applied elsewhere and you do not condemn it elsewhere.

Oh really? I don't? You don't know that I don't just because I don't appreciate you trying to derail this thread with waffle about Saddam and US foreign policy, that I don't condemn this acts. Don't presume or assume, okay?

Im someone who doesn't use a moral argument on one group and ignore it on another. If something is wrong it is wrong for any groups. So why do you not condemn all such actions? Why single out the FARC? Is it because you think you can then claim links to the IRA?

Or is it because it's what the goddamn thread is about?

Look you have neglected to pay attention to the whole idea of conflict resolution. I referred above to the difference between "reasons" and "justifications" for violence. Please think about that. If you go to try solve these situations then a constant tirade of "we all know you are drug dealing murderers" made in total ignorance oif the history of the conflict is not going to get you anywhere.

One can only conclude you dont want discussion debate or a solution. You just want to rant and bash SF and the IRA. Why? Why dont you apply the same standards to other groups?

Hold on, you're here to;

I am here to discuss the rights of the Colombia Three and what should happen to them.

but I'm you say

Please think about that. If you go to try solve these situations then a constant tirade of

So you're limiting your debate to the columbian three, but I'm supposed to discuss the wider geo political situation. You're not just shifting the goal posts you're demanding I debate issues you don't want to.

I don't think the current invasion and occupation of Iraq was acceptable. I also have opposed Saddam since 1982 when the US were his pals (and the French I might add). I oppose any misuse of force or abuse of human rights (including Saddam as a prisioner I might add). I dont support SF or the IRA. I am here to discuss the rights of the Colombia Three and what should happen to them.

So when you were denying that FARC is terrorist organisation

ISAW wrote:

Who says FARC are a terrorist organisation

you were doing what?

And again for the hard of thinking, I'm here to discuss SF's actions and the ramifications for SF as a "democratic party"

Now let us get things straight, are you now claiming that non of the three are IRA?

ISAW. Read my f*cking post. I clarified that they met with FARC and both the men and FARC admitted this. And lose the ' " ' around fact. It's been proven. I'm saying we don't know, and we deserve to find out.

Your argument is that they disnt get killed so they werent in danger. It just does not hold any water. first the three have repeatedly pointed to dodgey situations e.g one being locked up in a communal cell with convicted right wing paramilitaries. Furthermore 25 defence lawyers have been killed since 1998. Urgent action appeals for protection of defense lawyers have been issued by International human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch. Two such appeals were issued in 2002 concerning the threes lawye

Em so there's no evidence of threats againist the men. Just their lawyers. Also seeing as they didn't plan on getting locked up with right wing paramilitaries, why did they go to all the trouble before they left to pick up false passports. It's not on the average holiday makers list

A)travellers checks
travel insurance
C) fake ID

You were already give the reasons.And it is not for the state to act in the same way as terrorists.

so now you're admitting they're terrorists??? Seriously ISAW make your bloody mind up

Both should be given the benefit of the doubt. If you cant prove what they did they are assumed innocent.

And again you're right. However their actions and the actions of SF are enough to warrant investigation.

Let me be quite frank. Are you now admitting you do not believe they were terrorists training FARC or meeting with FARC to plan terrorist activities?

I'm saying I don't know, but I find their excuses and the excuses of SF to be lacking, and I doubt columbian justice will get to the heart of the matter. Therefore i'd like to see an investigation to get to the bottom of it.

You are turning logic on its head. You claim was that SF denied they knew the three and not that SF later accepted they knew them. My point was that I did not think SF denied them thirty days after they were arrested. I accept I might be wrong but as yet you have produced nothing to show me I am wrong. the above does not do so!

Yes yes it does. The article clearly states that Adams first admission came on oct 21th. Thats a reputable source. The onus is now on you to disprove it.

You have it arseways again! The point is whether SF denied it 30 days after the arrest! they may well have but you have not shown me that did!

wearily

On October 22, 2001, Gerry Adams issued a statement clarifying that following "an investigation," it had emerged that, after all, Niall Connolly had been a Sinn Féin representative in Cuba. (see www.rte.ie/news/2001/1022/ira.html).

Interestingly,in his statement on October 21 2001, Adams apologised to the Connolly family for the anguish caused by his repeated denials, but there was no apology to the media or the public for repeatedly lying to them.

mycroft

ISAW wrote:

You cant shift the burden like that! this all came out of a discussion about speed of communications. You suggested that on hearing of the arrest that SF continually deinied they knew the three. I stated I might be wrong but I would be surprised if SF denied the three thirty days later. You have not produced anything to support you claim that SF denied the three any time around thiorty days later or later. Indeed I even stated that three weeks later they probably didnt deny them since they probably knew of the link by then. You havent produced a singlke reference showing SF denying them 21 days later and as I stated I might well be wrong. But you havent shown I am!

Yes. Yes I goddamn have and it's wearying debating with someone who can act this way. I've posted the audio link of Adams admission and apology on the 21st of October, up until that point. Adams even says, "it has now" using the current tense. You're quibbling over semantics.

Unlike you who picks no quotes? Do you know how a reference woirks. One makes a point. One then makes a quote from literature to support the point and supplies a reference to the source of the quote. You apparently think giving a reference is enough without showing a selected quote from it which is what one is meant to do

LOL

Like er, the two amnesty links you provided in your last post?

Hyprocritical much?

I can't believe the double standard you continual express, contradicting yourself a breath after you say something, and demanding I do something you can't be bothered doing.

I never claimed he was not a convicted IRA man, bomber or otherwise. where did I? If you continue in claiming this you are calling me a liar.

OH FFS, in your previous post you put inverted comma's around fact in THE PREVIOUS POST

ISAW wrote:

you pointed to the "fact" of one being a convicted IRA bomber.

Again semantic drift, you've been denying Monaghan was a convicted bomber since your first post, and now our furiously backpeddling.

You're demanding I leap through hoops to prove what I've already proven (for example Monaghan is a bomber)

And then demand I prove it again.

I asked you to support you list of "facts". This was one you eventually supported. I have no idea when ou originally posted it if you knew any of them had been convicted and what for.

I did, so tell me why were you furiously denying it for so long, and does it change anything for you? (no of course not, just like it won't change anything when you finally get around to listening to that Adams quote)

mycroft

ISAW wrote:

I already explained how that pointed to double standards on your part.


then whay post as "facts" about being convicted terrorists or them being arrested with terrorists?

F*cking hysterical, in the middle post you say

I never claimed he was not a convicted IRA man, bomber or otherwise. where did I?

Now you're back to slapping inverted comma's around the fact, that Monaghan is a convicted terroris.

And again for the hard of thinking I have already admitted that I was incorrect about their being arrested with terrorists However both FARC and the columbian three admit to meeting in FARC territory.

DO. YOU. COMPREHEND?

where have I done that? I told you already that I dont support SF and they can defend themselves. I have no idea what SF have said on this and it doesnt really interest me in proving them liars. My interest is that the three get justice.

You have, you've defended SF's version of events to the hilt. Jesus, you can't even admit what point you're arguing.

Pray tell how are they going to "get justice"

You contradict yourself again. Above when I pointed to the main issue of the guilt or innocence of the three and thenm getting justice you point out you are more interested in what SF have to say about that issue than that issue itself!

You've yet to explain how the "three get justice" And while the events are very significant i'm more concerned with their ramification for the peace process.

I dont think it was absurd that SF leadership didnt know about the issue for about three weeks after the arrests. I dont seriously believe they did know. Maybe they are lying and did know but I believe what the three said from the outset. Whether I believe it or not if You believe they were up to nefarious purposes then care to produce some evidence?

And this is the hilarious part, I'm not saying there are up to no go, you apparently claim SF have some explaining to do, my entire point is the explainations from both SF and the men, are dubious, whether they are guilty or not I don't know I would like some kind of explantion, and investigation, and SFs unwilliness to explain is unacceptable.

Now half the time you've said there needs to explainations and an investigation the rest of the time you go through torturous logic to defend Adams and the men to the hilt. That you give them the benefit of the doubt to an abusrd degree

ISAW

mycroft wrote:

F*cking hysterical, in the middle post you say

Now you're back to slapping inverted comma's around the fact, that Monaghan is a convicted terroris.

It is quite clear that you are missing the point here. throughout this whole discussion I have uses "fact" with inverted commas around it because I questioned the so called list of "facts" you postede and which were badly researched opintions and not facts! I never claimed Monaghan was not in the IRA. I questioned it as one of your "facts" and asked you to support it. I also questioned why you posted this fact. Why not not post something like the fact that Monaghan ran a video production enterprise and is skilled in video production?

And again for the hard of thinking I have already admitted that I was incorrect about their being arrested with terrorists However both FARC and the columbian three admit to meeting in FARC territory.

DO. YOU. COMPREHEND?

YES! I comprehend that your list of "facts" was badly researched and wrong!

You have, you've defended SF's version of events to the hilt. Jesus, you can't even admit what point you're arguing.

Please inform yourself about events. I dont support SF in general. this is a human rights issue. If the three were loyalists they would have the same right. Or if they were US marines.

Pray tell how are they going to "get justice"

You just reversed the question I asked you.

You've yet to explain how the "three get justice" And while the events are very significant i'm more concerned with their ramification for the peace process.

Throughout this thread I pointed to several principles of justice such as assuming innocence until approving guilty, due process, detention without trial etc. I picked up on your "list of facts" because it is from similar non facts that the three were supposed to be training FARC terrorists.

And this is the hilarious part, I'm not saying there are up to no go, you apparently claim SF have some explaining to do, my entire point is the explainations from both SF and the men, are dubious, whether they are guilty or not I don't know I would like some kind of explantion, and investigation, and SFs unwilliness to explain is unacceptable.

This runs entirely counter to your original assertion in your list of "facts" which I questioned.

Now half the time you've said there needs to explainations and an investigation the rest of the time you go through torturous logic to defend Adams and the men to the hilt. That you give them the benefit of the doubt to an abusrd degree

I don't care for defending Adams . I defending what I see as abuse of human rights. I would like to know where they got the false doccuments. I would also like to know where the decommissioned arms are buiried. But that has nothing to do with whether they should serve 17 years in Prison.

ISAW

mycroft wrote:

F*cking hysterical, in the middle post you say
cking hysterical, in the middle post you say

Quote:
I never claimed he was not a convicted IRA man, bomber or otherwise. where did I?

Now you're back to slapping inverted comma's around the fact, that Monaghan is a convicted terroris

I note you have avoided answering the question. where did I ? evasion noted! Monaghan is an experienced video producer as well. what has the fact that he was convicted of anything have to do with Colombia? You are trying to assume guilt by association.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

I note you have avoided answering the question. where did I ? evasion noted! Monaghan is an experienced video producer as well. what has the fact that he was convicted of anything have to do with Colombia? You are trying to assume guilt by association.

In fairness ISAW you've got to admit sending a bomb maker to the Farc to talk peace was a bit silly when there were plenty of other less contentious candidates to go there.

SF pushing the word out several times after said "observers" were caught on false passports disowning them deserves a lot of flack.
From my point of view,the guys were acquitted and this was appealed iirc - they should have awaited the full process but at this stage there should at least be some closure here in Ireland now that they are here.
It's not unprecedented to have a trial regarding something that went on in one country carried out in another.
In fact theres an Dublin murder trial currently happening in London.
People will have the view that they were up to no good in Farc land and people are entitled to that view,it's an understandable viewpoint.
But closure is whats wanted now and in my view that means a trial to hear whatever evidence here in this country.
The SCC would be ideal.

ISAW

Earthman wrote:

In fairness ISAW you've got to admit sending a bomb maker to the Farc to talk peace was a bit silly when there were plenty of other less contentious candidates to go there.

In fairness nobody has shown to me how any of the three were "sent".

SF pushing the word out several times after said "observers" were caught on false passports disowning them deserves a lot of flack.

for SF yes maybe. "disowning their own farrow" etc. but that does nothing to detract from their human rights!

From my point of view,the guys were acquitted and this was appealed iirc - they should have awaited the full process but at this stage there should at least be some closure here in Ireland now that they are here.

You really are ignorant of the appeal then. Three judges who had no submission from council held the procedure in camera and who overturned the original judges opinion without any additional evidence.
Witnessess swore they had seen the three and who couldnt have since evidence was produces to show people on another continent when they claimed they saw them training FARC terrorists. The judge cited them for perjury.
The review judges decided that being in the jungle maybe they had lost track of time and accepted this "evidence" without any cross examination which also conviently wiped out the perjury charges.
No hearing, no reexamination of witnessess
How can an acquittal be overturned by a court which heard no evidence? answer me that?

It's not unprecedented to have a trial regarding something that went on in one country carried out in another.
In fact theres an Dublin murder trial currently happening in London.

Supreme court Clark v Mc Mahon 1990 held that the Irish courts could go against a conviction in conflict with the human rights accorded by the Irish constitution.

People will have the view that they were up to no good in Farc land and people are entitled to that view,it's an understandable viewpoint.

So what? People will believe that there are little green men on Mars. They will claim we should "destroy all Martians" It is whern they come here and post that as a "fact" that bothers me.

But closure is whats wanted now and in my view that means a trial to hear whatever evidence here in this country.
The SCC would be ideal.

yeah maybe but try them for what? what are people sayinf they are guilty of?

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

In fairness nobody has shown to me how any of the three were "sent".

And in further fairness your comment doesn't address my question properly.
One of them was denied as having anything to do with SF and then some story appears that the proper procedures werent followed for connolly to be a cuban rep for the party.They've said themselves that they were "observing the peace process" in columbia and one of them happens to be a senior rep for SF in Cuba who apparently after their arrest is smokescreened into not even being an SF cuba Rep to the knowledge of the party etc .
Thats a fishy circumstance to the non involved tbh.It could either show rank disorganisation within SF( the most organisation driven/controlled party election wise that I'm aware of...A fact that could make one dubvious of an attempt to suggest otherwise ) or an attempted coverup

for SF yes maybe. "disowning their own farrow" etc. but that does nothing to detract from their human rights!

Where did I comment on human rights in the post to which you are replying?? Ergo where does it merit you mentioning it in reply to my points on this matter??

You really are ignorant of the appeal then.

I did not go into any detail regarding the appeal,I didnt comment on any avenues open to the guys aprés said appeal, so in all fairness you have no basis for that accusation,I respectively suggest you withdraw it.

Three judges who had no submission from council held the procedure in camera and who overturned the original judges opinion without any additional evidence.
Witnessess swore they had seen the three and who couldnt have since evidence was produces to show people on another continent when they claimed they saw them training FARC terrorists. The judge cited them for perjury.
The review judges decided that being in the jungle maybe they had lost track of time and accepted this "evidence" without any cross examination which also conviently wiped out the perjury charges.
No hearing, no reexamination of witnessess
How can an acquittal be overturned by a court which heard no evidence? answer me that?

You are making a lot of convenient assumptions there yourself given that the proceedings were "in camera" but we'll let you away with that;) especially given that I'm not coming at this from the view that the columbian justice system is wonderfull.

Supreme court Clark v Mc Mahon 1990 held that the Irish courts could go against a conviction in conflict with the human rights accorded by the Irish constitution.

What point are you trying to make there? Has it anything in particular to do with my post?I'll guess that you are saying that an Irish court could based on human rights issues(and others) over turn the decision of a foreign court?
I'm actually advocating an Irish court investigation for closure as you know into the whole lot, now that the guys are here.

So what? People will believe that there are little green men on Mars. They will claim we should "destroy all Martians" It is whern they come here and post that as a "fact" that bothers me.

Thats irrelevant tbh, where has anything I've posted in repy to you bore any relation to something as remote or as rare in Ireland as someone believing in the existance of martians.
Public opinion on a matter such as the columbia 3 and the news around them is pertinent to the thread and vastly more connected with reality than a discussion on the natives on the planet mars...
Lets stick to the points at hand rather than the ridiculous quirky sidelines.

yeah maybe but try them for what? what are people sayinf they are guilty of?

Well we could have a re run of the trial in columbia ie subject the evidence(if any) of the accusasations to an Irish court.
And of course travelling on false passports is a crime.

ISAW

Earthman wrote:

And in further fairness your comment doesn't address my question properly.

Actually the only question above was mine asking where I stated Monaghan was not an ex IRA man.

One of them was denied as having anything to do with SF and then some story appears that the proper procedures werent followed for connolly to be a cuban rep for the party.They've said themselves that they were "observing the peace process" in columbia and one of them happens to be a senior rep for SF in Cuba who apparently after their arrest is smokescreened into not even being an SF cuba Rep to the knowledge of the party etc .

On 29 August Adams denied he knew of the three before the arrest. I hasl said they were not there representing SF since he or senior SF who would have infromed him would have to authorise such a mission.
On 22 Oct Adams admitted Connolly was SF in Latin America but that he or the international brance of SF didnt authorise or know of the appointment.
You may well ask who did but if you are alleging lying or constant denials then care to produce a chronology of that ?

Thats a fishy circumstance to the non involved tbh.It could either show rank disorganisation within SF( the most organisation driven/controlled party election wise that I'm aware of...A fact that could make one dubvious of an attempt to suggest otherwise ) or an attempted coverup

I agree. SF are either inept or lying. I prefer to believe the latter. Am I wrong?If you have any evidence of lying, former planning of the mission etc. then care to produce it?

Where did I comment on human rights in the post to which you are replying?? Ergo where does it merit you mentioning it in reply to my points on this matter??

I already explained what I considered was the main issue. I dont mind discussing this other issue of SF but I remind you again that trhe main issue is that justice is done.

I did not go into any detail regarding the appeal,I didnt comment on any avenues open to the guys aprés said appeal, so in all fairness you have no basis for that accusation,I respectively suggest you withdraw it.

heres what you stated

the guys were acquitted and this was appealed iirc - they should have awaited the full process

Here is the details you were ignorant of
8 May 2004 colombian AG files appeal of the Acquittal
14 December: Three appeal judges REVERSE the acqulttal and give two 17 years and the third 17 1/2 years. They also fine them over $700,000. thats the final outcome of the full process that you were ignorant of.
I consier over 50 years in prison for no crime at all a much more serious issue than whether SF appointed someone to a position or not but I am prepared to discuss the latter.

You are making a lot of convenient assumptions there yourself given that the proceedings were "in camera" but we'll let you away with that;) especially given that I'm not coming at this from the view that the columbian justice system is wonderfull.

Ludricous! The assumptions are not assumptions! THey are self evident facts. If a decision is made behind closed doors then it is self evident to lawyers that they are not giving evidence to judges they are not meeting!

I'm actually advocating an Irish court investigation for closure as you know into the whole lot, now that the guys are here.

What court? On what issue?

where has anything I've posted in repy to you bore any relation to something as remote or as rare in Ireland as someone believing in the existance of martians.
Public opinion on a matter such as the columbia 3 and the news around them is pertinent to the thread and vastly more connected with reality than a discussion on the natives on the planet mars...

You just suggestd the courts look into the matter. I asked you according to what procedure. The courts are not led by public opinion. You can believe in the Man in the Moon if you like but suggest that the courts deal with your belief and you had better be prepared to say how to go about that.

Lets stick to the points at hand rather than the ridiculous quirky sidelines.

I already told you the main point - human rights.
This isnt a sideline! If you believe the court should entertain a load of hearsay about what somebody might have done I have news for you. They dont operate that way.

Well we could have a re run of the trial in columbia ie subject the evidence(if any) of the accusasations to an Irish court.

If you want to re run the trial here then post what they are guilty of and the evidence!

And of course travelling on false passports is a crime.

Is it? Did they travel here on such? And if so how can they be tried twice for the same crime?

ISAW

mycroft wrote:

And again for the hard of bloody thinking.

A) I never said they were there on IRA business, and I never said the IRA did.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3174129&postcount=161
C'mere kid and let me explain something to you. If "joe volunteer" "has to" obtain a forged passport to visit his brother in New Jersey. Then you know what? "joe volunteer" doesn't get to go. That's the consequences and ramifications of Joe Volunteers wiliness to commit violence to achieve his aims. It does not give Joe Volunteer the right to "forge" a passport so he can go.

However this isn't "Joe Volunteer" this is James Monaghan. Experienced Bomb maker. And he's not visiting his cousin's in NJ, he was was visiting a terrorist organisation in the jungles, trying to downplay this by claiming volunteers have to do to this when going to marbella, doesn't change where he was and who he was meeting.
[/quote]

You clearly mention about a "volunteer" which is the moniker for an IRA man. You also mention Monaghan by name and intimate that rather than being just an ordinary volunteer (and you call him one) he is a convicted on and convicted of Bomb making and meeting other terrorists.

You then continue:

No explanation has been given to why James Monaghan was sent for that matter.

You are claiming here that Monaghan was "sent". so you are claiming that he is IRA, he is experienced in bombmaking and that the IRA sent him.

I clarified that they had not been caught with terrorists, but both they and FARC admitted meeting in FARC territory. Trying to win points on these issues is just weak.

i accept the "clarification". the point is you were wrong about what you claimed as a fact! You posted a number of scantily researched opinions as fact and this is not the only one you have been shown up on!


really? Where exactly did I say that?

See above for one reference.
here is another:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3175500&postcount=163
where you state

As I understand it the IRA have rejected armed struggle, in favour of purely political methods, to achieve it's goals. Why are they meeting with groups who still favour violence?

You are again saying that the three were involved in an IRA mission to talk to Colombian terrorists.

I would remind you of you comments here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3162324&postcount=84

if you claim something the onus is on you to prove it.

and

The fact remains the same three SF members including a convicted bomber travelled using false passports to meet a rebel organisation whom lets not forget ... SF have lied about their status and their reasons for being there.

Are you now going to "clarify" that the "fact" that three of them are SF members is not a fact at all? Are you going to show where there is any evidence to support this "fact" that all three are SF members? Remember if you claim something the onus is on you to prove it.

...Asking me to support a fact that I never claimed.

see above.

Your inability and unwilliness to read what I wrote is phenominally tedious.

I will leave that to others to decide. Some of what you wrote and the references to it are listed above.

And seeing as we both agree that SF have questions to answer, (which is my entire point) I don't see what we are arguing about.

No you possibly dont! You see you have not shown that all three were SF or that SF planned the mission. I admit that should anyone fine the whole thing was planned by the IRA or SF in advance and other party people or "voulenteers" actually knew about the mission that this would not look good for the three. I don't believe that they were there on SF business as a Sinn Fein delegation. Put it this way if Young Fine Gael from Dublin Central went to Srormont and met the PUP and afterwards one of their "delegation" said something counter to FG policy I would not blame Enda Kenny. If that person happened to say he was in favour of armed struggle for a United ireland and Loyalists kidnapped him then I would ask for his release. If that person was not actually a member of YFG but say a friend of a member from college who just happened to travel with them I would still say he should be released. I would like to know if he really was not a FG member and if he had past links with FG but I would not assume he was a terrorist supporter and deserved to be kidnapped.

However and this is the hilarious part. you say SF "have questions to answer" and but you've spent the past four pages suggesting SF don't have any questions to answer and defending their actions to an absurd degree, what questions do you feel SF have to answer?

Who actually did know of the visit and when. How was Connolly appointed to his position. Who knew of that and when. But all this is minor compared to
why were three people sentenced to over 50 years in Prison and over $700,000 in fines?

Rambling points about the geo politcal landscape aside. You accept that FARC commit terrorist acts and fund themselves through drugs.

You are being overly simplistic. Do you believe that the 1916 IRA were terrorists or the 1922 IRA were? do you understand why people like Bobby sands joined the IRA?

So you're limiting your debate to the columbian three, but I'm supposed to discuss the wider geo political situation. You're not just shifting the goal posts you're demanding I debate issues you don't want to.

again I have posted several times about the MAIN issue of this discussion. I have also posted that I will discuss other peripheral issues but understand in advance that they are so.

And again for the hard of thinking, I'm here to discuss SF's actions and the ramifications for SF as a "democratic party"

Start another thread then. Ithis one is only about that in so far as it might relate to the Colombia Three. the thread is about the Three. If SF come into it it is only in relation to them.

ISAW. Read my f*cking post. I clarified that they met with FARC and both the men and FARC admitted this. And lose the ' " ' around fact. It's been proven. I'm saying we don't know, and we deserve to find out.

In http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3166253&postcount=117
you posted a list of "facts" numbered 1 to 11

So far you have not shown 1 to be a fact. You have supplied no evidence of FARC distributing narcotics. In counter argument I pointed to the DEA and several other references which refute your "fact"

2. is a fact you have not supported which is probably true but is peripheral to the issue. It seems to suggest that SF on one hand criticise drugs and on the other deal in them. So what> It has no relevance unless you claim that is what the Colombia Three were up to.

3. is not proven or 4.
5. is accepted
6. is accepted but what is the relevance of it?
7. is clearly wrong but rather than admit that you claim to "clarify" it
8,9,10 and 11 have also not been proven

Do you understand now why in you list of 11 "facts" I put quote marks around the word fact?

Em so there's no evidence of threats againist the men. Just their lawyers.

There is evidence. I pointed you to it earlier. Nevertheless, if you are in gaol and amnesty international announce your lawyers life is in danger because he is defending the likes of you do you not think that your life might be threatned also?

The article clearly states that Adams first admission came on oct 21th. Thats a reputable source. The onus is now on you to disprove it.

And once again I didnt make any such claim. I pointed out about it being unlikely that Adams was denying the three had any links with SF a month after they were arrested. that would be early September nearly two months before accordin to you he admitted he had knowledge of them! Any you have produced nothing to show that denials happened after early September!

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Actually the only question above was mine asking where I stated Monaghan was not an ex IRA man.

You were replying to my post.It's perfectly plain to me that there were a lot of guffs committed here and that there were plenty of people who could have observed the process who wouldnt have created the fuss that we are now see-ing.

On 29 August Adams denied he knew of the three before the arrest. I hasl said they were not there representing SF since he or senior SF who would have infromed him would have to authorise such a mission.
On 22 Oct Adams admitted Connolly was SF in Latin America but that he or the international brance of SF didnt authorise or know of the appointment.
You may well ask who did but if you are alleging lying or constant denials then care to produce a chronology of that ?

I'll care to suggest what it looks like.
It looks like we are asked to believe that a highly organised party had a representative in Cuba without it's leadership knowing it.

Thats up there with Brian Lenihans "mature reflection" statement tbh for it's believeability. If it was a genuine Gaffe, and I'm willing to accept that it was, it would be a huge gaffe and untypical.

I agree. SF are either inept or lying. I prefer to believe the latter. Am I wrong?If you have any evidence of lying, former planning of the mission etc. then care to produce it?

Well you see you are making the mistake here yet again of assuming I am making allegations,I'm rather saying what it looks like.
The problem is, when you are dealing with ex prisoners and people on false passports, the balance of credibility is not in their favour.

I already explained what I considered was the main issue. I dont mind discussing this other issue of SF but I remind you again that trhe main issue is that justice is done.

And how is that different to my position?
You decided to quote my post whilst indicating that you wanted to talk about something else.
I'd prefer if you are quoting me, that you would stick to the contents of my post.

Here is the details you were ignorant of
8 May 2004 colombian AG files appeal of the Acquittal
14 December: Three appeal judges REVERSE the acqulttal and give two 17 years and the third 17 1/2 years. They also fine them over $700,000. thats the final outcome of the full process that you were ignorant of.
I consier over 50 years in prison for no crime at all a much more serious issue than whether SF appointed someone to a position or not but I am prepared to discuss the latter.

Again explain to me how I am ignorant here when I dont mention details?Explain to me how you could come to the conclusion of ignorance when you have no evidence to suggest that I am not fully informed as to the timeline and the events surrounding these 3 people in Columbia.

As regards they awaiting the full process,Are you a mind reader aswell in that you immediately assume that I am ignorant without asking for clarification? You prefer to go on a ride of complete misinterpretation?
The proper thing for you to do would have been to ask me to clarify,like I asked you to clarify other things that you said, rather than jumping in first thing with an assumption with your very first reply to my post.
I again respectfully suggest that you withdraw the unfounded comment regarding ignorance.

Ludricous! The assumptions are not assumptions! THey are self evident facts. If a decision is made behind closed doors then it is self evident to lawyers that they are not giving evidence to judges they are not meeting!

You are making assumptions about what went on in a private court session,you dont know what evidence the judges were looking at ergo you are assuming,you have no idea what was in their minds or specefically in front of them when they made their decision.

What court? On what issue?

I suggested that now they are in Ireland, the whole issue could be re tried here.

You just suggestd the courts look into the matter. I asked you according to what procedure. You can believe in the Man in the Moon if you like but suggest that the courts deal with your belief and you had better be prepared to say how to go about that.

New legislation.

The courts are not led by public opinion.

yeah but the legislation that they operate with sometimes is, eg the raft of new anti terror laws brought in post Omagh.

I already told you the main point - human rights.

Hang on a second ISAW,I dont know who you were discussing that with but it wasnt me.
Our discussion arises out of my post which you quoted.If you want to tangent away from that ,yet again do it with the person you were discussing that aspect of the case with.

This isnt a sideline! If you believe the court should entertain a load of hearsay about what somebody might have done I have news for you. They dont operate that way.

what are you on about now?? The court in columbia or one here.
All I did was suggest that the whole trial be re heard here complete with an Irish style examination of the evidence.

If you want to re run the trial here then post what they are guilty of and the evidence!

Now you really are being ridiculous.
That wouldnt be my job, it would be the job of those involved in such a judicial process.
And by the way .. Yet again you are misrepresenting me as suggesting they are guilty of more than the passports issue when all I ever pointed out was the fishyness of the circumstances.

Is it?

yes traveling on a false passport would be a crime

Did they travel here on such?

Why are they hiding? We've no extradition treaty with Columbia.Their legal passport would have been scanned somewhere so if they travelled on that they have nothing to worry about on that score

And if so how can they be tried twice for the same crime?

Well if they traveled a second time on a false passport, it would be a separate offence.
Have you any idea why they are hiding?

ISAW

Earthman wrote:

...
It looks like we are asked to believe that a highly organised party had a representative in Cuba without it's leadership knowing it.

Looks like that to me too.

Thats up there with Brian Lenihans "mature reflection" statement tbh for it's believeability.

I dont believe Lenihan lied when asked about meeting Duffy. I believe he forgot about. But he DID meet Duffy and discuss ringing the President about not dissolving the Dail. I am not sure Adams or senior SF people met Connolly and discussed the trip to Colombia.

If it was a genuine Gaffe, and I'm willing to accept that it was, it would be a huge gaffe and untypical.

Not so SF have a lot of skilled professional people in suits paid for from a huge pile of money. they also have many "community activists" who work for nothing who save them a pile of money. But they are not so organised for information as one might think. REmember the cell structure? Let us even suppose there is a IRA infiltration of SF who really run the party. If SF Cumann have IRA members at each level then it is unlikely they can communicate with others at the same level elsewhere or even know who they are.
Furthermore the idea that loads of young people are Active in policy is odd to me. I know of a cumann with maybe 100 people on the books but only five turned up for an AGM. and two of them were from another party but had information on the meeting and went to see what went on! So either they are only active for publilcity and show or they tightly control the "officerships" at Cumann level. If this runs all the way to the top then again one just doesnt lift the phone to talk to the Cumann Secretary in Tralee. One gets someone else to push it down the line. Otherwise everyone would be gaining access to the leader and ruining his aloofness.

Then again as I have said I would like to know who appointed Connolly and how.

.
The problem is, when you are dealing with ex prisoners and people on false passports, the balance of credibility is not in their favour.

Teh reality is that you can believe pigs fly if you want. But trying to suggest three people do 50 years in gaol on an unsupported belief is not justified.

You decided to quote my post whilst indicating that you wanted to talk about something else.
I'd prefer if you are quoting me, that you would stick to the contents of my post.

Your first post in response to me on this wa in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3192744&postcount=211

You responded to my comment to Mycroft where I stated that in relation to Monaghan he was

ISAW wrote:

trying to assume guilt by association.

your post began with the words:

In fairness ISAW you've got to admit sending a bomb maker to the Farc to talk peace was a bit silly when there were plenty of other less contentious candidates to go there.

Now this was in reply to my direct comment on the contention that Monaghan was guilty of an offence by association with hte IRA and therefore
deserved gaol. this to me was an abuse of his rights.

Again explain to me how I am ignorant here when I dont mention details?

QED

Explain to me how you could come to the conclusion of ignorance when you have no evidence to suggest that I am not fully informed as to the timeline and the events surrounding these 3 people in Columbia.

the "ignorance" i referred to was you ignorance of the court decision. You suggested it was better to wait for the final outcome. I pointed out that in order to state that you must be ignorant that the final outcome had already happened!

As regards they awaiting the full process,Are you a mind reader aswell in that you immediately assume that I am ignorant without asking for clarification? You prefer to go on a ride of complete misinterpretation?

QED. By your own words.

The proper thing for you to do would have been to ask me to clarify,like I asked you to clarify other things that you said, rather than jumping in first thing with an assumption with your very first reply to my post.

I wont be instructed by you on this. You displayed your ignorance by what you wrote. If you meant something differnet then that is not my fault. If you continue to tell me how I should behave then I will ignore you. If you have any problems then take it to the moderators witha complaint. I respectfully suggest it will be "laughed out of court".

I again respectfully suggest that you withdraw the unfounded comment regarding ignorance.

Thats it! I am ignoring you now. I am happy to argue with people like Mycroft who have their "facts" wrong. I am also happy to say when mine are. But any personal attack as to haw I should behave I will only let go so far.
I made no such personal attack on you. The words you wrote display that you were ignorant that a "final outcome" had already happened. That is not a personal insult in any way it is what you wrote. I wont be dragged into ad hominem. goodbye


snip the rest

mycroft

ISAW wrote:

It is quite clear that you are missing the point here. throughout this whole discussion I have uses "fact" with inverted commas around it because I questioned the so called list of "facts" you postede and which were badly researched opintions and not facts! I never claimed Monaghan was not in the IRA.

So why didn't you accept it the first time I posted the link? For sh*ts and giggles? You've challenged everything i've said and then ignored the links, which prove what I've been saying.

You demanded I proved that FARC commited terrorist acts and are funded through drugs, and then start quibbling about the manner in which the drugs money comes in.

You've dropped the claims about Adams, so I can only assume you finally got round to listening to the link, and are now shifting the goalposts about what you claim SF knew.

You've raised pendantic nitpicking to an artform and now when proved wrong, announced what you were demanding I prove is "irrelevant". If it was so irrelevant why did you spend so long arguing about it?

I questioned it as one of your "facts" and asked you to support it. I also questioned why you posted this fact. Why not not post something like the fact that Monaghan ran a video production enterprise and is skilled in video production?

Because a former bomber meeting terrorists using false ID raises more questions than a bloke who films the odd video. That aspect of Monaghan's life is far less relevant and raises far fewer questions about his reasons for the trip, and the manner in which it was undertaken. And those are questions I'd like answering. Note; to stop your tedious nickpicking, no it's doesn't prove he was doing anything wrong, i'd just like a better explanation.

YES! I comprehend that your list of "facts" was badly researched and wrong!

I made two factual errors about when and where they were arrested. Which I corrected, several pages ago Seeing as both the men, and FARC admitted to their meeting and the location, the general thrust of my point was correct. I was also correct when I said FARC commited terrorist acts, and atrocities. I was also correct when I said FARC are funded through drugs. I was also correct when I said both Adams and SF were denying any relationship with the men for months. I was also correct when i said the men had not given an adequate explaination for traveling using false passports. I was also correct when I said Monaghan was a convicted bomber and former IRA member.

But gosh, the one fact, which while, I admitted was wrong on, two specifics, on one point, but the general thrust is true (meeting with FARC in FARC terrority) and you've been lording that for several pages.

You appear to have dropped some of those straws you're clutching at.

wrote:

You just reversed the question I asked you.

Do you even read what I wrote? You wrote the above in response to my comment, "pray tell how are they going to get justice"

which itself was written was in response to this;

ISAW wrote:

where have I done that? I told you already that I dont support SF and they can defend themselves. I have no idea what SF have said on this and it doesnt really interest me in proving them liars. My interest is that the three get justice.

Funny, questions usually end in a question mark. Don't they? So again, I ask you, how pray tell do you see the men "get justice" seeing as they've gotten away free?

Throughout this thread I pointed to several principles of justice such as assuming innocence until approving guilty, due process, detention without trial etc. I picked up on your "list of facts" because it is from similar non facts that the three were supposed to be training FARC terrorists.

And again, this is getting so breathtakingly tedious, I'm not trying to see the three get locked up for (and it was 17 not 50 years as you hyperbolise) I want to see a better explaination from SF about their involvement in this matter.

This runs entirely counter to your original assertion in your list of "facts" which I questioned.

Wow make something up much? My facts were a list of unanswered questions, which you challenged and have been shot down in flames one by one. My entire list of facts (lose the commas) were a list of unanswered and unexplained aspects of the story, and I challenged any SF member/supporter to explain it.

The oh so hilarious, carrier snail excuse for the appalling lack of communication within SF and between SF and IRA, coupled with your stringent denials that you're not a SF supporter, is a mighty fine paradox.

I don't care for defending Adams . I defending what I see as abuse of human rights. I would like to know where they got the false doccuments. I would also like to know where the decommissioned arms are buiried. But that has nothing to do with whether they should serve 17 years in Prison.

I'm sorry you don't care for Adams? The last four pages of breatalking degree of benefit of the doubt have been for what?

You've defended that it's acceptable to have false documents for the past four pages, and you've supported their lame duck excuses for having them, but now you want to know where they got them? Thats a very whimisical position you're holding.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

the "ignorance" i referred to was you ignorance of the court decision. You suggested it was better to wait for the final outcome. I pointed out that in order to state that you must be ignorant that the final outcome had already happened!

No you stated that I was ignorant immediately with your first reply to the post

I wont be instructed by you on this. You displayed your ignorance by what you wrote. If you meant something differnet then that is not my fault.

Au contraire you jumped in and called me ignorant without even asking for clarification.

If you continue to tell me how I should behave then I will ignore you. If you have any problems then take it to the moderators witha complaint. I respectfully suggest it will be "laughed out of court".

I might point out that I am a moderatror of this board and know it's rules well.
Again I respectfully suggest you withdraw your unfounded accusation.

Thats it! I am ignoring you now. I am happy to argue with people like Mycroft who have their "facts" wrong. I am also happy to say when mine are. But any personal attack as to haw I should behave I will only let go so far.

What personal attack?? You are the one who has called me ignorant without foundation.

I made no such personal attack on you. The words you wrote display that you were ignorant that a "final outcome" had already happened. That is not a personal insult in any way it is what you wrote. I wont be dragged into ad hominem. goodbye

The rule around here is to attack the post and not the poster.
It is I who have been attacked here and I've displayed in my opinion the patience of jehovah in asking you to respectively withdraw the remark as you have interpretted it immediately without asking for me to clarify what I meant- A curtesy that I might add I extended to you in the course of our conversation.
I'm asking you now for the final time to withdraw the insult.

mycroft

ISAW wrote:

You clearly mention about a "volunteer" which is the moniker for an IRA man. You also mention Monaghan by name and intimate that rather than being just an ordinary volunteer (and you call him one) he is a convicted on and convicted of Bomb making and meeting other terrorists.

You then continue:


You are claiming here that Monaghan was "sent". so you are claiming that he is IRA, he is experienced in bombmaking and that the IRA sent him.

A) I'm not claiming he is an experienced bomb maker. He is, an experience bomb maker.

I never actually use the word volunteer to describe Monaghan, and the entire point was a rebuttal to an earlier statement, that according to FTA69 that it is acceptable for former IRA men to travel using false passports.

Furthermore, FTA69 was making a generalisation about former IRA men using false IDs to go on holidays, I was pointing out that this was not a bog standard former volunteer and his holiday was meeting rebels in rebel territory.

So again, where exactly did I say Monaghan was sent by the IRA. Not when where exactly are you infering that I suggest he was.



i accept the "clarification". the point is you were wrong about what you claimed as a fact! You posted a number of scantily researched opinions as fact and this is not the only one you have been shown up on!


really? Where exactly did I say that?

You are again saying that the three were involved in an IRA mission to talk to Colombian terrorists.

Thats you again inferring what I said. I never said the IRA sent Monaghan.





You are being overly simplistic. Do you believe that the 1916 IRA were terrorists or the 1922 IRA were? do you understand why people like Bobby sands joined the IRA?


again I have posted several times about the MAIN issue of this discussion. I have also posted that I will discuss other peripheral issues but understand in advance that they are so.


Start another thread then. Ithis one is only about that in so far as it might relate to the Colombia Three. the thread is about the Three. If SF come into it it is only in relation to them.


In http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3166253&postcount=117
you posted a list of "facts" numbered 1 to 11

So far you have not shown 1 to be a fact. You have supplied no evidence of FARC distributing narcotics. In counter argument I pointed to the DEA and several other references which refute your "fact"

You admit that farc recieve money from the cultivation and distripution of drugs, Don't you?


2. is a fact you have not supported which is probably true but is peripheral to the issue. It seems to suggest that SF on one hand criticise drugs and on the other deal in them. So what> It has no relevance unless you claim that is what the Colombia Three were up to.

3. is not proven or 4.

It all depends whether you're willing to give adams an absurd degree of benefit of the doubt.

And four has, by their own admission.

5. is accepted
6. is accepted but what is the relevance of it?

I've pointed out the relevance you're too busy going LA LA LA LA LA LA

7. is clearly wrong but rather than admit that you claim to "clarify" it
8,9,10 and 11 have also not been proven

So you're denying, they weren't on bail, or that they declined to contact the columbian government, or that Adams gave no explaination for why he couldn't remember Connolly was a SF representive?

There is evidence. I pointed you to it earlier. Nevertheless, if you are in gaol and amnesty international announce your lawyers life is in danger because he is defending the likes of you do you not think that your life might be threatned also?

Thats not evidence. Thats circumstantial eviddence. Thats an assumption. And again seeing as the closet the men could come to establishing threats againist their lives was making reference to the murder of their irish solicitors father, its fair to be sceptical of their claim.

And once again I didnt make any such claim. I pointed out about it being unlikely that Adams was denying the three had any links with SF a month after they were arrested. that would be early September nearly two months before accordin to you he admitted he had knowledge of them! Any you have produced nothing to show that denials happened after early September!

What you mean aside from Adams Admission in late October the first admission that months of denials were wrong?

ISAW banned

Though he apparently has me on ignore :rolleyes:

I would remind everybody to familiarise themselves with this thread

Those guidelines are designed to make discussion on this board civil and easy to read for everybody.

Infractions will result in a banning from me or one of the other moderators if we see them.

mike65

story here

A Garda spokesman confirmed that there had been continuing contact with the legal representatives of James Monaghan, Martin McCauley and Niall Connolly.

He said: "At this time, all three of the above named are currently being interviewed at various Garda Stations in Dublin. As is normal practice, Gardaí are maintaining liaison with the State`s Law Officers.

"No further information regarding this matter will be released at this time

Little more to add at this stage it seems. No doubt they are just being questioned on the passports and how they made thier way back.

Mike.