Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
They're back....
Options
Comments
-
This is a discussion board,if you want to jump in with one line personalised comments-please do it elsewhere and not here thankshill16 wrote:Mycroft you are obsessed with the Republican movement,I think deep down you are a Republican.
0 -
-
Guys enough of that.
Stop it immediately
And get back to discussion or I will get out my banning stick for the two of you and I mean it!!0 -
So what?mycroft wrote:back up the thread. I'm not suggesting he is a convicted bomber, I'm saying he is a convicted bomber.
I asked what relevance any of that has to the issue of him being returned to colombia or to being guilty of doing anything in colombia.I've amended my last post to include the link, Mitchell's and Adams comments bookmark SFs start of denials Adam's was the first admission that they were there on Offical SF business.
Did you ammended it after I said I saw no link and you accused me of ignoring your references which you had not supplied?
Furthermore you are twisting what I wrote again! I explained clearly that denials were not admissions or apologies. My point was that though I did not know I doubted that over thirty days after (and possibly three weeks after) the arrests that SF were still denying any of the three were linked to SF. As far as I know for certain only one is a SF member. I challenged you to produce evidence on this and you have not done so! If you do prove me wrong I am happy to admit it. It is a minor point as I mentioned. The main point is your list of "facts" which seems to claim they were guilty of something. You have provided nothing to support you so called "facts" that they were guilty of anything other than travelling on false passports.
First as regards the speed of communications I referred to recent events and the fact when SF said they had to talk to the IRA about whether the Bank job had anything to do with them the reply took weeks. Now that is the high rank leaders talking to the other leaders so I assumed it would take a bit longer than that. I explained why it would take (in my opinion) twenty to thirty days to find out the "facts."You incesstantly defended SF ... pony express communications
Second, as I stated repeatedly in this thread I neither support SF nor the IRA. If they were indeed in Columbia on a SF orgainised mission to pass on terrorist skills that is a very serious offence and somebody should be brought to account for it. But you have supplied no evidence that the three were doing such whether SF leaders knew about it or not!
you are the one who diverged into minor points of whether SF knew and what they knew. I challenged the "facts" of your OP as to whether the three had done anything remotely connected to terrorist activity in Colombia. I am still waiting for any "facts" from your which provide evidence that they did!You're just going to ignore my OP aren't you? I'm not concerned whether they serve time or not, the individual facts remainI'm concerned about the poor explanation SF gave for their presence, ... if members of any other politcal party where found meeting with terrorists who fund themselves through drugs, and their party strenously denied their reason for the visit and then fantastically backtracked admitted they were there on party business there would be calls for an investigation. Would there not.
Look I don't admire SF or support them! But what has any of that to do with the three being guilty of anything? furthermore you analogy is false. FARC do NOT trade in drugs. they extort money from drug cartels. The three are not all SF members - only one is. They are all Republicans and with Republican connections but so for example are Fianna Fáil. that does not mean that a FF person is guilty of terrorism if found with a false Passport. As far as I know they were NOT found in the company of terrorists or in a terrorist controlled area as you "fact" which I challenged claims. So wher is your evidence to support this "fact" that they were found with FARC terrorists in a FARC region?
I have no problem with an investigation. I oppose a "show trial" however.
this is meant to be an answer to my question?The point just does whistle over your head doesn't it.
You do not maount a very strong rebuttal of the evidence I just asked you to supply to defend you "facts"!Firstly and I'll say this again. Adams admission was the first SF admission that the men had been on offical business. So those two links bookend SF denials and their final admission.
And I will say again. So what? What are they guilty of? Wait a minute. maybe you have a point! Are you claiming that the three met SF leadership before they went to Colombia and together they decided what the mission was for? Have you any evidence to support this? As far as I know Connolly (the only SF member) was the "man in Hevanna" for SF. connolly met the other two and the three decided to go but I was not aware that SF leadership were informed in advance about the visit and what it was for. If so I would like you to showe me some evidence on this because it is new to me.
Other than having false passports where amd when have the three lied about their reasons for being in Colombia?I don't know what crime they commited. But I would like a better explanation for SF, considering both SF and the men have lied about their reasons for being there.
I just asked you a direct question. Please supply evidence to support what you claim as a fact and my rebuttal will fall. Otherwise your "fact" is just opinion.Amid all the double negative and righteous outrage you've missed my point.My point is I know columbian justice is corrupt, I don't know what crime they commited. But the actions of SF, the furious denials, the sly admission and the furious demands for their return, while never explaining how the men got the false passports, or what their exact reason for being there is not the behaviour of a party commited to democracy. Amid your furious demands and shrill cries for justice you specutlarly failed to miss that point.
I didnt miss the point at all. I pointed out that I dont support SF but I am not going to be sidelined into attacking their dubious record. I have told you several times my interest is in human rights and seeing justice done.
You posted a list of facts suggesting that they were guilty of terrorist offences since for example you posted a "fact" that they were arrested while in a FARC zone and with FARC people. I challenged these so called "facts". You havent supported them!
SF are peripheral. the guilt or innocence of the three is what is in question. They MUST be given the benefit of doubt since that is the whole principle around which the criminal judicial system revolves! It is called assuming innocence until you can prove guilt witrh evidence. You have provided NO edicence have you?And for someone who "doesn't support" SF you've given a laughable degree of benefit of the doubt.Demanding I prove something that I've done several times on this thread. makes work for me, I told you I proved James Monaghan a bomber earlier on, and you've been bleating on "yeah prove it" and then "so what if he is"
You are obfuscating now! I asked you to provide evidence for you "facts". these "facts" assert the three were terrorists up to no good in colombia. You have provided no evidence to support this!
I did not deny monaghan had been convicted but what does that prove? I asked you that several times. You have provided no answer to your "guilt by association" argument.
Look answer the question you were asked to supply to support your "facts". try starting with your "fact" that they were arrested in a FARC area with FARC people. and what is the relevance that Monaghan was convicted decades ago? so what?It's incredibly tedious fillabusting on your part.
Can you support that "fact" you listed them as fact 6 and 7:your op wrote:6) One of the men James Monaghan is an experienced IRA bomb maker
7) They were arrested in FARC territory in the company of FARC terrorists.0 -
mycroft wrote:No you said
I said that in a different later postQuit changing your goalposts.
I didnt notice the reference until the later reply. Could it be perhaps because you changed the reference in the meantime and later posted saying that you had "ammended" it? Who is moving goalposts now?
as far as I know Connolly planned the visit from Havana. The SF leadership didnt know about it. Maybe I am wrong but you are claiming that SF planned the trip and Sf and the IRA leadershipi knew about so YOU support YOUR claim and dont try to shift the burden of evidence onto me. Bu as I keep telling you all this is peripheral. i agree there are questions to answer but the main question is are the three guilty of anything?And again this hilariously absurd concept of it taking 30 days for a message to pass from one side of belfast to another. ISAW thats a fecking joke.
I dont believe you that SF leadership planned their visit and gave them authority to negoitiate on their behalf. Maybe you are right and they did do that. Please show me evidence so I can believe you.Besides, they weren't there as IRA representives, they were there as SF representives which Adams , finally, admitted in October, three months after their arrest. The suggestion that it took SF three months to find out it sent three men to Columbia, is just, f*cking weak.And again once more. Adams comments was the first admission that the three where there on SF business. Hence over two months of denials.
Seriously catch yourself on.
But what does "on SF business" mean? You are claiming that the leadership knew about it before they left but you have not shown me anything that convinces me you are correct. Have you any evidence ?0 -
Advertisement
-
mycroft wrote:I swear if Tony Blair announced slurry tasted bad, some SF members would be making milkshakes out of it to "prove him wrong" while if Adams told them eating gravel Was good for your teeth, they'd eat it like cereal.
Lets look at a few facts, again.
1) FARC is a terrorist organisation that, like the Columbia government, has committed atrocities against innocents. FARC fund themselves through the cultivation and distribution of narcotics.
So any more confusion over farc terrorist acts? Or that they're funded by the distribution of drugs? No? good.
So were the Mujahadeen terrorists but it didnt stop the US supporting them did it? Why is that relevant? well your first reference http://www.fattyboombatty.com/moreterroristacts.htm
is entirely based on material from the US Department of State. One could claim a US bias in this.
http://gorillaradioblog.blogspot.com/2005_03_06_gorillaradioblog_archive.html
FARC, created in 1966, emerged from groups of farmers armed to defend the liberal communities that emerged during la Violencia.
they consolidated in zones of colonization. peasants needed to protect themselves from the state and landowners. cultural changes of the 1970s, the criminalization of peasant protest, the birth of the powerful urban movements (workers and students), and the radicalization of the middle class contributed to the birth of other rebel groups FARC - 20,000 -ELN 5,000. The other groups disarmed throughout the 1990s.
Amnesty International and Americas Watch have thoroughly documented the close relationship between the right wing paramilitaries and the security forces of the state, as have the United Nations and the Organization of American States. They all attribute the immense majority of human rights violations in Colombia to the paramilitary groups and they characterize them as imposing terror in the zones that they control.
The paramilitaries are tightly tied to the big landowners (their "social cradle") and to drug trafficking, sectors whose limits are also hard to define. While the army handed out the weapons to the paramilitary forces, it was the owners of coffee plantations and cattle farmers who organized them, choosing to confront the FARC on their own ground, with the formation of groups of drug-addicted peasants. Their targets were not only the guerillas, but also the union leaders, professors, journalists, defenders of human rights, and politicians of the left. With the years, the rise of drug trafficking has modified this situation. The Americas Watch 1990 report states that the drug traffickers have become big landowners, and as such, have begun to share the right-wing politics of the traditional landowners and directors of some of the most notorious paramilitary groups.
The diverse "private armies" ended up coming together as the United Self-Defense of Colombia (AUC) during the 1990s. Economically and militarily powerful, they contributed to choosing a president who is considered a loyal friend, in addition to the numerous legislators who back them. On July 15, 2003 the government and the AUC signed an agreement for demobilization. It has been two years since they announced a ceasefire, yet in 2004 they were responsible for the death or disappearance of 1,300 people, or more than 70% of all of the politically motivated homicides in the country not related to combat.
So much for where the reasons for terror came from and the parallels with Ireland.
Your next reference is the US committee for Foreign relations
Your reference begins:
Yes. Weakened by the corruption sown by cocaine cartels and a decades-long civil war, the Colombian government faces two leftist insurgent
Here is another way of looking at it:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp0619.html
From Washington's point of view, it is an irritant, supposedly because it sponsors marijuana and coca producers and engages in narco-trafficking, but really because it has militarily challenged a succession of U.S.-backed regimes, acquiring control of perhaps one-fourth of the national territory; and threatens the huge U.S. investments in the country. Specifically, FARC has sabotaged oil pipelines owned by U.S. companies. (The Caño Limón pipeline, which services oil fields operated by California-based Occidental Petroleum One, was out of service 266 days in 2001 due to 170 FARC attacks.) Small wonder Colombia is the third largest recipient of U.S. military aid.
your second references latest report on the region http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6640 shows no link between the IRA and FARC save an allegation on page 119.
FARC are on ceasefire
Toward Greater Peace and Security in Colombia _ council for foreign relations 2000 p.12
President Pastrana ...a demilitarized zone to
the FARC in southern Colombia,...the Colombian government and the FARC
agreed on a common agenda and framework for discussions. In
early 2000, FARC and government representatives went to several
European capitals to explore alternative economic models.
Try reading your own sources, you might get some insight into the colombia situation, even if they are coming from a possible bias.
yo9ur third reference the FBI supports my contention and states that "there is no evidence of narco-terrorism within the United States". If FARC were in the drugs trade they would have a chain running from production ot foreign distribution. they have not been involved in any part of that chain have they?
It goes on to support my contention of FARC extorting money from drug cartels and not running drugs themselves.
You have provided no evidence that SF the IRA or whoever met and orgainsed for the three to go and to talk on their behalf.4) the Columbia 3 went to Columbia in an official SF capacity.
Leaving ISAW confusion over whether they went there in an offical SF or IRA capacity. Does anyone else doubt they went they were there as offical SF representives?
The IRA has stated that it did not send any of its members to Colombia to engage in military co-operation with any group.
5) They traveled under false passports, clandestine to the Columbian government.
Anyone denying this? Seeing as the men admitted this. And have failed to give any proof that their lives were in danger or faced threats.
I admit that this is true. the three have admitted this themselves. so what? How does this single proven fact demonstrate any terrorist activities by the three?
6) One of the men James Monaghan is an experienced IRA bomb maker
Anyone still disputing this?
Same as 5. It is not relevant to proving he is guilty of anything. YOu may as well claim one is a reformed drug dealer or addict. so what? If you met an ex nun in the Vatican does that prove she is there to see the Pope?
7) They were arrested in FARC territory in the company of FARC terrorists.
Actually this bit I got wrong, however afterwards (after the bird watching claims, both the men and FARC admitted to meeting in FARC territory)
So this youeventually admit was wrong?
8) After claiming, they were birdwatching or eco tourists, the three eventually claimed that they travelled to Columbia in an official SF capacity to "observe the peace process"
Again, anyone disputing this?
yes I am. When did they say they were eco tourists or bird watchers?
9) For weeks if not months afterward SF leadership from Adams down strenuously denied that the men were there in an official capacity, and in fact, they claimed they had no knowledge of the men's visit, before finally, admitting that they were there in an official SF capacity. No explanation has been made for this turn around. They then demanded the men's return.
I've provided links to this, but just to re-iterate;
No you havent. I pointed out that I found it hard to believe that denials continued for weeks or months! You have not shown when the last denial was. You only pointed to the first apology or retraction. You did not list the last denial. Care to please show a denial months after the event as I asked you?
from here
http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=71487993825&p=7y487994z3x&n=71487994312
Where in that is there a denial months after?
10) No explanation has been offered/given for why, if the men were their to "observe the peace process" they not only did not contact one side of the conflict, the Columbian Government, but actively went out of their way to conceal their presence from them.
Again anyone in SF/SF support want to deny/explain this?
If you read the history of Colombia and the FARC and some of the sites you gave as reference or some of the references I gave you, you would not have to ask that question.
11) Despite claims that Colombian jails were a "hell hole" and their lives were in danger, the three men spent three years in jail, and despite claims of the massive corruption of the Colombian justice system, the men were free on bail when they fled the country.
Again while I don't doubt Columbian Jails and justice isn't the finest in the world the fact that the men survived years in these jails are were able to stroll out of the country suggests that at least some of the claims about what the underwent and face are at least exagerated. Anyone in SF/SF supporter disputing this?
I am not in SF or a supporter but they were in bad conditions and subjected to cruel and unnecessary treatment. furthermore where did your "hell hole" quote come from and what are the exhagerations to which you refer?0 -
Hmmm ever heard of the "Iran Contra affair" and the "arms for hostages" deal?mycroft wrote:Among SF members/Supporters on this site, this event has been greeted with cheers and delight, if any other mainstream political party in the western world engaged in this kind of activity there would be calls for an investigation.
Hmmm Maybe the "liberal -freedom of expression for the people" wing is probably either scared to express themselves out of turn or waiting on communications from the military wing who exist at all levels in the orgainsation but have very slow communications protocols?I've noticed not a single SF supporter/member has touched any of the above.
The left hand dont know what the armalite hand is doing
see I told you I was right!0 -
Weren't there calls for an investigation out of that then? I don't think I imagined those or the Tower Commission report or the Congress conclusion in 1987 that the President bore ultimate responsibility for the actions of his aides. Say it isn't so. Assuming these things actually happened (because they did) what was your point?ISAW wrote:Hmmm ever heard of the "Iran Contra affair" and the "arms for hostages" deal?0 -
ISAW wrote:
as far as I know Connolly planned the visit from Havana. The SF leadership didnt know about it. Maybe I am wrong but you are claiming that SF planned the trip and Sf and the IRA leadershipi knew about so YOU support YOUR claim and dont try to shift the burden of evidence onto me. Bu as I keep telling you all this is peripheral. i agree there are questions to answer but the main question is are the three guilty of anything?
And again you've blatantly ignored the final part of post and the thrust of it.I dont believe you that SF leadership planned their visit and gave them authority to negoitiate on their behalf. Maybe you are right and they did do that. Please show me evidence so I can believe you.
The audio links to adams statement prove it.But what does "on SF business" mean? You are claiming that the leadership knew about it before they left but you have not shown me anything that convinces me you are correct. Have you any evidence ?
And again the Adam statement proves that they were there on SF business. Your indifference to the facts is getting tedious.o were the Mujahadeen terrorists but it didnt stop the US supporting them did it?
You want to commit a thread about Mujahadeen, make a thread about it.relationship between the right wing paramilitaries and the security forces of the state, as have the United Nations and the Organization of American States.
You want to make a thread between the US and right wing paramilitries and the US government, make a thread about it.The Americas Watch 1990 report states that the drug traffickers have become big landowners, and as such, have begun to share the right-wing politics of the traditional landowners and directors of some of the most notorious paramilitary groups.
This thus refuate the claims that FARC gets cash from drug money?
And again.
This thread is about the release of the Columbian three and their relationship with SF and their prison sentence, quit dragging it off topic, or I'll report you.
If you wish to discuss any of the above feel free to create a new thread.
Seeing as you're not refuting terrorist acts by FARC, and the fact they gain a massive amount of cash from drugs, the rest is irrelevant.The IRA has stated that it did not send any of its members to Colombia to engage in military co-operation with any group.
And again. No one is saying they did. Arguing that the IRA stated that they did not send the men is like claiming my point is irrelevant because the communist party of belguim claimed they didn't send them. I never claimed the IRA stated they did, you are once again, misrepresenting my position.I admit that this is true. the three have admitted this themselves. so what? How does this single proven fact demonstrate any terrorist activities by the three?
The point is none of the men gave an adequeate explaintion for why they travelled under false passports. One man claimed he did and made muttering about a threat but the closest he came to specifing a threat was the murder of his lawyer's father. twenty years ago. While the murder of his Pat Finunance was an outrage its not relevant to the claims of death threats in this case. None of them have given adequate explaination for their lies.Same as 5. It is not relevant to proving he is guilty of anything. YOu may as well claim one is a reformed drug dealer or addict. so what? If you met an ex nun in the Vatican does that prove she is there to see the Pope?
And again we're supposed to be okay that a former bomber has ready access to fake passports?
Making some glib comment about the pope is irrelevant.
James Monaghan is a former IRA bomber who travelled to meet terrorists using a false passport with a senior SF member, did no one in SF/ The IRA consider the PR ramifications? A senior former IRA bomb maker meeting terrorists using false ID and we're supposed to take his word?So this youeventually admit was wrong?
Do I admit that they (both the Columbian three and FARC admitted) meeting in FARC territory? Yes.No you havent. I pointed out that I found it hard to believe that denials continued for weeks or months! You have not shown when the last denial was. You only pointed to the first apology or retraction. You did not list the last denial. Care to please show a denial months after the event as I asked you?
I've an article from a major Irish broadsheet supporting my claim that the Adams et all denied for months and the first admission that they were SF members occured on 22oct. What have you got?If you read the history of Colombia and the FARC and some of the sites you gave as reference or some of the references I gave you, you would not have to ask that question.
So basically you got nothing, right? Otherwise you'd show it.I am not in SF or a supporter but they were in bad conditions and subjected to cruel and unnecessary treatment.
Fact link evidence?
Incidently, this is the second time you've ignored the trust of my post with pedantic and dubious nickpicking. But hey, why stop a trend?
Incidently ISAW you've dropped the suprious claims about the three weeks, that just looked daft.
[edit]
oh andISAW wrote:Can you support that "fact" you listed them as fact 6 and 7:
Quote:
Originally Posted by your op
6) One of the men James Monaghan is an experienced IRA bomb makerThe man turned out to be James Monaghan, one of the Colombia Three and a convicted IRA mortar bomber.
From http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/6087546?view=Eircomnet
[/quote]
Would you ever quit nickpicking the above? Christ the man's nickname is Mortar Monaghan for f*cks sake
[/edit]0 -
Now to the point convinently lost in all of the nickpicking
Okay firstly to the passports. It does not seem to bother any SF member/supporter, that these men had the capacity to forge/ obtain forged documents. In fact according to FTA it's so common place for "ex volunteers" to need forged documents for "holidays" that SF should just go ahead and open their own branch of the passport office.
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.
All this indifference to "inconvenient" laws just demonstrations SFs endemic criminality.
No explanation has been given to why James Monaghan was sent for that matter. SF has demonstrated a superior grasp of PR over the years. Are we lead to believe that no one was concerned how awkward it would look if experienced bomb maker was sent clandestinely under a forged passport, to meet with terrorists?
Nor has an explanation been given for SF's leadership massive bout of amnesia for the first months of their captivity. SF's leadership from Adams down strenuously denied the men were there on official SF capacity. Again if these men were there to "observe" the "peace process" in an "official capacity" why did they not contact one side of the conflict, or for that matter why did they go to great lengths to conceal themselves from the government. When they were arrested why did SF not admit to the men's purpose for being there? The suggestion that it would take SF six days to confirm whether a extremely high profile former IRA man, and their offical representive in cuba were in SF is just laughable. The fact that it took "three months" is just a pathetic lie.
Among SF members/Supporters on this site, this event has been greeted with cheers and delight, if any other mainstream political party in the western world engaged in this kind of activity there would be calls for an investigation.
Yet inability for SF to explain its actions and behaviour of their members doesn't seem to bother it's supporters, in fact they also show a marked indifference to trying to answer and explain the above. And you really think this party has turned a corner into become a credible democratic organisation?
I've noticed not a single SF supporter/member has touched any of the above.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi Mycroft - you are giving us fattyboombatty and the fbi as links?
Try Al Giordano - [url]www.narconews.com*:[/url] while he accepts that in a country overrun with drugs and drug money some of this is finding it's way to FARC hands they are not the biggest offendors here coming behind the Colombian judiciary and police forces and way behind other paramilitary groups which are often just private militias for some of the cartels.
In FARC's own words:
sourceThe satanization of the drug problem has turned anyone who demonstrates a point of view opposed to the logic of the North Americans into a drug trafficker, to face repressive and brutal solution. This is the case of the FARC. Very much in the historical tradition of the Latin American people, the FARC have sustained that the solution to the drug problem cannot be military, but must be social. And they have proposed legalization to the gringos. The revolutionary fight in Colombia has the peculiar quality of being tangled up in a social reality marked by illicit crops, something that has never occurred in any of the revolutionary processes of other homelands. But the FARC have demonstrated on repeated occasions, over and over again, its condemnation of drug trafficking. It's just that the solution proposed by our organization doesn't fit under the lens of the United States. That's why they stigmatize us as a narco-guerrilla. And that's why Plan Colombia, designed in the Pentagon, forwards a warlike solution.
And that is all just distribution - no-one has credibly claimed that the FARC
as you claim.FARC fund themselves through the cultivation
I'm also confused by the 'Official SF' line. People who have been involved in trying to overthrow a state and reject the institutions of that state will have a somewhat different view of criminality to loyal citizens (or subjects) so the whole argument there will be one of those circular arguments that is more semantics than anything else. But I don't understand the Official SF line of attack.
If the men were there training the worlds largest marxist revolutionary group then this was IRA business surely? Claiming it was SF business is putting a political cover on it. But you are insisting it was SF business. Do you not mean to say that you don't believe it was SF business but was in fact army business?
The Irish Republican movement formed links with a whole range of other groups during its 25 year campaign. Some of these such as the ANC showed the option of political rather than armed struggle to the IRA - an option which you'll have to agree has now been pursued. Is it better that the republican movement repudiate all the other links it previously had - ETA, FARC etc. or act in a similar role to the ANC for those groups?
*This is a great site that I came across during the coup in Venezuela a few years ago. Everyhting it said during those clouded few days proved true unlike any other media report available.0 -
seedot wrote:Hi Mycroft - you are giving us fattyboombatty and the fbi as links?
Try Al Giordano - [url]www.narconews.com*:[/url] while he accepts that in a country overrun with drugs and drug money some of this is finding it's way to FARC hands they are not the biggest offendors here coming behind the Colombian judiciary and police forces and way behind other paramilitary groups which are often just private militias for some of the cartels.
In FARC's own words:
source
And that is all just distribution - no-one has credibly claimed that the FARC
as you claim.
So basically no one is qubbling that FARC are funded by drugs? We're just quibbling about, exactly which route the cash flows from.
Accepting that the Columbian right wing paramilitaries also, and probably to a far greater degree fund themselves through drugs isn't an adequate defense, and doesn't explain SFs grassroots campaign to stomp out drugs in local communities while at the same time cozying up to the source. It's a bit rich for the IRA to kneecapp dealers selling a gram, while SF to send a party to the guys taking god knows how many kilos out of the country.I'm also confused by the 'Official SF' line. People who have been involved in trying to overthrow a state and reject the institutions of that state will have a somewhat different view of criminality to loyal citizens (or subjects) so the whole argument there will be one of those circular arguments that is more semantics than anything else. But I don't understand the Official SF line of attack.
Possibly the best counter argument I've heard so far. My point is, SF are supposed to have movved beyond overthrowing the state and rejecting the istitutions of said state to potentialy running the state and it's insitutations and it's cavalier attitude to the laws of this state within it's recent history would suggest they're trying to have their cake and eat it.If the men were there training the worlds largest marxist revolutionary group then this was IRA business surely? Claiming it was SF business is putting a political cover on it. But you are insisting it was SF business. Do you not mean to say that you don't believe it was SF business but was in fact army business?
The point is. We don't know. I'm sorry if I scorn an IRA denial, they'd deny the sky is blue if they felt it was necessary, and SF's behaviour is woefully ill explained, I've yet to hear an adequate explaination.The Irish Republican movement formed links with a whole range of other groups during its 25 year campaign. Some of these such as the ANC showed the option of political rather than armed struggle to the IRA - an option which you'll have to agree has now been pursued. Is it better that the republican movement repudiate all the other links it previously had - ETA, FARC etc. or act in a similar role to the ANC for those groups?
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?
And again why were the men there travelling under false passports? why don't SF see any hyprocracy with meeting a group who fund themselves , in some manner, through the wholesale export of drugs?0 -
I think my point on the drugs money is that it would be difficult to live in Colombia without in some way having drugs money go through your hands. The most realistic description I have read is that in some areas FARC will collect a tax on people involved in drugs. I put the quote up from FARC to a) show they deny it and b) make the point that the demonisation of FARC, Colombian farmers and everybody else by tainting them with being 'narcoterrorists' is a political charge from Washington - not something that those who actually care about the negative impact of drugs go on about.
Linking this to SF anti drugs activism in working class areas serves an anti-SF agenda rather than the truth.
But that is less relevant thanAs 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?
It's bad enough when governments lie and say they won't negotiate with 'terrorists' (unless of course they are successful, or allies, or something can be achieved by negotiating i.e. always - Iraq, NI, PLO etc. etc.) but when the same argument is used here then it once again strikes me as a way to attack SF rather than something yopu believe is a hard and fast rule.
Should the ANC have met SF in 1995 - when the IRA still held arms, still professed a belief in the armed struggle (Tactical Use of Armed Struggle?) and were about to bomb canary wharf? If there is no political strategy available to a group surely this will enforce their belief in armed struggle?
Maybe the three guys were meeting with a group that they had seen as international comrades and talking strategies both in NI and Colombia. Of course SF have been ambiguous and maybe even mendacious in regard to this but that is surely what we have come to expect in this process - from all sides. But I think the principle that SF should never talk to anybody who is willing to look at violence as an option is dangerous and plays to a right wing agenda.0 -
seedot wrote:I think my point on the drugs money is that it would be difficult to live in Colombia without in some way having drugs money go through your hands. The most realistic description I have read is that in some areas FARC will collect a tax on people involved in drugs. I put the quote up from FARC to a) show they deny it and b) make the point that the demonisation of FARC, Colombian farmers and everybody else by tainting them with being 'narcoterrorists' is a political charge from Washington - not something that those who actually care about the negative impact of drugs go on about.
Everyone else is doing it so it's okay then?
Linking this to SF anti drugs activism in working class areas serves an anti-SF agenda rather than the truth.
Not really, Jim Curran was supposely murdered earlier this year by an IRA man, apparently because the IRA were funding themselves through the "taxation" of local dealer. Apparently the only difference between FARC and IRA is that one is wholesale the other is retail.Maybe the three guys were meeting with a group that they had seen as international comrades and talking strategies both in NI and Colombia. Of course SF have been ambiguous and maybe even mendacious in regard to this but that is surely what we have come to expect in this process - from all sides. But I think the principle that SF should never talk to anybody who is willing to look at violence as an option is dangerous and plays to a right wing agenda.
And I'm not saying they shouldn't? But did they travel to meet the ANC in secret and using false passports, and deny the meeting for months afterwards.
It's the indifference to the truth, the casual ease with which laws were ignored, and the unwilliness to offer even the most cursory of explanation for the trip (after the lies) or for SFs orginal lies, that gets to me.
I'm sorry but as an article quoted said.Garda Jerry McCabe was shot dead in Adare on June 7, 1996. If you search the internet on that date and insert the words 'Sinn Féin and IRA,' you come to a series of interesting links. For example, on Monday, June 11, 1996, Sinn Féin's vice-president Pat Doherty was on RTE's Questions and Answers. He refused to condemn the killing but, in words similar to those used again by Sinn Féin representatives this week, Doherty said he believed the IRA statement which categorically denied involvement by that organisation in the Adare shootings. On the same night, on the BBC flagship Newsnight programme, Martin McGuinness, also said he accepted the IRA's word that they had not been involved.
Since the internet was not as advanced in 1996 as it is now, there isn't easy access to the sound files, but there are links to lots of press reports of these SF denials of IRA involvement in the McCabe killing. There are hundreds of links tracing how Sinn Féin gradually changed its position. In chronological order the links follow news reports about the arrest of the McCabe killers, their trial for murder, the intimidation of key witnesses at the trial and the state's resultant acceptance of a plea of manslaughter. Sinn Féin gradually accepted that the men were IRA activists and, in fact, party representatives became the cheerleaders in chief for their early release.
We've come to wearily expect outright denials, then a murmered confirmation from SF, on a host of issues, along with no adequate explanation for the orginal denials. Consistent lies, and then once again we're supposed to SF's "word" on the matter.
Oh and ISAW you'll notice that Mc Guinness got word from the IRA far earlier than three weeks back in 96, one wonders when the collaspe of SF/IRA communication sytem occurred......... :rolleyes:0 -
murphaph wrote:Lads, you're wasting your time. The SFIRA supporters on this board are so in denial of republican criminality that they're denying the crimes of a bunch of 'bird-watchers' who, supposedly have fcuk all to do with SFIRA anymore.
on a board that constantly demands proof of information, I have to laugh everytime I read posts like this, mainly because they are unsubstantiated and and never ever followed with any kind of proof whatsoever to prove that
a: SF and the IRA are one and the same
b: that the PIRA were linked to acts of common criminality. Obviously a percentage are, but thats not a good enough reason to claim they all are.
c: that the Columbia 3 were training FARC
d: that any of them ever said they were birdwatching. The DUP claimed that0 -
Not really, Jim Curran was supposely murdered earlier this year by an IRA man, apparently because the IRA were funding themselves through the "taxation" of local dealer. Apparently the only difference between FARC and IRA is that one is wholesale the other is retail.
Were did you read that crap,he was killed because of a family fued. :mad:0 -
hill16 wrote:Were did you read that crap,he was killed because of a family fued. :mad:
For someone who's not a member of SF you do tend to get indignant on their behalf with tedious regularlityMr Curran had previously spoken out about the fact that local IRA figures were involved in taking "protection" money from well-known drug dealers in the south inner city. In return for these payments the IRA allow the dealers to continue with their evil business.
And
From hereThe IRA in the Liberties has switched from anti-drugs activism to "protectors" of drug dealers0 -
I am a community worker living and working in the South Inner City and over the years I have come across both families.The accused is a former member of the Republican movement and was turfed out a number of years back for his involvement in the so called hamer gang.Jim Curran was supposed to have assaulted his sister and as they both drank in the same pub people suspected something might happen but what did occur shocked the whole community.0
-
Off-topic nitpicking but I'm curious as to how someone gets turfed out of "the Republican movement" as opposed to getting turfed out of one particular gentlemen's club involved in the rep mov.hill16 wrote:The accused is a former member of the Republican movement and was turfed out a number of years back0 -
mycroft wrote:Okay firstly to the passports. It does not seem to bother any SF member/supporter, that these men had the capacity to forge/ obtain forged documents. .
No, It does not. It is about time SF copped onto itself. This organisation is constantly demanding of others but it needs to take more responsibility for itself or organisations that it is closely linked to.
Forging passports is criminal. Why can't SF TDs even acknowledge this?
Why cannot SF TDs even let us know why these men were in Columbia?
Are we to suspend belief and pretent they were bird watching or Eco tourists.
What type of mugs do SF/IRA think we are?
These 3 fugitives have done immense damage to the Peace Process.
Have they even apologised for this?0 -
Advertisement
-
hill16 wrote:I am a community worker living and working in the South Inner City and over the years I have come across both families.The accused is a former member of the Republican movement and was turfed out a number of years back for his involvement in the so called hamer gang.Jim Curran was supposed to have assaulted his sister and as they both drank in the same pub people suspected something might happen but what did occur shocked the whole community.
fact? link? evidence?
Villifying the memory of a dead man to help justify his murder is just sick.
It's always funny that these guys are "former republicans" seeing as it's not like we're not shown discharge papers, we just have to take their word for it.0 -
How am I trying to justify his murder,I am only telling you what local people are saying about the murder. :mad:0
-
hill16 wrote:How am I trying to justify his murder,I am only telling you what local people are saying about the murder. :mad:
Or You're doing what is affectionately known as "making stuff up", you demand that I show were I'm coming from while you tell us your fact comes from the "word on the street"0 -
maybe you are just trolling for an argument mycroft? thats unfair.0
-
mycroft wrote:Now to the point convinently lost in all of the nickpicking
Okay firstly to the passports. It does not seem to bother any SF member/supporter, that these men had the capacity to forge/ obtain forged documents. In fact according to FTA it's so common place for "ex volunteers" to need forged documents for "holidays" that SF should just go ahead and open their own branch of the passport office.
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.
All this indifference to "inconvenient" laws just demonstrations SFs endemic criminality.
No explanation has been given to why James Monaghan was sent for that matter. SF has demonstrated a superior grasp of PR over the years. Are we lead to believe that no one was concerned how awkward it would look if experienced bomb maker was sent clandestinely under a forged passport, to meet with terrorists?
Nor has an explanation been given for SF's leadership massive bout of amnesia for the first months of their captivity. SF's leadership from Adams down strenuously denied the men were there on official SF capacity. Again if these men were there to "observe" the "peace process" in an "official capacity" why did they not contact one side of the conflict, or for that matter why did they go to great lengths to conceal themselves from the government. When they were arrested why did SF not admit to the men's purpose for being there? The suggestion that it would take SF six days to confirm whether a extremely high profile former IRA man, and their offical representive in cuba were in SF is just laughable. The fact that it took "three months" is just a pathetic lie.
Among SF members/Supporters on this site, this event has been greeted with cheers and delight, if any other mainstream political party in the western world engaged in this kind of activity there would be calls for an investigation.
Yet inability for SF to explain its actions and behaviour of their members doesn't seem to bother it's supporters, in fact they also show a marked indifference to trying to answer and explain the above. And you really think this party has turned a corner into become a credible democratic organisation?
I've noticed not a single SF supporter/member has touched any of the above.
forged passpports? what do you expect. get real there buddy, really. who wants to be traced to where they're going and murdered in cold blood like sean savage and co where eh? thats the problem with these british army terrorists .. shoot to kill. fact is, is obvious why they were on false passports, as having a record makes you very interesting to the british.
why where they in columbia? do you know? do I know? do you have any shred of proof to present for your story? How can people answer things they dont know. How can you say things are a pathetic lie? Can you support that with facts?
All i know is that they were charged in Columbia and acquitted ... then when the media had gone they were corruptly charged again. Do you support that kind of carry on to Irish citizens?0 -
tomMK1 wrote:forged passpports? what do you expect. get real there buddy, really. who wants to be traced to where they're going and murdered in cold blood like sean savage and co where eh?
What does the execution of three IRA members who were about to bomb Gilbraltar, have do done with anything. You do love to drag up non sequtur tangents to justify current misdeedsthats the problem with these british army terrorists .. shoot to kill. fact is, is obvious why they were on false passports, as having a record makes you very interesting to the british.
that makes it okay to forge documents then does it? Considering the current situation in the UK do you really think it's acceptable to suggest that it's okay for convicted terrorists to travel under forged documents?why where they in columbia? do you know? do I know? do you have any shred of proof to present for your story?
What story? I've merely listed some of the unanswered questions.How can people answer things they dont know. How can you say things are a pathetic lie? Can you support that with facts?
I have, I've listed both the men and SFs denials and admissions.All i know is that they were charged in Columbia and acquitted ... then when the media had gone they were corruptly charged again. Do you support that kind of carry on to Irish citizens?
Did I say I did, I merely listed some of the unanswered questions.0 -
mycroft wrote:What does the execution of three IRA members who were about to bomb Gilbraltar, have do done with anything. You do love to drag up non sequtur tangents to justify current misdeeds.....that makes it okay to forge documents then does it? Considering the current situation in the UK do you really think it's acceptable to suggest that it's okay for convicted terrorists to travel under forged documents?
all im saying is that it isnt surprising they were on false passports. If they went to portugal for holidays they more than likely would have been on false passports ... doesnt mean they were up to no good .....
What story? I've merely listed some of the unanswered questions.
like why had they false passports? back to square one there.
yes and added your own assumptions .. ie they must be lying as they didnt let gerry adams know what they were doing :rolleyes:I have, I've listed both the men and SFs denials and admissions.
Did I say I did, I merely listed some of the unanswered questions.
very true, but not really true. you said things like "All this indifference to "inconvenient" laws just demonstrations SFs endemic criminality. " - which isnt really true now is it? theres reasons for travelling on a false passport and it doesnt have much to do with claims that Sinn Fein are criminals.
Again, fine ... ignore the circumstances in the north that create the need for, say, false passports by all means (as in the fact you never know if you will be traced by your passport, tracked down and shot - that was the link to Gibraltar). personally i cant see the point of discussing such things without reasoning out how say, travelling on false passports comes about. It doesnt mean they were there to do bad things, but it is indictative of keeping a low profile.
why a low profile? well, when you have britain watching you, then why not?0 -
For starts two of the men didn't have a criminal record or were former terrorists why were they using false idstomMK1 wrote:all im saying is that it isnt surprising they were on false passports. If they went to portugal for holidays they more than likely would have been on false passports ... doesnt mean they were up to no good .....
Secondly they weren't in portugal they were in Columbia meeting terrorists
Finally are you suggesting that its acceptable for former terrorists to wander around with false passports to get around some inconvinent laws?like why had they false passports? back to square one there.
Exactly none of it has been adequately explained.yes and added your own assumptions .. ie they must be lying as they didnt let gerry adams know what they were doing :rolleyes:
I didn't say Adams didn't know, and funnily Adams hasn't either, apparently the SF machine, just "forgot" For 3 months while they were in a Columbian "hell hole"very true, but not really true. you said things like "All this indifference to "inconvenient" laws just demonstrations SFs endemic criminality. " - which isnt really true now is it? theres reasons for travelling on a false passport and it doesnt have much to do with claims that Sinn Fein are criminals.
Travelling under false passports is a crime, as you seem to forget.Again, fine ... ignore the circumstances in the north that create the need for, say, false passports by all means (as in the fact you never know if you will be traced by your passport, tracked down and shot - that was the link to Gibraltar).
Remind me, what were sean and those boys and girls doing in Gilbratar. While their shooting was represensible don't suggest they were boy and girl scouts, and tell me, if they had gotten away with setting off that bomb, would you still think it's a good idea for terrorists to travel under false passports.
The suggestion that this is all the brits fault, forcing the innocent SF members, who've nothing to hide, to use fake ID, when they're innocently going to meet Columbian terrorists, to really f*cking funny.personally i cant see the point of discussing such things without reasoning out how say, travelling on false passports comes about. It doesnt mean they were there to do bad things, but it is indictative of keeping a low profile.
why a low profile? well, when you have britain watching you, then why not?
And again we're wandering around in circles, why did all three, feel the need if they were "legitmately" going to "observe the peace process" feel the urge to travel using false passports?
The suggestion that they had to because twenty years ago, brits special forces murdered three IRA members, who lets not forget, were going to set off a bomb, has forced any SF member to carry a couple of passports, when they go on "perfectly normal holidays" is just weak.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Mycroft what else am I suppose to do except bring to meet the people who were in the bar that night or you will just have to take my word for it.And by the way you have no idea the damage that person has done to the anti drugs movement in the south inner city.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement