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
-
-
-
-
hill16 wrote:Okay I will leave you to believe everything you read in the Indo. Cruise O'Brien for President.
If you could find a "source" other than "what you heard down the pub" I'd give it more credence, fact remains you're trying to convince me that a dead man sexually assaulted a senior IRA man's sister, on your word alone.
Snide comments about the Indo, aside, what am I supposed to do?
Take the word of an what some anonymous bloke on the internet over it? :rolleyes:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
mycroft wrote:
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.
No it isnt!. The point is that you are suggest that FARC were involved in drug trafficing and terrorism. I pointed out that I am suspicious of you singling out FARC and question whether you apply the same standerds to other people governments or groups. Also, I pointed out that your "facts" about FARC being narco terrorists over simplify the historic reality of the Colombian situation. FARC are not in the drugs trade. they take money from drugs dealers just as many other organisations sip with the devil. the US and others have dealt with terrorists and dictators when it suited them so I am also questioning the doublke standards of singling out FARC and then not applying the same standards to other groups. I am not a Marxist. I don't support FARC or terrorism but I will also speak out against the likes of US support for Saddam when they supported him.
But the main point is still what the three were guilty of! You havestill provided nothing about this!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.
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. You also said that the IRA and SF denied they were there on official business are even denied they knew of the existance of the three. Then you assert they later admitted that they had planned the mission and did know about the three. I pointed out that this is just all riddled with errors. As far as I know the IRA said they were not there oin IRA business and I havent seen any retraction of this. the IRA might well be a pack of murdering liars but that is beside the point. If you claim you know that the IRA later admitted something then YOU provide evidence to support your contention!
First what specific lies are you referring to? evidence please?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.
Second in spite of trying to prove a negtative I suggest you read the three stastements to the court and then come back and say they didnt say why they were there with false passports.And again we're supposed to be okay that a former bomber has ready access to fake passports?
This is completly off point and ignores the principles of justice. The point is that we do not have lynch law. It is not okay for a non-former bomber to have a false passport ( CIA MI6 etc. also regularly carry them by the way) but how does having ome prover any involvment in trainint FARC in terror?
it isnt I referred to the possession of knowledge of something does not make one guilty. I have knowledge of making explosives. does that mean if i went to Colombia I am training FARC?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?
Apparently not since they didnt plan the trip. But sure most of SF leadership are former bombers and terrorist supporters anyway. so what? how does that meke the three guilty of anything?
You completly miss the point again! You can believe him or not. You can personally assume guilt. But you can not bang him up in gaol without provingA senior former IRA bomb maker meeting terrorists using false ID and we're supposed to take his word?
guilt!Do I admit that they (both the Columbian three and FARC admitted) meeting in FARC territory? Yes.
NThat is not what you claimed. You claimed they were CAPTURED in Farc territory with FARC terrorists. You were wrong and you are trying to evede admitting that arent 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?
No you havent! whewre in the article is there evidence Adams denied it for months?
And it is not for me to prove your point.
Slip and slide all you want but YOU made the claim YOU support it!So basically you got nothing, right? Otherwise you'd show it.
I have a Unicoirn in myu garden. Someone poster pictures to the net about them and they were printed in a newspaper. So care to prove me wrong? you have no pictures of Unicoens not being in my garden have you?
See what I mean about you logic being confused?Incidently ISAW you've dropped the suprious claims about the three weeks, that just looked daft.
I didnt make the clkaim you did. You claimed about denials. I stated I would be surprised that SF were denying the three about a month (30 days ) later and when you show they were I will accept that. You havent showm ANY evidence that they were denying them a month later. You havent even posted the arrest date!
Yeah what doies that reference prove? What are you suggesting it supports?
LOL!Would you ever quit nickpicking the above? Christ the man's nickname is Mortar Monaghan for f*cks sake
Your honour I have a long list of name calling here.
Judge: Okay fine. Hang him!
Do you remember the "evil Annies bomb factory" headline on Annie Maguire?0 -
-
-
-
Its got nothing to do with logic.ISAW wrote:I have a Unicoirn in myu garden. Someone poster pictures to the net about them and they were printed in a newspaper. So care to prove me wrong? you have no pictures of Unicoens not being in my garden have you?
See what I mean about you logic being confused?
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.
I'm willing to bet that you cannot provide verifiable evidence of a newspaper whcih contains pictures of unicorns in your garden.
Mycroft's claims...I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss (as you have done), and would rank the probability of his referred-to article actually existing as almost-infinitely higher than yours.
So who's reasoning were you saying was confused??? You dismissed a verifiable article with a farcical argument by comparing it to an article that cannot be verified. Of course...maybe your reasoning wasn't confused at all, and you deliberately took this line to try and avoid having to deal with the existence of said article.
jc0 -
-
-
-
ISAW wrote:<snip>farc crap.</snip>
And again, and you're really beginning to miss this
A) I don't know what they're guilty of, I just know that SFs behaviour of in this issue would not be tolerated in any other party on this island, and I want a better explaination.
you can rant about US involvement in Columbia, or Saddam etc, does that change FARC's terrorist acts,or funding through drugs, no? Good.
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.
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?You claimed they were there on either SF or IRA business and you claimed that they were caught with terrorists.
No I didn't i said SF business, not IRA. Are you reading my posts at all?You also said that the IRA and SF denied they were there on official business are even denied they knew of the existance of the three. Then you assert they later admitted that they had planned the mission and did know about the three.
No I didn't. I said SF did. Again are you reading my posts at all?
Seeing as I never said they were on IRA business you may be waiting awhile.. As far as I know the IRA said they were not there oin IRA business and I havent seen any retraction of this.
And again asking me to prove something I never claimed would be a lil unfair. Seriously, have you been reading any of my posts?If you claim you know that the IRA later admitted something then YOU provide evidence to support your contention!
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. 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?Second in spite of trying to prove a negtative I suggest you read the three stastements to the court and then come back and say they didnt say why they were there with false passports.It is not okay for a non-former bomber to have a false passport ( CIA MI6 etc. also regularly carry them by the way) but how does having ome prover any involvment in trainint FARC in terror?
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. 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?
Charming.
And incidently I've never suggested anywhere that they're training farc, just doubted their excuses for being there and the reasons they claim to be.it isnt I referred to the possession of knowledge of something does not make one guilty. I have knowledge of making explosives. does that mean if i went to Colombia I am training FARC?
Did I claim they were training FARC?
And were you travelling under false ID and a convicted bomber? Er no. World of difference just because you read the anarchist cookbook, doesn't make you the jackal. James Monaghan as I prove below is however an experienced bomber.
And I never said they were and this is the point you spectualarly fail to address ISAW the guilt of the Columbian three and whether they should be in prison isn't what bother me, it's the behaviour of SF, it's denials, etc, it's unwilliness to explain, which makes me question their commitment to democratic principlesThats the issue I have. I'm indifferent to seeing the columbian three rot in a jail I'd rather see a greater commitment from SF for openness and accountability. Thats my point and the point you miss, again and again and again. Any other political party would be forced to explain themselves to greater degree SF ignore the questions and walk away.Apparently not since they didnt plan the trip. But sure most of SF leadership are former bombers and terrorist supporters anyway. so what? how does that meke the three guilty of anything?
This is endearingly funny. If you'll notice I admitted I got this wrong several pages ago. After their arrest both FARC and the men admitted meeting in FARC territory. I got that wrong, the Columbian 3 and FARC corrected me, the fact remains they did meet in FARC territory, and everyone admits it.You claimed they were CAPTURED in Farc territory with FARC terrorists. You were wrongNo you havent! whewre in the article is there evidence Adams denied it for months?
*Weary sigh*, please read the quotes below.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=71487993825&p=7y487994z3x&n=71487994312On 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)
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.
I don't know what a "unicoens" is. I imagine it's like a kosher Unicorn, but anyway Bonkey's rebuttal to your point is more than adequate.So care to prove me wrong? you have no pictures of Unicoens not being in my garden have you?
See what I mean about you logic being confused?I didnt make the clkaim you did. I stated I would be surprised that SF were denying the three about a month (30 days ) You havent showm ANY evidence that they were denying them a month later. You havent even posted the arrest date!
Yes I have you've just not bothered reading it; from here
And thenThe three men were arrested while travelling on false passports on August 11, 2001.There are links to numerous newspaper reports in which Sinn Féin spokespersons, including Gerry Adams himself, insisted that none of the three men arrested in Bogota was a member of Sinn Féin.direct from mclaughlin btw wrote:Sinn Féin accepted from the outset that James Monaghan had, ten years earlier, been a member of the Sinn Féin árd cómhairle, but maintained he had dropped out of active involvement with the party. McLaughlin again denied that Monaghan or McCauley or Connolly had any current involvement with the party. "It is clear that they no longer are members of the party; they act in no function whatsoever on behalf of the party and that should be crystal clear."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).
In a cynical move of the type which caused trouble for New Labour adviser Jo Moore, Adams timed the issuing of this 'clarification' for a couple of hours before the announcement of the IRA's first act of decommissioning.
On any other day the admission would have been sensational, but Adams knew full well that it would be subsumed into the larger decommissioning good news story.
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.
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.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?
Furthermore, this like the other articles I've posted you've picked selective quotes to have read and ignored facts when it suits you.
Mmmm gosh I dunno? my assertion that james monaghan is a convicted bomber?Yeah what doies that reference prove? What are you suggesting it supports?
from, oh look! the article I quotedThe man turned out to be James Monaghan, one of the Colombia Three and a convicted IRA mortar bomber.
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"0 -
Advertisement
-
-
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.
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.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.
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?
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.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?
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?Seeing as I never said they were on IRA business you may be waiting awhile.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 2002Which 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!
You were already give the reasons.And it is not for the state to act in the same way as terrorists.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.
Both should be given the benefit of the doubt. If you cant prove what they did they are assumed innocent.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?
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?Did I claim they were training FARC?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!
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!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.0 -
-
-
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 sayPlease 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 organisationISAW 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 IDYou 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 upBoth 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!
wearilyOn 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.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement