Why do people hate Gerry Adams

RayM wrote: »

I don't remember such levels of hatred for him back in the 1990s, when the IRA were actually killing people. I suppose Sinn Féin didn't pose any electoral threat to the establishment back then.

In a world where you've got terrorists killing people and a former terrorist who is seemingly willing to sit down and discuss rather than kill, naturally you're going to look more favourably on the latter.

When that same guy is still sitting at the table 20 years after the violence has stopped but still refusing to say it was wrong....well it has a tendency to tarnish one's reputation.

Just to throw another slant on it. I think many peoples attitude to Martin McGuinness differs from their opinion of Gerry Adams.
I think that is because his attitude is different. The antipathy is generally not there to McGuinness.

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Never happened. No evidence of it ever even being a possibility. So the big question is, why would someone make that up? Why fabricate a reason that someone was killed? Answer: to hide the reason.

which is that they are neanderthal thugs.

Don't agree Miller. I think people see McGuinness a straight talking. People always appreciate that.

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Never happened. No evidence of it ever even being a possibility. So the big question is, why would someone make that up? Why fabricate a reason that someone was killed? Answer: to hide the reason.

Wait, are you saying that Jean McConville wasn't killed by the IRA? Or...killed at all? O.o

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0929/731123-jean-mcconville-timeline/

Even they admitted it.

Deleted User wrote: »

The IRA didn't like others running drugs. They had no issue taking a big slice out of the industry themselves.

Proof please

McGuinnes stood for the presidency. He wasn't attacked in the manner you suggested Miller.

Samaris wrote: »

Wait, are you saying that Jean McConville wasn't killed by the IRA? Or...killed at all? O.o

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0929/731123-jean-mcconville-timeline/

Even they admitted it.

No, I was addressing the points made in the comment I quoted. There is no evidence that Jean McConville ever administered aid or comfort to a dying British soldier. There's no record of any British soldiers being maimed or killed in the area it's alleged to have happened at any time before her death. I believe that in not wanting to admit that she was an informer, a plausible reason for her being targeted had to be created and her giving aid to a fictional dying British soldier was the reason that was fabricated*. Nobody would have believed (apart from a few posters on here of course) that she was randomly selected for death for no reason at all.

Of course, on here, for some reason it suits many people to completely ignore the entire background of the conflict, the entire timeline of events and pretend that one day out of the blue a bunch of people with a blood lust managed to get really well organised and just started blowing places up and shooting people for no reason. By some miracle, 85% of the time they tried to kill as many innocent people as possible they accidentally killed armed British forces instead. Bizarre.

*It does go to show, if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

LDN_Irish wrote: »

You don't need proof to make a claim like that. It's like how "everyone knows" that dissident republicans are the most successful drug dealers in the history of the world. Schrodingers dissidents. Simultaneously riddled with informers but impossible to convict of any drug offences.

do you think drug dealers are going to run to the police to complain that the ira are "taxing" them?

LDN_Irish wrote: »

No, I was addressing the points made in the comment I quoted. There is no evidence that Jean McConville ever administered aid or comfort to a dying British soldier. There's no record of any British soldiers being maimed or killed in the area it's alleged to have happened at any time before her death. I believe that in not wanting to admit that she was an informer, a plausible reason for her being targeted had to be created and her giving aid to a fictional dying British soldier was the reason that was fabricated*. Nobody would have believed (apart from a few posters on here of course) that she was randomly selected for death for no reason at all.

Of course, on here, for some reason it suits many people to completely ignore the entire background of the conflict, the entire timeline of events and pretend that one day out of the blue a bunch of people with a blood lust managed to get really well organised and just started blowing places up and shooting people for no reason. By some miracle, 85% of the time they tried to kill as many innocent people as possible they accidentally killed armed British forces instead. Bizarre.

*It does go to show, if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

But But...the Spooks who have stood by and allowed so many deaths to protect their informers say this is the reason she was killed so this triggers the usual alliance of Irish media/FF/FG to keep pushing out their propaganda which is then fed to the bottom feeders here to perpetuate their predictable modus.


Ireland has a sad pathetic history of informers causing many many deaths for fellow Irish men and women and this was allowed to happen because informants were not dealt with ruthlessly enough.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

knowing that something is happening is not the same as having the evidence to convict in court. besides, why would you expose your touts for something that nobody gives a toss about except drug dealers?

You can't simultaneously have an organisation riddled with your agents and informers and be unable to acquire evidence of their activities. That's impossible. A conviction for drug offences would completely destroy any credibility as republicans that dissidents cling to which would put a serious dent in the support they're gathering in the north. That'd be a good reason to expose one of the (allegedly many) agents inside the various dissident camps. What's the loss of 1 agent's cover if you have tens or hundreds among them?

Dissidents must be swimming in cash. Extorting all those dealers must be very lucrative. Why haven't CAB taken their money? That's a good way around the problem. Don't need to expose an agent. Don't need evidence for a conviction. Still dents their credibility as republicans. Foolproof. But they haven't done it. Why? Only 2 plausible answers I can think of. Either they're not riddled with agents or they're not as big in the drug game as we're being told they are.

Some more pondering points. Suppose you're a dissident republican who is using republicanism as a means to acquire drug money. Why would you guarantee that the full force of the state would come down on you by killing soldiers, PSNI officers and prison guards? That would be the complete opposite of what i'd do if I were amassing a load of drug money.

Massereene Barracks shootings. 2 soldiers killed. 1 conviction latwr overturned and not guilty on the retrial. PSNI man shot in Craigavon days later by a sniper. No convictions. Ronan Kerr, killed by dissidents in 2011. David Black killed on the way to work. One man on trial for aiding and abetting. Why aren't the shooters in the dock? Those agents and informers are either very **** at their job or they don't exist.

Full disclosure: I couldn't give a **** about the dissidents and think the list I've given above has been a criminal and pointless waste of human life. What does interest me about all this is how it exposes that so many Irish people will literally believe anything they're told, even if it doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Classic SF, they rail about everything and anything and fire out any rumour about collusion and corruption.

But the minute you point out what the dogs on the street know about the victims of crime, drugs, child abuse etc. surrounding them, they get all "where's the proof, prove it so, no Court said that".

Your proof? Ask anyone in South Kerry who was involved in the drugs business about the history of it and they will tell you that when the IRA got stuck in, it became very dark. But no, they didn't go to the Gardaí about it.

I'm not a supporter of SF or any republican party, but I'll understand if you don't believe that because I rarely believe people when they say "I don't support X party" and then go on to defend them. But I don't believe that the PIRA were involved in drugs and I'm sure that if they were there are enough powerful people in Ireland and Britain who would love to be able to provide even the slightest bit of evidence that they were to destroy their support and they haven't.

Now, I agree with you on most things I see you post (Israel being the usual exception) and I know you're an intelligent bloke but if I told you to go and ask whoever from wherever when you were questioning my claims you'd rightly tell me to feck off.

jack923 wrote: »

Why do you think people hate Gerry Adams?

La Mon
Proxy bombs
Warrington

... I could keep naming things all day, unfortunately, but you get the gist of it.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there was never any point to it. no matter what is said you will defend the IRA. You ask for proof for any accusations laid against the IRA. Tell me something, what proof was sufficient for Gerry and his friends to decide that somebody was a tout and that they should be "disappeared"? do you think that "proof" would stand up in any court of law? think about that the next time you blindly defend scum like Gerry Adams and his thugs in the IRA.

I answered every question you asked me on the previous page. You're so upset by a killing carried about 40 years ago that you've been rendered completely unable to repay the courtesy and answer a single question I've asked you in this exchange. So what's the point of me continuing to answer your questions? You'll have to settle for your thanks from iwasfrozen and lordsutch when he logs on because I'm not going to waste any more time on you.

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I answered every question you asked me on the previous page. You're so upset by a killing carried about 40 years ago that you've been rendered completely unable to repay the courtesy and answer a single question I've asked you in this exchange. So what's the point of me continuing to answer your questions? You'll have to settle for your thanks from iwasfrozen and lordsutch when he logs on because I'm not going to waste any more time on you.

a killing?? there are a lot more than one.

I've looked for the post where you justify defending murderous thugs but i cant find it. care to link to it? or are you just going to keep deflecting? the fact is that you wont explain because you dont like thinking about the reality of what Gerry and his thugs (that should be a band name) have done. Its easier to keep up the "Up the 'RA" shouts.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You surely do not think that the IRA would bombs kids and civilians, cover for paedophiles like Adams brother...but get very moralistic about the dangers of drugs?

Yes, I do think that. And despite it being ridiculously contradictory it's a really common attitude in the timeline that the PIRA were operating. Pretty much every armed group who engages in war (in before "it wasn't a war" because the semantics make no difference to the point) will bomb kids and civilians and chalk it up to collateral*. Plenty of prominent organisations have turned out to be abusing and harbouring abusers in the 70's and 80's. But I bet plenty of them would balk at the idea of drug running or complicity in it. Drugs are bizarrely, a massive taboo especially in Ireland. Even more so than child abuse. If it turned out the church were selling drugs here it would finish them off more than the abuse scandals ever managed to.

Understand, this isn't a roundabout defence of the PIRA. I genuinely wouldn't feel any differently if they were selling drugs. I've taken drugs myself and I'm not against them at all. A lot of the stuff the PIRA and INLA did was indefensible. But overall, they were absolutely justified in taking up arms against a tyrannical state that was oppressing them. The same way all of the other groups who've taken up arms against Britain and various other colonialists in their own countries were. Within 5 years of the GFA, Britain was off making new enemies in far flung places and Irish people sit around here acting like things would've been grand if only the Catholics in the north would have just let themselves be beaten and shot during pogroms for a little while longer. It's bizarre.