Wednesday, February 27, 2008
“I cannot prove that, but that is my conviction..”
If you had thought that Sinn Féin disapproved of anyone making allegations without producing solid evidence.. Well, apparently it depends on who’s doing the alleging and, perhaps, what those allegations are. At the launch of his party’s 20th Anniversary Gibraltar/Milltown events porgramme [sic], SF leader Gerry Adams made some allegations of his own.
Mr Adams said today: “It is my strong view that the killings in Gibraltar were authorised by Margaret Thatcher, and it is my strong view that the Irish government of the day passed information to the authorities about the movements of those killed. I cannot prove that, but that is my conviction.”
There are a couple of points to make about this.
Firstly, what is Adams alleging?
That a democratically elected government passed on information about the movements of known terrorists, or even persons of interest, to another democratically elected government which prevented the completion of planned terrorist acts?
That’s what democratically elected governments do, Gerry.
And they’re trying to do it better all the time.
If the Irish government had information on the movements of known terrorists and, by not passing it on, had allowed the murder of others in another country there would be serious consequences.
But there’s a much more obvious way that such information would have been passed to the British government or, rather, to MI5. And it is my strong view that informers within the Provisional IRA passed on that information in this case. I can’t prove that, of course..
Pete Baker @ 05:27 PM
Apart from bitching democratic, have you anything to offer? Not even a comment on your own country acting outside the law on many and varied occasions. C’mon some of this must strike a chord. Or are you and your ilk always to be kept happy with the blood of a few Taigs? Fuck accountability!
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 10:52 AMCertainly Prince perhaps my irritation was getting the better of me then - further conversation on that level would have been fruitless,
I am happy for any British Soldier, political figure or plain citizen to face justice for spilling the blood of any innocent Catholic - Bloody Sunday being an example you favour which I would have absolutely no problem with seeing jail sentences handed down. In the case of summary justice on those engaged in terrorist activity against my community - to be honest I find it extremely hard to sympathise…and that’s putting it mildly - even though deep down I do realise that such actions are illegal.Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:03 AMPrince
Fuck sake harry, 3 highly motivated professional volunteers were executed in cold blood. As good a reason as any to be sore.
But Provos regularly murdered people in cold blood, so is it not hypocritical of Adams to be “sore” when they get a taste of their own medicine?
However, how do you or reader, or any other with a ‘gift’ manage to come to the conclusion that the IRA were just drip feeding the deaths of Prods. This is something that we used to get trotted out along with claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing. As someone whose intentions are to be taken as a serious commentator, why do you persist with such obvious utter bullshit?
I was asked an opinion about Bloody Friday, and gave it. It seems clear to me that, by leaving bombs in various public places, such as bus stations and shopping streets, the Provos were seeking to murder civilians. More generally, there are many other occasions when civilians were murdered by the Provos – and not as “collateral”, but deliberately. I don’t, therefore, see it as “utter bullshit” that the Provos deliberately targeted civilians: quite the opposite, in fact.
Again the hypocrisy over the supposed silence or lack of condemnation from Republican leaders over certain atrocities. Could you please provide a general analysis of Unionist opinion, never mind the leaders that still persists today, of say the events on bloody sunday?
I’d say most unionists acknowledge that the killings on Bloody Sunday were unjustified. I would take issue with anyone – unionist or otherwise – who thought otherwise, just as I take issue with people such as you who glorify and champion murders by PIRA and other terrorist death squads, who consider those who engaged in such murderous activities as “fine men”, and who consider that those who sought to prevent such outrages should “rot in hell”. Shame on you.
their profession I believe was fighting against British imperialism, of which I believe they were very good at it.
In what way were they fighting against “British imperialism”? You sound like one of those SWP guys with the black donkey jacket that used to waste their lives hanging around university campuses.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:03 AM“always to be kept happy with the blood of a few Taigs?”
No need to make this sectarian. I’ll shed no tears over the blood of a few murderers either way.
And were these people paid and therefore professional killers, or volunteer killers? They can’t be both.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:04 AMThat is the beauty of this medium democratic, we can talk without ripping each others throats out.
>>n the case of summary justice on those engaged in terrorist activity against my community<<
I have a problem with this. I understand that especially in the 70’s there was certain instances when there were indeed attacks on your community. I wish to make it clear that neither I or the vast majority of people who lent their support to the Republican movement supported such actions and would not had they continued. Thankfully the IRA realised that hurting the Brits in the pocket meant so much more than fighting and killing 18 yr olds from Scunthorpe and Hamilton.
>>to be honest I find it extremely hard to sympathise…and that’s putting it mildly - even though deep down I do realise that such actions are illegal.<<
And this is when the law is most important. In the main it does not bow to emotion, although does it recognises the heat of the moment as a mitigating factors. My views on Gib are that it was an execution plain and simple, the evidence of which is overwhelming. The fact that Gerry Adams thinks this or that is no big deal really. Unless the Irish government were found to be complicit.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:12 AMLeave out the “loyal Britisher” claptrap Eoghan and we can have a civilised debate.
I accept there may well have been a degree of illegality in the shootings in Gibraltar but Gerry Adams as a true Irish Republican certainly wouldn’t see it that way. He believes they were soldiers of the Irish Republic who were taking the war to the British on their own turf so it ill behoves him now to claim that the killings were unjustified, in his own terms they weren’t, they were simply an act of war. His terms not mine.
If British people want some form of inquiry into what happened then that is their right, Irish Republicans on the other hand as Rory rightly points out should simply accept it as an act of war, fair and square.
Bloody Friday however was not an act of war, not even in the terms of Irish Republicans, heck especially not in Irish Republican terms. Soldiers of the Irish Republic blew up bombs in an Irish town and killed Irish civilians, now that to an Irish Republican should be an offence that shrieks to the very heavens for justice yet curiously Adams and other Irish Republicans aren’t that fazed by it and instead concentrate on events which by their own admission were simply legitimate acts of war by the British.
It’s as if the RAF bombed Manchester on the orders of Churchill during the Second World War but after the war the Tories demanded an inquiry into the Germans shooting down British planes over Germany but giving a shrug and a hey ho about their own bombing of their own city (such is the length of absurdity I have to go to to draw an analogy with Adams’ position).
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:24 AMWillow
>>I don’t, therefore, see it as “utter bullshit” that the Provos deliberately targeted civilians: quite the opposite, in fact.<<
The message from Reader that you agreed with, was that the IRA had some kind of strategy of drip-feeding prod deaths. I note your subtle but highly important change of emphasis above. Of course there were occasions that the IRA targeted civilians, that aside Is Readers contention, that you agreed with not utter bullshit?
>>I’d say most unionists acknowledge that the killings on Bloody Sunday were unjustified.<<
Having never seen a poll, or spoken to every Unionist I cannot say for sure. I have based my thoughts on those I have encountered on-line. Most would disagree with your admittedly honourable stance.
Beano
>>No need to make this sectarian. I’ll shed no tears over the blood of a few murderers either way.<<
Seemed to me that too many Unionists are happy with the situation, and it was part fair comment, part an attempt to focus minds. Shed no tears or not, I shed no tears at the burning of OO halls, but realise the need for the upkeep of a lawful civilised society.
>>And were these people paid and therefore professional killers, or volunteer killers? They can’t be both.<<
It is being glib to suggest that you could be paid to essentially give up your life. Knowing that you will only face death or long-term prison. Volunteers were as far as I know given a small weekly living allowance. Perhaps someone could enlarge on that.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:25 AMHarry
>>Leave out the “loyal Britisher” claptrap Eoghan and we can have a civilised debate.<<
Ok, I’ll just think it ;¬)
I don’t think many if any Republicans dispute it was an act of war, neither do I. However as a british citizen(temporarily) I have outlined my concerns.
>>I accept there may well have been a degree of illegality in the shootings in Gibraltar<<
How does cold blooded execution transpose itself into that sentence? Yet you then go on about bloody friday etc….......Why should Republicans constantly be forced to play by your rules, rules which you do not even try to abide by yourself. Perhaps there is a ‘degree’ of hypocrisy around here.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:32 AMPrince
The message from Reader that you agreed with, was that the IRA had some kind of strategy of drip-feeding prod deaths. I note your subtle but highly important change of emphasis above. Of course there were occasions that the IRA targeted civilians, that aside Is Readers contention, that you agreed with not utter bullshit?
I’m not sure that I read Reader’s post as you did. I inferred from it that he was saying that PIRA was quite content to target civilians, but did so in the knowledge that such murders could not be the raison d’etre of the campaign if a degree of support were to be maintained among its ethnic base. I don’t see such an assessment as “bullshit”: the PIRA targeted civilians throughout its campaign - moreso in the earlier period, which backs up Reader’s contentions that they learned from the reaction to these outrages to keep them to a minimum, and to seek where possible to target those civilians for whom they could concoct some sort of tortured “justification” (e.g. cleaners in police stations, prison officers, retired policemen, alleged drug dealers, people who had had “dissed” senior Provos, etc.). Of course, PIRA openly targeted policemen and women, who were civilians, even though they classified them otherwise.
I note you chose not to respond to my point about Adams’ hypocrisy in feeling “sore” about the Army killing “in cold blood”, while supporting the murder of thousands of others in cold blood by the Provos.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:42 AMWillow
Adams feeling sore is my take, an opinion. As such I cannot defend any apparent hypocrisy, as Adams didn’t say it.
Readers contention regarding Prods, which you cited twice seemed pretty clear. However in mitigation these may well have been used in response to pancho, and not intending to make the whole of his comments the sum of your argument. No need to get into one of those long boring drawn out pedantic episodes.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:50 AMAdams feeling sore is my take, an opinion. As such I cannot defend any apparent hypocrisy, as Adams didn’t say it.
But your “take” on Adams is that he is a hypocrite: yes?
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:51 AMWillow
Adams is giving his opinion on the Gib 3 executions. As far as I know he has given opinions on a wide range of murders, atrocities, and issues. until I know what he has commented on/not commented on, who can say regarding your central theme.
>>But your “take” on Adams is that he is a hypocrite: yes?<<
Probably, but name me a politician who isn’t.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 11:58 AM*Why should Republicans constantly be forced to play by your rules*
As I thought I made rather obvious from my posts I am not forcing Republicans to play by my rules, on the contrary I am quoting their own rules.
They believed themselves to be the sole legitimate government and army of Ireland, therefore by their own rules what they did on Bloody Friday was an atrocity against their own people, what occurred in Gib was a legitimate act of war. You don’t seriously equate the morality of what happened on Bloody Friday with what happened in Gibraltar do you? I for one have never had any hesitation in calling what happened on Bloody Sunday cold blooded murder but I accept that what happened to the Paras at Warrenpoint whilst technically murder was nowhere near the same morally as what happened in Derry.
This discussion is not about my opinions but about those of Gerry Adams, it is therefore perfectly apposite to point out his absolute hypocrisy in whining about killings carried out by foreign soldiers in a foreign country whilst not calling for some form of redress for the grievance committed by his own forces against his own people in an event about which he certainly had more than a slight prior knowledge.
Surely that’s not to difficult for you to understand.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 12:15 PMHarry
I understand what you are saying perfectly well, perhaps you are too caught up in your own point to see what I was pointing out. Why should Republicans always be the ones to confront and answer difficult questions, which undoubtedly bloody Friday would be. When someone like you only see’s a ‘degree of illegality’ whilst anyone else sees cold blooded murder, execution style. Retreating to comparisons is really not the issue.
>>to point out his absolute hypocrisy in whining about killings carried out by foreign soldiers in a foreign country<<
I think he is giving his opinion on the matter, not sure how that equates to whining, apart from intentional spin.
>>whilst not calling for some form of redress for the grievance committed by his own forces against his own people in an event about which he certainly had more than a slight prior knowledge.<<
Are you seriously saying that Gerry Adams was involved here? Please elaborate.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 12:32 PM*Are you seriously saying that Gerry Adams was involved here? Please elaborate.*
You’re taking the piss here aren’t you? Gerry Adams was in command of Ballymurphy IRA in July 1972, he was, I think, 2IC for the whole of Belfast, you don’t think he might have had just a smidgen of prior knowledge about the biggest bombing operation carried out by the IRA in Belfast at that time, when 26 bombs were made, sent out and detonated throughout Belfast in one afternoon.
D’ya think he never got the memo?
*Why should Republicans always be the ones to confront and answer difficult questions*
They shouldn’t be, but it seems that Republicans are inherently incapable of self examination. Whereas the British operation in Gibraltar (which was not cold blooded murder, Eoghan, any more than the ambush at Warrenpoint was, the Provies were on active service and got whacked, get over it) has been subject to countless examinations by British politicians, lawyers, journalists, human rights activists, tv documentaries and policemen.
It would be nice to see the same level of self investigation by Irish Republicans of their own nasty underside.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 02:13 PMHarry
>>has been subject to countless examinations by British politicians, lawyers, journalists, human rights activists, tv documentaries and policemen.<<
Interesting take on a litany of cover-up’s, self-censorship, deliberate lies from newspapers. Oh and criminals investigating themselves? What a novel idea.
>>the British operation in Gibraltar (which was not cold blooded murder, Eoghan, any more than the ambush at Warrenpoint was, the Provies were on active service and got whacked, get over it)<<
More novel ideas on state murder. Whatever happened to a ‘degree of illegality’? Gone like the snow’s of last winter perhaps?
I am not taking the piss about knowldedge of Gerry Adams involvement on bloody Friday. I am surprised a loyal British subject like yourself has not taken this information to the police. Or do you excuse murder across the board now?
>>PE - *Why should Republicans always be the ones to confront and answer difficult questions*
Harry - They shouldn’t be, but it seems that Republicans are inherently incapable of self examination.<<
Bullshit! This from someone rapidly becoming a champion of state endorsed terrorism. Ach, they aren’t terrorists if they are doing the murdering on your behalf, is that it?
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 02:34 PM*I am surprised a loyal British subject like yourself*
I’m sorry to see you’ve gone back to your old ways, let’s stop debating each other, eh? You seem incapable of laying off the snide personal digs at me. It’s a pity, I used to enjoy having a knockabout with you.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 03:30 PMApologies for upsetting you harry, I did promise that I would only think it. I’m afraid that your attempts at whitewashing the brits(by no means the first time) made me forget my promise.
*shrugs*
I really am not meaning to get on your wick, believe it or not.
Posted by on Feb 29, 2008 @ 03:42 PM
