Friday, April 18, 2008
O’Rawe and the Derry Journal
FAO Those following the hunger strike controversy: As noted yesterday, the Derry Journal had carried a rather confused piece quoting Richard O’Rawe’s cellmate, Colm Scullion, in the wake of the claims by Eamon McCann. Today, they refer to complaints made by O’Rawe and carry an instant rebuttal from Greg Harkin.
The heart of the matter comes down to semantics over the words “deal” and “offer”, as Harkin writes, “Mr O’Rawe’s entire argument rests on what constituted a ‘deal’ or ‘offer’”.
However, that misses the point of O’Rawe’s issue. The argument about “deal” and “offer” is a semantic cul de sac that ultimately goes nowhere as what emerges is that there was an “offer”, or “proposal” or “deal” or whatever term you want to use, that came into the prison from the British. O’Rawe’s issues rest on the acceptance of that offer by the prisoners, i.e., he and Bik agreeing there was enough there, and sending word out. What happened from that point is what is causing the problems, and to focus on anything else loses the plot. Obviously the prisoners’ acceptance as O’Rawe recalls it was over-ruled. Why? And if it was as simple as the fear of the British not upholding their end of things, then why not say that from the start? Why the rush to rubbish O’Rawe, and divert the discussion with forensic examination of semantic cul de sacs? Colm Scullion confirming there was an offer but no deal doesn’t add anything new, other than to confirm that O’Rawe’s claims about the offer he says they accepted did exist. If the prisoners’ acceptance was overruled by the Hunger Strike committee on the outside, of course there would be no deal.
When his book came out, we started from a position of having the offer denied. The outcome, of course, was always that there was no deal made. Now we have the offer O’Rawe wrote of confirmed. So what happened to the acceptance? That has always been O’Rawe’s question.
Rusty Nail @ 12:44 PM
Rory
If Adams is the good guy everybody has smeared and Corrigan and Williams and McKeown in their quest for Nobel gold are the bay guys you have a real problem with the concept of good and evil.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 06:25 PMRory
I would add that a man who was instrumental in bringing the terror tactic to Ireland - a tactic that is defined simply as the tactical use of human suffering - is as evil as they get.
Don’t listen to me just listen to the references to him inthe Book of Revelation:-
The descriptions of the beasts in the Book of Revelation are interesting.
‘The inhabitants worshipped the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed,’ (Rev 13:12). Coincidentally, Gerry Adams was shot and wounded in 1984, but recovered. Afterwards, he became Sinn Fein president and one of the foremost politicians in Northern Ireland. The use of violence for him is a matter of tactics. That is a matter of fact and record. Gerry Adams has not stepped away from violence. He believes in his own words that “there is a time for peace and a time for war”, mocking the Prince of Peace and equating Christ with the Antichrist, good with evil.
The first beast, who is said to be the Antichrist, is prophesied to have “seven heads” (Rev 13:1), which is coincidentally the number of heads on the IRA army council, including Gerry Adams’ allegedly.
“Who can make war against him?” (Rev 13:7). The IRA has been described as ‘the most sophisticated terrorist organisation in the history of mankind’. Their structure makes it impossible for a conventional army to defeat them
Gerry Adams fulfilled another prophecy during the run-up to the 2007 Assembly election campaign in the North of Ireland. This involved him requesting the use of Clonard Monastery (Roman Catholic) church in West Belfast for a political meeting discussing his party’s policy. He still believed that armed struggle was a legitimate means of resolving differences.
When Gerry Adams took to the altar of Clonard monastery while his beliefs were in conflict with Christ’s teaching, he was proclaiming himself to be wiser than God and better than Jesus Christ. He was in logic proclaiming himself to be God.
“[The man of lawlessness or the Antichrist] will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thes 2:3-4)
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 08:49 PM
