What evidence of Gerry Adams' IRA membership do people need?

Happyman42 · 22-10-2014 9:47am

alias no.9 wrote: »

So you're saying she's lying then?

About a SF cover-up? It's possible...too early to say definitively.

P.s. it is also possible SF and GA are lying too.

Godge · 22-10-2014 10:24am

Happyman42 wrote: »

No Godge, calm down. I said I don't as yet accept her testimony. I need to see the irrefutable evidence she says she has about a SF cover-up.
That is all SF are answerable for here.

So which is it?

(1) She is a liar.
(2) She is probably a liar.

If you are saying it is not the first one, it must be the second one if you say you believe Gerry Adams.

So I can correct my statement to Happyman is saying she is a probable liar.

Esel wrote: »

A bit late to the thread, but anyway... post #1000:

Just on the current topic:

I watched the BBC program, but was a bit distracted during the part where it said that she withdrew her evidence (and therefore the trial collapsed) when she learned that a particular person was going to give evidence for the defence. Can anyone elaborate on that?

Kangaroo etc. notwithstanding - it is a basic precept of justice that the accused is entitled to be confronted by their accuser. I doubt, however, that this was adhered to in every/most/even some IRA 'courts'.

Let us not forget who ran the Internal Security department for many years - John Joe and Scap. Punch and Judy. Enough said.

I would think it very likely that there are contemporaneous notes, and recordings, in existence of this and other 'trials' or 'enquiries'. There are probably copies too - some in dumps, others in the catalogued basement storage area of some apparently innocuous building offshore.

One does not have to eat the pudding to know what it tastes like.

The gentlemen will now retire to the smoking room, while the ladies are free to powder their noses.

Q: Does your dog bite?
A: No.
Q: Ouch! I thought you said your dog didn't bite?
A: That is not my dog.

Case closed.

There was a detailed interview with her on Today FM's The Last Word the other night that covered all this ground.

alias no.9 · 22-10-2014 10:48am

Happyman42 wrote: »

About a SF cover-up? It's possible...too early to say definitively.

P.s. it is also possible SF and GA are lying too.

Too early to say she's lying, then it's equally too early to accuse her of being politically motivated in her actions, is it not?

Dan_Solo · 22-10-2014 10:51am

alias no.9 wrote: »

Too early to say she's lying, then it's equally too early to accuse her of being politically motivated in her actions, is it not?

So you agree it is pointless commenting on this entire case as nothing has been proven anywhere.
Why did this take so long...

Happyman42 · 22-10-2014 11:39am

alias no.9 wrote: »

Too early to say she's lying, then it's equally too early to accuse her of being politically motivated in her actions, is it not?

Absolutely, that is why - said 'she might be'.
I have no doubt that the various party leaders are politically motivated, given their lack of concern about the primary unresolved issue...a rape.

Godge · 22-10-2014 12:22pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you agree it is pointless commenting on this entire case as nothing has been proven anywhere.
Why did this take so long...

No, one can have an opinion that Gerry Adams is lying, equally one can have an opinion that Mairia Cahill is lying.

What is difficult to understand is that some people can say in every other word possible that they don't believe Mairia Cahill yet they cannot bring themselves to say that she is a liar. Why?

maccored · 22-10-2014 12:27pm

why is it when people tell you they dont believe she is lying about the rape, that you insist that people either believe everything single thing she says, or nothing? Thats a bit over simplistic and a tad bit naive imo.

Godge wrote: »

No, one can have an opinion that Gerry Adams is lying, equally one can have an opinion that Mairia Cahill is lying.

What is difficult to understand is that some people can say in every other word possible that they don't believe Mairia Cahill yet they cannot bring themselves to say that she is a liar. Why?

K-9 · 22-10-2014 12:37pm

With time and memory both could be wrong in details!

Godge · 22-10-2014 12:49pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely, that is why - said 'she might be'.
I have no doubt that the various party leaders are politically motivated, given their lack of concern about the primary unresolved issue...a rape.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1022/653977-mairia-cahill/

"Ms Cahill said the Taoiseach had handled the meeting sensitively.

She thanked him for his compassion and his concern about helping other victims.

She said his main concern was for her and how she was doing rather than using the story as a political issue."

Nice to see one politician showing concern for the victim.

Happyman42 · 22-10-2014 1:10pm

Godge wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1022/653977-mairia-cahill/

"Ms Cahill said the Taoiseach had handled the meeting sensitively.

She thanked him for his compassion and his concern about helping other victims.

She said his main concern was for her and how she was doing rather than using the story as a political issue."

Nice to see one politician showing concern for the victim.

“She overcame the horror of being raped, to face down the IRA and its generals, secret or otherwise,’’ he added.

Enda can't help himself politicising it. :rolleyes:

Phoebas · 22-10-2014 1:20pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Enda can't help himself politicising it. :rolleyes:

Hard to avoid when some of the 'generals' are now politicians.

Happyman42 · 22-10-2014 1:25pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Hard to avoid when some of the 'generals' are now politicians.

Who, in Dail Eireann was a 'general' of the IRA?

Phoebas · 22-10-2014 1:28pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who, in Dail Eireann was a 'general' of the IRA?

I'm not au fait with the intricacies of the command structure but its generally accepted that Gerry Adams was a senior IRA member.

Also Martin McGuinness in the Assembly.

maccored · 22-10-2014 1:33pm

Gossip wins once again.

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not au fait with the intricacies of the command structure but its generally accepted that Gerry Adams was a senior IRA member.

Happyman42 · 22-10-2014 1:41pm

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not au fait with the intricacies of the command structure but its generally accepted that Gerry Adams was a senior IRA member.

Also Martin McGuinness in the Assembly.

Was Gerry Adams a general of the IRA?

Godge · 22-10-2014 2:39pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Was Gerry Adams a general of the IRA?

Think he only made the Army Council.

Fuzzy Clam · 22-10-2014 3:13pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely, that is why - said 'she might be'.
I have no doubt that the various party leaders are politically motivated, given their lack of concern about the primary unresolved issue...a rape.

If it's politically motivated, wouldn't it be better to have done it closer to an election?

Fuzzy Clam · 22-10-2014 3:17pm

Godge wrote: »

Think he only made the Army Council.

According to "A Secret History of the IRA" by Ed Moloney, Gerry was made Chief of staff in 1977 and loses the rank in 1978.

Happyman42 · 22-10-2014 3:27pm

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

According to "A Secret History of the IRA" by Ed Moloney, Gerry was made Chief of staff in 1977 and loses the rank in 1978.

This the same Ed Moloney as Ed Moloney of the 'Boston Tapes'? Another discredited and now forgotten attempt to get Adams.

Fuzzy Clam · 22-10-2014 3:32pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

This the same Ed Moloney as Ed Moloney of the 'Boston Tapes'? Another discredited and now forgotten attempt to get Adams.

Does that mean he is wrong?

Happyman42 · 22-10-2014 3:35pm

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Does that mean he is wrong?

Very possibly, more unsubstantiated allegations.

DarkyHughes · 22-10-2014 6:12pm

For the last h4e WAS IN NA FIANNA EIREANN NOT THE IRA. Fianna Eireann is like the IRA this is were all the confusion is coming from.

Esel · 22-10-2014 9:21pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

For the last h4e WAS IN NA FIANNA EIREANN NOT THE IRA. Fianna Eireann is like the IRA this is were all the confusion is coming from.

So he was effectively only ever in the scouts then? Thanks for clearing that up.

Fuzzy Clam · 22-10-2014 11:55pm

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

You don't believe what many consider is common knowledge about Gerry because there's no proof? Correct?

/QUOTE]
Still waiting on an answer Maccored.

maccored · 23-10-2014 12:26am

I dont believe Adams was in the ira because 1) I dont care 2) No really, I dont care if he was or wasnt 3) OK if you insist - he doesnt have any reason to lie about ira membership. Personally I thiink he's playing a very pedantic card .. as in maybe he wasnt sworn in officially as an IRA member but he may well have been doing things ira members do, but I dont care if he was or not anyway so that doesnt matter to me.

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

You don't believe what many consider is common knowledge about Gerry because there's no proof? Correct?

/QUOTE]
Still waiting on an answer Maccored.

Esel · 23-10-2014 3:16am

maccored wrote: »

I dont believe Adams was in the ira because 1) I dont care 2) No really, I dont care if he was or wasnt 3) OK if you insist - he doesnt have any reason to lie about ira membership. Personally I thiink he's playing a very pedantic card .. as in maybe he wasnt sworn in officially as an IRA member but he may well have been doing things ira members do, but I dont care if he was or not anyway so that doesnt matter to me.

So, you reasons are:

1. La la la la la I can't hear you.

2. La la la la la I'm not listening.

3. OK if you insist - la la la la la I still can't hear you.

On #3: Mental reservation might apply to Gerry's stance. It would be relatively easy to convince oneself (for self-preservation) that having been a member of the pre-1970 IRA does not actually equate to being a member of the post-1969 'new' IRA, especially if one can convince oneself that the pre-1970 'IRA' was on the wrong path and therefore not entitled to the title. So, sworn in pre-1970: not a member (more a pretender).

Do people actually think that all pre-1970 members who changed their allegiance to the post-1969 army were sworn in again? If not, were these people ever actually 'members' of the new army? Even if oaths were retaken, if one was in a large group 'taking' an oath en masse, and one did not actually say all the words (mouthing does not equal saying), one could conceivably claim that one never actually took the oath.

As de Valera said, an oath can be regarded as an empty formula / form of words.

Sure, it might be a 'technicality', but one only has to 'believe' in the new 'truth' to be able to pass the lie-detector test. The more times one takes the test, the more entrenched the 'belief' becomes, and the less the graph moves. Eventually, it stays relatively flat.

As politicians often say when called out on an apparent lie: "That was not the question I was asked".

tl/dr (a) Never admit, especially if a term in jail could result.

tl/dr (b) Deny, as above.

tl/dr (c) La la la la la, next question.

Johngoose · 23-10-2014 7:53am

On a lighter note is anybody dressing up as Gerry Adams for Hallowe'en?

Joey the lips · 23-10-2014 8:00am

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.
Malcolm X

I can see your point. Even up till yesterday I find it amazing that up to yesterday enda would not meet with survivors or clerical abuse or the church and yet will meet with the IRA victim

What's he got to gain?

baldbear · 23-10-2014 8:20am

Gerry is finished. Did the IRA move abusers south of the border and did Maria Cahill face her abuser in an interview with the IRA?

For the future of the party he must go. I have no respect for Enda Kenny's political point scoring.

Phoebas · 23-10-2014 8:23am

Joey the lips wrote: »

I can see your point. Even up till yesterday I find it amazing that up to yesterday enda would not meet with survivors or clerical abuse or the church and yet will meet with the IRA victim

What's he got to gain?

Enda Kenny has met with many victims of clerical sexual abuse.

Happyman42 · 23-10-2014 9:09am

Phoebas wrote: »

Enda Kenny has met with many victims of clerical sexual abuse.

Has the sensitive compassionate man met Louise O'Keefe yet?
Maria Cahill seems to have jumped the queue.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/enda-kenny-confirms-commitment-to-meet-louise-o-keeffe-1.1954625

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has confirmed his commitment to meeting with child sex abuse survivor Louise O’Keeffe after she challenged him to meet her to discuss the Government’s delay in enacting child protection legislation in primary schools.
Mr Kenny said that, together with the Minister for Education Jan O’Sullivan, he plans to meet with Ms O’Keeffe shortly to discuss the Government’s approach to dealing with child protection on foot of the European Court of Human Rights judgement which found in favour of Ms O’Keeffe.
Last January, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland had failed to meet its obligation to protect Ms O’Keeffe from abuse by school principal Leo Hickey while she was a pupil at Dunderrow National School in West Cork in the early 1970s.
In July, the Department of Education issued details of an action plan to address the issues raised by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgement, but Ms O’Keeffe said the action plan amounted to nothing more than a restatement of Ireland’s defence in the case.
She emailed Mr Kenny on August 2nd, extending an invitation to both him and Ms O’Sullivan to meet with herself, and other survivors of child sexual abuse in day schools, to put in place child protection measures to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights ruling.
Ms O’Keeffe gave Mr Kenny two months to respond to her invite and when Mr Kenny was asked about it recently by The Irish Times, he said he would “be happy to meet” and a date for the meeting “was not too far distant”, though he could not talk to her about matters still before the courts.
Ms O’Keeffe told The Irish Times that she raised the issue with Tánaiste Joan Burton at Network Ireland’s national conference on September 26th and, later that day, she received an email from the Taoiseach’s private secretary confirming his willingness to meet her.
“I would be inclined to think that Joan Burton had a word with the Taoiseach – the email coming the same day was too much of a coincidence – it confirmed that the Taoiseach would meet me, but not the other victims of child sex abuse in day schools because they had cases still pending,” she said.
Ms O’Keeffe said she was disappointed that Mr Kenny was unwilling to meet other victims of child sexual abuse, but that she was happy to go ahead and meet him and other ministers, even though she still felt that child protection was not a priority for this government.
“I don’t think they see it as a priority – it’s eight months on from the ruling in my case and we have had nothing – yet within five weeks of the Supreme Court ruling they were writing to other survivors to try and intimidate them into dropping their cases so they can move with speed when they want to.
“I don’t know what the Taoiseach is going to say to me, I certainly hope he’s not going to say the same as we have heard before because I’ve been listening to it in the High Court, the Supreme Court and in Europe and there’s been no change in that so something new has to come.
“I’m harping back to the same thing all the time, particularly since Europe did find the state was responsible for the protection of children in national schools and what they put forward in July to the European Court of Human Rights was what we have been listening to in the courts for 15 years.”

maccored · 23-10-2014 9:23am

no, my reason is I dont really give a toss if he was in the IRA or not. Would you prefer I lied to you or something?

Esel wrote: »

So, you reasons are:

1. La la la la la I can't hear you.

2. La la la la la I'm not listening.

3. OK if you insist - la la la la la I still can't hear you.

On #3: Mental reservation might apply to Gerry's stance. It would be relatively easy to convince oneself (for self-preservation) that having been a member of the pre-1970 IRA does not actually equate to being a member of the post-1969 'new' IRA, especially if one can convince oneself that the pre-1970 'IRA' was on the wrong path and therefore not entitled to the title. So, sworn in pre-1970: not a member (more a pretender).

Do people actually think that all pre-1970 members who changed their allegiance to the post-1969 army were sworn in again? If not, were these people ever actually 'members' of the new army? Even if oaths were retaken, if one was in a large group 'taking' an oath en masse, and one did not actually say all the words (mouthing does not equal saying), one could conceivably claim that one never actually took the oath.

As de Valera said, an oath can be regarded as an empty formula / form of words.

Sure, it might be a 'technicality', but one only has to 'believe' in the new 'truth' to be able to pass the lie-detector test. The more times one takes the test, the more entrenched the 'belief' becomes, and the less the graph moves. Eventually, it stays relatively flat.

As politicians often say when called out on an apparent lie: "That was not the question I was asked".

tl/dr (a) Never admit, especially if a term in jail could result.

tl/dr (b) Deny, as above.

tl/dr (c) La la la la la, next question.

Godge · 23-10-2014 10:22am

Johngoose wrote: »

On a lighter note is anybody dressing up as Gerry Adams for Hallowe'en?

No, don't want to scare the kids.

Happyman42 · 23-10-2014 10:53am

Godge wrote: »

No, don't want to scare the kids.

Your logic and mistruths are scaring sensible adults Godge. :rolleyes:

Fuzzy Clam · 23-10-2014 11:01am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Your logic and mistruths are scaring sensible adults Godge. :rolleyes:

Ah now. That's below the belt. We leave that to Republicans!!

Godge · 23-10-2014 4:48pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Your logic and mistruths are scaring sensible adults Godge. :rolleyes:

Do you have proof of this? Where are the adults that have been scared? If you find them, can you prove that they are sensible? Prove that I am telling mistruths. Prove that Gerry Adams is not a member of the IRA. His own word isn't good enough, you need other proof, some evidence, where is it?

Dan_Solo · 23-10-2014 5:49pm

Godge wrote: »

Do you have proof of this? Where are the adults that have been scared? If you find them, can you prove that they are sensible? Prove that I am telling mistruths. Prove that Gerry Adams is not a member of the IRA. His own word isn't good enough, you need other proof, some evidence, where is it?

Lost the plot. And yes, we have the proof right here in your post.

Happyman42 · 23-10-2014 6:50pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Lost the plot. And yes, we have the proof right here in your post.

'Maria Cahill, How She Drove Me Over The Edge Of Reason' by Godge, foreword by An Taoiseach, Gerry Adams'.

Godge · 23-10-2014 7:40pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Maria Cahill, How She Drove Me Over The Edge Of Reason' by Godge, foreword by An Taoiseach, Gerry Adams'.

you must be writing fiction under the psuedonym Godge, well done, have you got a publisher yet?

Happyman42 · 23-10-2014 7:55pm

Godge wrote: »

you must be writing fiction under the psuedonym Godge, well done, have you got a publisher yet?

Nah, the publisher said that Godge fella was better at fantasy fiction.

Phoebas · 25-10-2014 5:53pm

“IRA actions did fail victims of abuse. As Uachtaráin of Sinn Féin, I have acknowledged that. I am sorry for that. I apologise for that.”

Why is Adam's apologising for IRA actions when he was never a member?

Dan_Solo · 25-10-2014 5:59pm

Phoebas wrote: »

“IRA actions did fail victims of abuse. As Uachtaráin of Sinn Féin, I have acknowledged that. I am sorry for that. I apologise for that.”

Why is Adam's apologising for IRA actions when he was never a member?

Makes you wonder why Cahill wanted to meet him so much when we keep being told that she hated the IRA...

alastair · 26-10-2014 8:32am

Phoebas wrote: »

“IRA actions did fail victims of abuse. As Uachtaráin of Sinn Féin, I have acknowledged that. I am sorry for that. I apologise for that.”

Why is Adam's apologising for IRA actions when he was never a member?

Not the first time. Strange that the man feels he can apologise for something he claims no culpability for.

alastair · 26-10-2014 8:34am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Makes you wonder why Cahill wanted to meet him so much when we keep being told that she hated the IRA...

Maybe it's something to do with her not ever saying she hated the IRA? She clearly was a supporter of the IRA, and came from an IRA family.

Happyman42 · 26-10-2014 1:44pm

alastair wrote: »

Maybe it's something to do with her not ever saying she hated the IRA? She clearly was a supporter of the IRA, and came from an IRA family.

She says that it was her feeling at the time, that the IRA re-traumatised her and that she was very aware of being intimidated but yet she was meeting former members of the IRA in 2005 to talk about it.
It at least warrants questioning by any 'journalist' who considers themselves independent and non-partisan.

alastair · 26-10-2014 2:09pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

She says that it was her feeling at the time, that the IRA re-traumatised her and that she was very aware of being intimidated but yet she was meeting former members of the IRA in 2005 to talk about it.
It at least warrants questioning by any 'journalist' who considers themselves independent and non-partisan.

I'm at a loss to see how any of this demonstrates a supposed hatred for the IRA, who she continued to support, or why any journalist (no need for scare quotes) would fail to understand that she had a specific issue with the IRA's handling of this particular matter, which didn't extend to the entirety of the IRA's role/raison d'être, as far as she was concerned.

Happyman42 · 26-10-2014 2:23pm

alastair wrote: »

I'm at a loss to see how any of this demonstrates a supposed hatred for the IRA, who she continued to support, or why any journalist (no need for scare quotes) would fail to understand that she had a specific issue with the IRA's handling of this particular matter, which didn't extend to the entirety of the IRA's role/raison d'être, as far as she was concerned.

Try this then,
'I was intimidated and traumatised by a spider, so I turned to a spider talk about it and seek help'.
I am saying that it at least warrants questioning on, and we haven't heard that question asked by people who call themselves 'journalists'. A prerequisite of being a journalist being...open mindedness and impartiality, in my book anyhow,

alastair · 26-10-2014 2:33pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Try this then,
'I was intimidated and traumatised by a spider, so I turned to a spider talk about it and seek help'.
I am saying that it at least warrants questioning on, and we haven't heard that question asked by people who call themselves 'journalists'. A prerequisite of being a journalist being...open mindedness and impartiality, in my book anyhow,

Spiders don't have the benefit of rationality, or self-awareness. Try this on for size:
'I was intimidated and traumatised by a Corkonian, so I turned to other Corkonians to talk about it and seek help."

Any cognitive dissonance evident there?

Nope - not for me either.

Journalists are well able to apply the same basic reasoning to her scenario. There's no great mystery in her being able to distinguish one Provo from another.

Happyman42 · 26-10-2014 2:44pm

alastair wrote: »

Spiders don't have the benefit of rationality, or self-awareness. Try this on for size:
'I was intimidated and traumatised by a Corkonian, so I turned to other Corkonians to talk about it and seek help."

Any cognitive dissonance evident there?

Nope - not for me either.

Journalists are well able to apply the same basic reasoning to her scenario. There's no great mystery in her being able to distinguish one Provo from another.

But for the fact that our journalist class are very much making it the responsibility of the IRA as a movement and SF as an organisation.

alastair · 26-10-2014 2:48pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

But for the fact that our journalist class are very much making it the responsibility of the IRA as a movement and SF as an organisation.

Given that they were the organisations involved, and made their own decisions, it's hard to see how else you would read it.

What evidence of Gerry Adams' IRA membership do people need?

Comments