Adams BBC One

Big Mouth

Anyone see this? Great to see the high regard Gerry Adams is held in across the world. A great man who will I think will go down in History as a visionary Irish man and a real Mandela like character.

I'm sure their will plenty on here who will knock him and disagree with my comments but certainly the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton would not.

paky

Didnt see the program but i agree definitly up there with mandela. only for him there would be no peace process.

dont think he gets the attention he deserves in this country north or south. in the north because obviously hes seen as a 'terrorist' and the south because sinn fein are up and coming.

but history will judge him kindly

Eliot Rosewater

paky wrote: »

only for him there would be no peace process.

The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

EDIT: For whatever reason, "others like him" was grossly misinterpreted by some people; see post 10 below for clarification.

aDeener

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

in your expert opinion, what do you think would have happened without gerry adams or others like him?

paky

why would you say that?

Big Mouth

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

Yeah, he should have accepted British Rule without question. Also he should have not stood up and defended Catholic people in the North the last 40 years or complain about silly little things like dying hunger strikers or internment:rolleyes:

What about the BA lads who shot dead peace protesters? Would those "soldiers" and their like have anything to do with the Troubles?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

That's literally the most pointless, uneducated 'let them eat cake' post I've ever read on boards. And I sometimes read BGRH

FlutterinBantam

paky wrote: »

Didnt see the program but i agree definitly up there with mandela. only for him there would be no peace process.

dont think he gets the attention he deserves in this country north or south. in the north because obviously hes seen as a 'terrorist' and the south because sinn fein are up and coming.

but history will judge him kindly

Takes more than one to tango pal.

Geróid certainly contributed to the peace process and I listened to himself and Mairtín on Meeeriam last weekend.

Two nice lads in fairness.

ardmacha

The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

Living in a colony, somebody was always likely to use violent means to oppose British rule, but it could have been someone who would never have the sense to stop.

Eliot Rosewater

Apparently your definition of "others like him" is a lot more narrow than mine.

From an objective perspective "others like him" clearly transcends political affiliations. I was referring to all persons who make use of force to apply their politics.

But, you know, don't let that stop the witchhunt.

mike65

I always thought Martin McGuinness was the real brains of the operation, and the more trustworthy one dispite him being the only who was shooting or certainly willing to.

steelcityblues

Turned it off after 10 mins

Self congratulating, third-party platitudes galore, type of rubbish!

rovert

paky wrote: »

but history will judge him kindly

Not with books like the secret history of the IRA around.

Japer

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I was referring to all persons who make use of force to apply their politics.

+1. There are thousands of people who were / are law abiding citizens in the north and who were injured or killed , or whose partners were injured or killed, and I would have more sympathy and respect for them, , no matter their background, religion or politics, simply because they were always law abiding, hard working citizens. Still, we have to move on, and at least Adams and others on both sides are for peace now.

Notorious97

I caught the last 50 minutes of it, any idea if this will be shown again? I really think this programme did him justice, and it showed a more human side to him, he was hugging trees with tony blair lol Alot of people from both sides seem to hold him in high regard, i think definitely he should be more involved in Gaza etc.

As for history, I strongly believe he is the only man who could have moved the armed struggle into a peaceful one, and I know a lot of people on here throughout the next week or so posting here will lash him out of it for being involved in the republican movement. Its terrible all the bombs that went off and killed innocent people, but Britain done a lot worse (and no this doesn’t justify killing innocent people either) but it was a horrible war.

I really think that if the ‘troubles’ (not fond of that term for what was basically a civil war) had not occurred, then Northern Ireland would still be as it was prior to Bloody Sunday, catholics marching for their basic civil rights in their own country from a foreign ruler, poor housing conditions, no job prospects, treated as dogs. I think the only way to remember all who died is to ensure peace prevails and that both sides come together to help create a better Ireland, and hopefully a united one sometime in the future. I wouldn’t care if somebody from either side up north was running a united Ireland, as long as it is fair, equal and just. Britian should have left this country along time ago.

Nodin

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

The North was run as a sectarian statelet from its inception in 1922. Gerry Adams was born in 1948, thus - even allowing for him to be the Fenian equivalent of the baby in 'Family guy - the inevitable difficulties that arose can hardly be ascribed to him.

Iwasfrozen

Notorious97 wrote: »

I really think that if the ‘troubles’ (not fond of that term for what was basically a civil war) had not occurred, then Northern Ireland would still be as it was prior to Bloody Sunday, catholics marching for their basic civil rights in their own country from a foreign ruler, poor housing conditions, no job prospects, treated as dogs.

Civil War? What are you talking about? People in Britain were not even affected by what was happening. It was hardly a Civil War.

Wolfe Tone

Never mind the bombs that went off over there... billions of pounds worth of damage.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Never mind the bombs that went off over there... billions of pounds worth of damage.

Billions?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Billions?

yup. they were truck bombs rather than carbombs back then

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Billions?

Yeah, here is one example.
Huge fertilizer bombs they were. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/24/newsid_2523000/2523345.stm
Wiki article

Notorious97

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Civil War? What are you talking about? People in Britain were not even affected by what was happening. It was hardly a Civil War.

Im not talking about the people of britain, im talking about the people who live in ulster, both sides of it, thats a civil war between each other, and against the illegal forces of occupation in northern ireland. Might not be a standard definition of what civil war is, but all i mean is calling it the 'troubles' is simply a means dumbing it down from what it actually was.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yeah, here is one example.
Huge fertilizer bombs they were. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/24/newsid_2523000/2523345.stm
Wiki article

Oh, I hadn't realised they planted such large bombs. That makes me hate Adams and the nationalist movement even more. Imagine how many people something like that could kill.

It doesn't bare thinking about.

Notorious97

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh, I hadn't realised they planted such large bombs. That makes me hate Adams and the nationalist movement even more. Imagine how many people something like that could kill.

It doesn't bare thinking about.

Why do you only hate the nationalist movement more? The whole reason the IRA exists is because Britain are here illegally, it isnt like they woke up one morning and decided to pick a country to start bombing at random. The exist out of a situation which Irish people didnt create....and no i dont condone or agree with bombing civilians, im just pointing out the IRA were born from a situation that they didnt not create.

Iwasfrozen

Notorious97 wrote: »

Im not talking about the people of britain, im talking about the people who live in ulster, both sides of it, thats a civil war between each other, and against the illegal forces of occupation in northern ireland. Might not be a standard definition of what civil war is, but all i mean is calling it the 'troubles' is simply a means dumbing it down from what it actually was.

Again I wouldn't exactly call it a Civil War in Ulster. I grew up in Monaghan, as did my siblings, and my parents and the only time the troubles ever affected us was when we wanted to go North for whatever reason. And even at that we were probably more afraid of checkpoints then anything else.

Oh and the British were not illegaly occupying Northern Ireland. Pointing something in bolb print does not make it true.

Notorious97

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again I wouldn't exactly call it a Civil War in Ulster. I grew up in Monaghan, as did my siblings, and my parents and the only time the troubles ever affected us was when we wanted to go North for whatever reason. And even at that we were probably more afraid of checkpoints then anything else.

Oh and the British were not illegaly occupying Northern Ireland. Pointing something in bolb print does not make it true.

I said it probably isnt the correct definition, i just think the term 'troubles' is a stupid way of describing it.

How are they not illegally occupying Northern Ireland? I dont have a problem with religions or anything, i think the people of the north should be free from London influence, which is finally looking the case. This is drifting off topic so i wont get into it more, im only pointing out people are quick to hop on the anti gerry adams band wagon, irish people in fact do this alot, and they dont really consider the situation britain created for nationalists in northern ireland. I get what you are saying and all, i just see it a bit different thats all.

Iwasfrozen

Notorious97 wrote: »

Why do you only hate the nationalist movement more?

Because they killed scores of innocent people. Nationalists complain about bloody Sunday but the IRA have killed far more civilians then the BA.

Notorious97 wrote: »

The whole reason the IRA exists is because Britain are here illegally, it isnt like they woke up one morning and decided to pick a country to start bombing at random.

Britain does not illegally occupy Northern Ireland.

Notorious97 wrote: »

The exist out of a situation which Irish people didnt create....and no i dont condone or agree with bombing civilians, im just pointing out the IRA were born from a situation that they didnt not create.

The IRA created a much worse situation though. Things were bad but they made it ten times worse. If the IRA hadn't started their campaign the entire provence would not have had to be militarised.

mike65

Why would anyone think NI in the UK is illegal?

Winty

Big Mouth wrote: »

Gerry Adams is held in across the world. A great man who will I think will go down in History as a visionary Irish man

Was his niece interviewed?


I agree with mike65 Martin McGuinness is more honest, he has publicly spoken about his time as a leader in the IRA, Adams has said nothing

Iwasfrozen

Notorious97 wrote: »

I said it probably isnt the correct definition, i just think the term 'troubles' is a stupid way of describing it.

But why? I think it's a rather fitting name.

Notorious97 wrote: »

How are they not illegally occupying Northern Ireland? I dont have a problem with religions or anything, i think the people of the north should be free from London influence, which is finally looking the case. This is drifting off topic so i wont get into it more, im only pointing out people are quick to hop on the anti gerry adams band wagon, irish people in fact do this alot, and they dont really consider the situation britain created for nationalists in northern ireland. I get what you are saying and all, i just see it a bit different thats all.

They are not illegally occupying Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland is a home country of the U.K. And whats more the majority of the people in Northern Ireland want it that way. Republicans are a minority.

Notorious97

The British Government over all the years they have been in this country in some form of another have done alot worse, i never once have condoned any bomb by the IRA, my earliar posts i said the bad things by britain are not an excuse to bomb civilians.

The last time i checked, Britain illegally took over this country, illegally planted their own people mainly inulster, and down through the years we have had rebellion after rebellion to remove their rule. That to me makes it seem they are here illegally. Collusion, internment, murder of innocent people by loyalist / british security forces. Yes i know the IRA killed innocent people too, both sides done horrible things, but the IRA wouldnt exist or have a reason to exist if Britain hadnt treated our own people as they did. Again im not justifying bombing innocent people at all.

sensibleken

I've always been more of a fan of Hume than Adams. I only say the last 30 minutes and it came accross like the man was a saint.

Jaap

It was an interesting programme...only saw the second half of it.
No matter what the programme was trying to achieve (it did show the other side to Gerry Adams other than his role in the troubles...as in a family man, hugging trees)...the majority of the people of Northern Ireland will never forget the things that Gerry done...like carrying the coffin of the Shankill bomber (2 children and 7 innocent adults died as a result of that IRA explosion) a few days after the event!!!...being the main spokeman (and maybe more) of the organisation that killed and bombed Northern Ireland and its people for around 30 years!!
And Gerry had the cheek to offer his sympathies to the husband of one of those killed...after carrying Thomas Begley's coffin!!!
I wouldn't trust a thing that comes out of his mouth...after all he tells everybody he wasn't a member of the IRA!!!

Wolfe Tone

This whole "majority" thing stinks of hypocrisy. They didn't care about majorities when they took Fermanagh and Tyrone? Thankfully these days violence is no longer necessary, the ballot box is the only way now.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh, I hadn't realised they planted such large bombs. That makes me hate Adams and the nationalist movement even more. Imagine how many people something like that could kill.

It doesn't bare thinking about.

Indeed, but the aim was not to kill people. Generalizing much with your comment about the "nationalist movement? Good thing that they called in a warning, and detonated it on a Saturday when few people were around. The aim wasn't to kill people, but to damage the buildings(again) which they did.

Winty

Jaap wrote: »

he tells everybody he wasn't a member of the IRA!!!

A least McGuinness told the truth about Bloody Sunday not like Adams the "Man of God"

Iwasfrozen

Notorious97 wrote: »

The British Government over all the years they have been in this country in some form of another have done alot worse, i never once have condoned any bomb by the IRA, my earliar posts i said the bad things by britain are not an excuse to bomb civilians.

I don't agree that British governments down the years have been worse then the IRA. Not any modern government anyway.

Notorious97 wrote: »

The last time i checked, Britain illegally took over this country, illegally planted their own people mainly inulster, and down through the years we have had rebellion after rebellion to remove their rule. That to me makes it seem they are here illegally. Collusion, internment, murder of innocent people by loyalist / british security forces.

The British invasion and plantation was not illegal. There has to be a law against it to be illegal. That's the way things were back then countries invaded each other. Judging by that their occupation of Scotland is also illeagal. As is Americas occupation of California.

Notorious97 wrote: »

Yes i know the IRA killed innocent people too, both sides done horrible things, but the IRA wouldnt exist or have a reason to exist if Britain hadnt treated our own people as they did. Again im not justifying bombing innocent people at all.

Well at least we agree that the IRA had no right to kill innocent people.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh, I hadn't realised they planted such large bombs. That makes me hate Adams and the nationalist movement even more. Imagine how many people something like that could kill.

It doesn't bare thinking about.

What an obnoxious and ignorant post. You do realise there was a marked difference between Nationalism & Republicanism during the troubles? Nationalists were opposed to violence from the get go, not to say they were forced to live as 2nd class citizens right into the 70's. Don't let that stop you spewing your rubbish though, not like Loyalism was ever involved in the killing of innocent folk.

Wolfe Tone

Winty wrote: »

A least McGuinness told the truth about Bloody Sunday not like Adams the "Man of God"

I really don't understand that... why would Adams deny being a member of the IRA? It is not exactly going to hurt him if he says that he was.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't agree that British governments down the years have been worse then the IRA. Not any modern government anyway.


The British invasion and plantation was not illegal. There has to be a law against it to be illegal.

And who makes the Law? Also, since when does Legality make something right?

Was it Legal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus or was it Right?

Winty

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I really don't understand that... why would Adams deny being a member of the IRA? It is not exactly going to hurt him if he says that he was.

Adams has stated repeatedly that he has never been a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA).However, journalists such as Ed Moloney, Peter Taylor, Mark Urban and historian Richard English have all named Adams as part of the IRA leadership since the 1970s. Adams has denied Moloney's claims, calling them "libellous".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Adams#Allegations_of_IRA_membership

Wolfe Tone

Winty wrote: »

Adams has stated repeatedly that he has never been a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA).However, journalists such as Ed Moloney, Peter Taylor, Mark Urban and historian Richard English have all named Adams as part of the IRA leadership since the 1970s. Adams has denied Moloney's claims, calling them "libellous".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Adams#Allegations_of_IRA_membership

I know that, but I am inclined to believe Adams as he gains little by denying what people already "know"(note the quote marks)

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

And who makes the Law? Also, since when does Legality make something right?

Was it Legal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus or was it Right?

Exactly, since there was no law to condemn the plantation of Ulster it cannot be considered illegal.

karma_ wrote: »

What an obnoxious and ignorant post.

Obnoxious and ignorant, how so?

karma_ wrote: »

You do realise there was a marked difference between Nationalism & Republicanism during the troubles? Nationalists were opposed to violence from the get go, not to say they were forced to live as 2nd class citizens right into the 70's.

Ah, so no Nationalist ever supported the IRA/Sinn Fein? Good to know.

karma_ wrote: »

Don't let that stop you spewing your rubbish though, not like Loyalism was ever involved in the killing of innocent folk.

Hmm, I don't think we are talking about Loyalism here Karma. A little bit off-topic. Although yes you're right both of you were as bad as each other up there.

If you turely do believe in your name then Gerry Adams will pay an inevitable cost for the scores of innocent people killed and infrastructure. And that cost will be very high indeed.

karma_

Winty wrote: »

Adams has stated repeatedly that he has never been a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA).However, journalists such as Ed Moloney, Peter Taylor, Mark Urban and historian Richard English have all named Adams as part of the IRA leadership since the 1970s. Adams has denied Moloney's claims, calling them "libellous".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Adams#Allegations_of_IRA_membership

I think they remain allegations rather than solid fact, personally however I believe he was involved.

In regards to Adams, and as much as I abhor the violence he was part of I respect him for the steps he has taken in recent years. I also think he is a fantastic politician and is the driving force behind the swift SF turnaround and popularity of recent times.

I also accept that the British helped create him, if he was never interned could he have turned out differently? I wonder at the sense of injustice those men must have felt to be rounded up and imprisoned without trial, especially at a time when it appeared it was only Nationalists who were treated in this manner and Unionist violence was ignored.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Exactly, since there was no law to condemn the plantation of Ulster it cannot be considered illegal.


Obnoxious and ignorant, how so?


Ah, so no Nationalist ever supported the IRA/Sinn Fein? Good to know.


If you turely do believe in your name then Gerry Adams will pay an inevitable cost for the scores of innocent people killed and infrastructure. And that cost will be very high indeed.

A Nationalist that supported SF and voted for them would be a Republican. You just brush all Nationalists into one corner though, that is what I object too. Ivan Cooper was a Nationalist, a Protestant, and a Pacifist, do you think he supported violence? What about John Hume or the people who voted and kept men like Hume, Fitt etc. in their seats at the height of the troubles? Do they deserve your hatred?

As for karma, I believe in it as much as I believe in god.

karma_

karma_ wrote: »

And who makes the Law? Also, since when does Legality make something right?

Was it Legal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus or was it Right?

Use a different word to legality because NI being in the UK is perfectly legal and above board according to international law.

You can't pick and choose which international law suits you.Those Laws that govern territorial boundaries are the same for all countries.

Put it to you this way,I think it's correct to be of the view that there is an occupation of territory up there if you are claiming it for your own.
The Republic actually no longer claims NI territory since it registered an internationally binding agreement on the say so of a referendum that got 90% electoral support to change our constitution abandoning the claim.

Since the GFA,the words occupation are a matter of personal or group opinion and just that.
Prior to that,technically Occupation could have been this states official view but would have been I think groundless in international law.

karma_

Deleted User wrote: »

Use a different word to legality because NI being in the UK is perfectly legal and above board according to international law.

You can't pick and choose which international law suits you.Those Laws that govern territorial boundaries are the same for all countries.

Where did I ever say it was illegal? I was simply responding to the question of teh plantation.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

A Nationalist that supported SF and voted for them would be a Republican. You just brush all Nationalists into one corner though, that is what I object too. Ivan Cooper was a Nationalist, a Protestant, and a Pacifist, do you think he supported violence? What about John Hume or the people who voted and kept men like Hume, Fitt etc. in their seats at the height of the troubles? Do they deserve your hatred?

I never said I hated all Nationalists though. I said I hated Nationalists. And true not all Nationalists are Republican but all Republicans are Nationalists.

karma_ wrote: »

As for karma, I believe in it as much as I believe in god.

I suspect from that you are an Atheist?

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I never said I hated all Nationalists though. I said I hated Nationalists. And true not all Nationalists are Republican but all Republicans are Nationalists.


I suspect from that you are an Atheist?

Your suspicions would be correct.

Notorious97

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't agree that British governments down the years have been worse then the IRA. Not any modern government anyway.

So interning young catholic males simply because they happen to be male, certain age and oh yea catholic is a good thing? Treating Catholics as 2nd class citizens in their own country, not much of a vote, poor housing conditions, no jobs etc, this is a good thing is it?

Yes the IRA killed innocent people, but the British government / loyalists / RUC / b Specials all colluded against innocent catholics, if you want to call the IRA terrorists, the British government are terrorists also.

The plantations werent illegal? Why not, because a soverign state decided to take over a foreign land? It was the thing to do? Just because it was done often back then does not mean it is right! Irish people were thrown off their lands and robbed blind during all of this.

Iwasfrozen

Notorious97 wrote:

So interning young catholic males simply because they happen to be male, certain age and oh yea catholic is a good thing? Treating Catholics as 2nd class citizens in their own country, not much of a vote, poor housing conditions, no jobs etc, this is a good thing is it?

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said it was a good thing. But regardless:

• Catholics had a vote.
• Not all Catholics had poor housing conditions and plenty were employed.
• Those that had poor housing conditions were there most likely because they were poor. The state is not responsible for that.
• Most Catholics also weren't that well educated. But you wouldn't consider that a obstacle to employment would you?

Notorious97 wrote:

Yes the IRA killed innocent people, but the British government / loyalists / RUC / b Specials all colluded against innocent catholics, if you want to call the IRA terrorists, the British government are terrorists also.

Are you honestly trying to tell mee that the British government joined forces with terrorists? Pull the other one.

Notorious97 wrote:

The plantations werent illegal? Why not, because a soverign state decided to take over a foreign land? It was the thing to do? Just because it was done often back then does not mean it is right! Irish people were thrown off their lands and robbed blind during all of this.

Just because it was wrong doesn't mean it was illegal. Tell me then, which law did it break?

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said it was a good thing. But regardless:

Catholics had a vote.

Gerrymandering, and often only if they owned property which is why councils discriminated.

Not all Catholics had poor housing conditions and plenty were employed.

Plenty DIDNT and the discriminatory reasons behind that (such as Catholics being run out of Harland and Wolf.)

Those that had poor housing conditions were there most likely because they were poor. The state is not responsible for that.

It is when catholics were discriminated against on account of their religion.

Most Catholics also weren't that well educated. But you wouldn't consider that a obstacle to employment would you?

The fact is that in many cases when similarly qualified Protestants and Catholics went for a job the Catholic would lose out on account of his religion.

Are you honestly trying to tell mee that the British government joined forces with terrorists? Pull the other one.

Yes they did. Dublin, Monaghan, collusion.



The Civil rights movement didn't just happen because of nothing. Do you deny that Catholics were treated as second class citizens?