Adams BBC One

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?

Notorious97

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


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


Pull what other one, they colluded with loyalists, get over it. Do you think the British Government and Army are perfect in all of this? Do you not think that if they had not gunned down so many on Bloody Sunday that the IRA would have enjoyed the support it did? i respect your opinion and view on all of this, and have no problem talking about it, but at the end of the day my opninion is totally differnet, i dont see how you can hate all nationalists, i dont agree with british influences in any part of ireland, but i dont come out saying i hate british people or all loyalists. I see exactly where loyalists are coming from, i just dont agree with Britain in the north.

im sure some catholics had opportunites also, but alot were treated unfairly and as 2nd class citizens. The 'state' of northern ireland was a sectarian one, until the war broke out again and thankfully now we have peace. As i said in my original post in this thread, i am all for a united ireland, an equal one, with both religions, and both sides of the argument and community fully represented.

Im sure since you keep asking me for a law Britain broke you assume the invasion of foreign lands, removing the native people from the land, and basically treating them like sh*t over centuries is a moral thing to do? Fact is the British Empire was so powerful who could stop them doing whatever they liked? This whole thing has got way off topic anyway, my points are above, i repsect yours and anybody else on here that differs from my view.

Eliot Rosewater

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.

But you see, Iwasfrozen would probably equally criticise the British Government's actions vis à vis Bloody Sunday etc. It's a common Republican response to criticism of their cause to claim the criticiser is a West Brit or a British sympathiser. When you're looking at the situation from a completely biased perspective, those who don't take a side are often perceived to be biased in the opposite direction when, in fact, they're just being objective.

Notorious97 wrote: »

The plantations werent illegal?

You may claim it was wrong, but I don't see how you can claim it was illegal. The onus is on you to show which laws the plantations broke.

Notorious97 wrote: »

Irish people were thrown off their lands and robbed blind during all of this.

Irish people, really? During the Confederate Wars many of the Catholic soldiers fighting against the new Protestant Ascendency (formed in Ireland as a result of the plantations) pledged alliance to the King. Claiming that it was "Irish People" versus "English People" is clearly reading history backwards.

lugha

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.

I think you will find that virtually every national boundary anywhere in the world has been moved repeated throughout history, usually by way of physical force, and hence illegally according to your viewpoint. Any pragmatic person realizes that trying to undo all the wrongs of history is all but impossible and instead we look forward and consider how to proceed from where we currently are. And the democratically endorsed Good Friday agreement outlines exactly how we should proceed.

And speaking of democracy, that brings me to the OP and one G. Adams . I don’t imagine history will see him very differently from the rest of the republicans of his era. I think their actions from the earlier days of the 60s and 70s will be viewed reasonably favourably. But I think they will always bear the stain of their assertion of they being the lawful government of Ireland, despite they been clearly and repeatedly told that they were not, an outrageous and undemocratic viewpoint still (worryingly) defended by republicans.

Grumpypants

Big Mouth wrote: »

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.

Will Morgan Freeman play him in the movie too ??

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

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

I'm sure there were protestants in council houses.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

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

Again, plenty of protestants weren't employed either. Northern Ireland was a poor area. And having paramilitaries running around the place certainly didn't help things.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

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

They were poor that's why they had poor housing conditions. But again not all Catholcis did have poor housing conditions. Only the poor ones.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

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.

You can't back that up.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

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?

I believe they were, however not as bad as Republicans here claim and it certainly wasn't worth one human life. Never mind the scores of people who did die.

Notorious97

I get that it was common practice back in the day to invade lands etc, but it doesnt make it right, thats the point im trying to make. This whole thing is getting out of control.

Im sure IwasFrozen would be against their actions also, but im just dealing with the nationalist side at the moment. i do believe in a united ireland, but i also make sure i look at both sides of it instead of rushing in with a typical 'fu*k britain and british people' response which i see alot of people do in life in general when topics like this come up.

Eliot Rosewater

In fairness Iwasfrozen, I do think you've got it wrong. The situation in the 70s was pretty terrible. Consider, for example, that Derry, a majority catholic city, had a majority protestant council due to gerrymandering. The situation with housing was as the others have described it. There are lots of examples of this: in one case a catholic man actually chained himself to a house in protest.

People were right to protest. It got out of hand though, in my opinion.

Iwasfrozen

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In fairness Iwasfrozen, I do think you've got it wrong. The situation in the 70s was pretty terrible. Consider, for example, that Derry, a majority catholic city, had a majority protestant council due to gerrymandering. The situation with housing was as the others have described it. There are lots of examples of this: in one case a catholic man actually chained himself to a house in protest.

People were right to protest. It got out of hand though, in my opinion.

I admit that it was bad and that people had a right to protest but I truely believe that however bad it was it wasn't worth one human life.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm sure there were protestants in council houses.

Yes and they were often top of the list! COUNCIL housing often allocated by gerrymandered councils. The issue is who got the houses(the best ones often) and why! Protestants were often put on the top of the list.

Again, plenty of protestants weren't employed either. Northern Ireland was a poor area. And having paramilitaries running around the place certainly didn't help things.

Yes but a "no catholics need apply" policy was effectively in operation. Why were protestants unemployed? CERTAINLY not on account of their denomination.

They were poor that's why they had poor housing conditions. But again not all Catholcis did have poor housing conditions. Only the poor ones.

For gods sake man...... The worst houses were kept for Catholics. To vote in elections one needed PROPERTY, council or otherwise. Hence large catholic families were kept in the one house were they would only have one vote. Ulster did not adopt "One man one vote" for a long time, for this very reason.

You can't back that up.

This is just ridiculous. I just gave you the example of Harland and Wolf. To say that there was no discrimination in jobs is simply burying your head in the sand.

I believe they were, however not as bad as Republicans here claim and it certainly wasn't worth one human life.

Its a shame it had to come to that. It should never have had to come to that.

Winty

Can we get back to Adams

Did his neice appear in the interview