Dessie Ellis - The Sinn Fein TD who is linked to 50 murders

Stheno

GRMA wrote: »

So? Everyone knew he was a former IRA member when they voted for him, he never pretended otherwise and is very open about being in the IRA

Really? I never heard of him until today. And I live in the constituency beside his

Did his election manifesto proclaim his past as a convicted explosives handler, and his time in the IRA?

spikethedog

Stheno wrote: »

Really? I never heard of him until today. And I live in the constituency beside him

Did his election manifesto proclaim his past as a convicted explosives handler, and his time in the IRA?

Ever heard of google.
Surely you researched the candidates in your area before you voted?

GRMA

Sully wrote: »

Not everyone.

A casual google of his name or a listen to any of the people who have ever ran against him would inform you. If you made even the slightest effort to find anything about him you'd know he was in the IRA. He often addresses public meetings, SF cumanns have invited him in for public events were he talked about his past in the IRA.


For gods sake a high profile campaign was run about him during the early nineties, he was on hungerstrike, it was major news.

Stheno

spikethedog wrote: »

Ever heard of google.
Surely you researched the candidates in your area before you voted?

Ever learned to read? I said he is not in my constituency?

I researched my candidates thoroughly before I voted, which is why I only voted for two.

Tell me, would you vote for Shane O'Doherty if he ran as a TD?

oscarBravo

...Sinn Fein described the charges he faced in the UK as "trumped up".

"This is not the first time such unsubstantiated allegations have been made and Dessie Ellis rejects them as he has repeatedly done," a party spokesman said. "Dessie Ellis has made no secret of his involvement in the Republican struggle over many decades, including within the ranks of the IRA."

It's almost funny. He makes no secret of his involvement as a manufacturer of bombs for a terrorist organisation that used bombs to murder innocent civilians - but is mortally offended at the mere suggestion that he was ever in any way involved in anyone's death.

I guess he only ever made the sort of terrorist bombs that don't kill people.

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's almost funny. He makes no secret of his involvement as a manufacturer of bombs for a terrorist organisation that used bombs to murder innocent civilians - but is mortally offended at the mere suggestion that he was ever in any way involved in anyone's death.

I guess he only ever made the sort of terrorist bombs that don't kill people.

Bombs don't kill people, people kill people, I guess is his doublethink, I mean, logic.

gaffer91

Obviously it's no surprise to that a SF member was a thuggish terrorist hood, but linked to 50 murders is really astounding. Would have no doubt there's a few civilians in there as well.

Hope the people of Dublin North-West remember he has blood on his hands come the next election.

UDP

Rascasse wrote: »

Comparing IRA/SF leadership to Mandela/MK/ANC is a popular comparison, but one that doesn't add up. Mandela was locked up after a couple of years of taking up arms and was largely incommunicado. A better comparison with MK would be people like Chris Hani, Joe Slovo and Robert McBride. Also the scale of the attacks committed by MK are nothing compared to the Troubles. In all MK were responsible for a bit over 200 deaths in 30 years. When they found they were killing civilians they would try to change tactics and not plow on regardless .

The reason many look up to Mandela as one of the greatest statesmen is the way he conducted himself on release. In interviews on the day after he was released he spoke to the white population to reassure them and backed it with his actions in the years following. There's been peace in the north now for what, 15 years? And all have (from both sides) is childish arguing and finger pointing, as exemplified by Ellis' response to the Indo's questions. I'm not suggesting he needed to admit anything, but he could have used words a little more sympathetic or contrite than "I don't want to comment on anything said by the Brits. I wouldn't be bothered.".

Ok so Mandela founds, leads, helps fund and train a terrorist group who murders and injures hundreds of civilians over a thirty period but that's okay because he conducted himself well when released from prison?
They were both terrorists responsible for the death of many innocent civilians. They both have blood on their hands.
I guess it is right to forget Mandela's past for the good of peace but it is not the same for those who put their neck on the line in the pursuit of peace in northern Ireland?
Cognitive dissonance.

It is this failure to move on from the past that is the problem up the north.

The hypocrisy from the Republic whereby we ask the unionists to work with sinn fein despite some of their member's history but politicians down here are unwilling to work with the same sinn fein politicians. How can we expect the people of northern Ireland to move on if we won't in the Republic?

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

E

Tell me, would you vote for Shane O'Doherty if he ran as a TD?

Spike dog would you answer my question?

Do you even know who I am talking about without hitting google?

Chips Lovell

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's almost funny. He makes no secret of his involvement as a manufacturer of bombs for a terrorist organisation that used bombs to murder innocent civilians - but is mortally offended at the mere suggestion that he was ever in any way involved in anyone's death.

I guess he only ever made the sort of terrorist bombs that don't kill people.

There's a question to ask him on the doorsteps. "So if your bombs didn't kill anyone, does that mean you were kind of a crap bomb maker?"

Good loser

gaffer91 wrote: »

Obviously it's no surprise to that a SF member was a thuggish terrorist hood, but linked to 50 murders is really astounding. Would have no doubt there's a few civilians in there as well.

Hope the people of Dublin North-West remember he has blood on his hands come the next election.

Yeah 50's big, very big! Impressive even.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

He makes no secret of his involvement as a manufacturer of bombs for a terrorist organisation that used bombs to murder innocent civilians

You say that as if the only thing the IRA used bombs for was to target 'innocent civilians' which is evidence of either your ignorance of the subject or your anti-Republican feelings (or a mixture of the two).

The primary function of IRA bombs that didn't target the British/Unionist security apparatus was economic. Blowing up civilians only ever hurt the cause of Republicans rather than advance it.

maccored

really, the only thing this 30 year old expose proves, is that certain Irish political parties are starting to crap themselves about an opposition party that has moved from a war situation to politics and seems to be doing a much better job at it than the career politicians. Its not political debate moreso than frantic mudslinging. The one question that hasnt been answered is if Dessie Ellis is guilty as is put forward, then why hasnt he been taken to court over it. Unless of course, their 'understanding' of the forensic evidence wouldnt hold up in court. Which - obviously - it wouldnt, otherwise they would have.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The primary function of IRA bombs that didn't target the British/Unionist security apparatus was economic. Blowing up civilians only ever hurt the cause of Republicans rather than advance it.

The primary function of IRA bombs was terrorism. Any terrorist bomb that's capable of targetting a "security apparatus" or doing "economic damage" is also capable of killing innocent civilians.

The whole "whoops, we're so sorry our bomb killed several children, but we didn't means for it to do that so we're still the good guys" schtick might wash with people whose confirmation bias allows them to believe it makes any sense, but people who genuinely don't want to blow up innocent civilians can usually achieve that goal by the simple expedient of not making and planting bombs.

If you want to convince yourself that Dessie Ellis is a model human being who would never have contemplated the possibility of one of his bombs being used to kill someone, go ahead: he's obviously convinced enough people of that already to get elected. Just don't bother trying to sell any of that snake oil to me.

Good loser

maccored wrote: »

really, the only thing this 30 year old expose proves, is that certain Irish political parties are starting to crap themselves about an opposition party that has moved from a war situation to politics and seems to be doing a much better job at it than the career politicians. Its not political debate moreso than frantic mudslinging. The one question that hasnt been answered is if Dessie Ellis is guilty as is put forward, then why hasnt he been taken to court over it. Unless of course, their 'understanding' of the forensic evidence wouldnt hold up in court. Which - obviously - it wouldnt, otherwise they would have.

I'm relaxed about Sinn Fein's murky past.

It's their infantile 'economic policies' that bother me.

Chips Lovell

It's actually quite disturbing that people are still willing to defend this kind of savagery.

maccored

Good loser wrote: »

I'm relaxed about Sinn Fein's murky past.

It's their infantile 'economic policies' that bother me.

the kind of policies like not paying promissory notes or taxing the more wealthy such as are being bounded around recently by other parties?

GRMA

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's actually quite disturbing that people are still willing to defend this kind of savagery.

What, like fighting a war?


Nasty as it is, sometimes fighting is necessary

maccored

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's actually quite disturbing that people are still willing to defend this kind of savagery.

considering you'll rarely find in the history of any country a lack of situations with much the same kind of violence (civil wars are a classic example), then I find it disturbing some people seem to have different values depending on who they are talking about.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

The primary function of IRA bombs was terrorism.

Ah yes. I guess the IRA just decided to use bombs to terrorise people because... um... terrorism terrorism terrorism.

Any terrorist bomb

Terrorist bomb as opposed to 'good guy bombs' is it? Freedom, democracy, and the rule of law bombs?

that's capable of targetting a "security apparatus" or doing "economic damage" is also capable of killing innocent civilians.

No shit?

The whole "whoops, we're so sorry our bomb killed several children, but we didn't means for it to do that so we're still the good guys" schtick might wash with people whose confirmation bias allows them to believe it makes any sense

So what you're suggesting here is that the IRA deliberately planted bombs to kill children? So one of the most sophisticated paramilitary organisations of the 20th Century (according to the British) decided that blowing up children was a good way of garnering support and achieving their aims? Really?

And you suggest I'm affected by confirmation bias?

If you want to convince yourself that Dessie Ellis is a model human being

Yes. I would like my nephew to grow up to be a bomb maker because that's what makes the model human being. Ridiculous.

who would never have contemplated the possibility of one of his bombs being used to kill someone, go ahead:

I'm sure anyone who makes any type of weapon is aware that they can be used to cause harm to innocent people. Ellis was in the manufacturing end of the bombs not the planting and execution. Do you think he wrote the destination of the bombs on them?

he's obviously convinced enough people of that already to get elected.

That's democracy for ya. Pity there wasn't a little more respect for democracy in 1960's NI and we may well not have had the IRA.

Rascasse

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So what you're suggesting here is that the IRA deliberately planted bombs to kill children? So one of the most sophisticated paramilitary organisations of the 20th Century (according to the British) decided that blowing up children was a good way of garnering support and achieving their aims? Really?

If it were the case that the IRA's bombs were solely for economic effect then why did they bomb Manchester and Warrington on Saturday's around midday? I mean, you'd get largely the same economic benefit at 3am on Monday morning with only 10 people to evacuate rather than during the day on the busiest shopping day of the week.

Of course if you screw up you can just blame the Brits for not heeding the warnings (a la Warrington).

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ellis was in the manufacturing end of the bombs not the planting and execution. Do you think he wrote the destination of the bombs on them?

Did he not admit he was towards the top of the IRA? He should, therefore, have some idea what his handiwork is going to be used for.

GRMA

As I understand it Dessie became a big mover while he was in jail

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ah yes. I guess the IRA just decided to use bombs to terrorise people because... um... terrorism terrorism terrorism.

The IRA decided to use bombs to terrorise people because they believed that terrorism was a potentially effective way to achieve their aims. The moral rights and wrongs of terrorism don't appear to have figured too strongly in their calculations.

It's a depressing fact of the Irish republican psyche that it still doesn't appear to figure too strongly. Time and again I see republicans in these threads state that they don't support the dissidents, because a campaign of violence at this time is seen as "ineffective" or "counter-productive" - rarely because it's morally repugnant, or just plain out-and-out wrong.

Terrorist bomb as opposed to 'good guy bombs' is it? Freedom, democracy, and the rule of law bombs?

No; "terrorist bomb" as a phrase that's perfectly capable of standing on its own without having to be contrasted with anything, except by someone who wants to divert attention from the fact that a convicted terrorist has been elected to our national parliament.

No shit?

None. Does it come as a surprise to you? Do you think it came as a surprise to Dessie Ellis?

So what you're suggesting here is that the IRA deliberately planted bombs to kill children? So one of the most sophisticated paramilitary organisations of the 20th Century (according to the British) decided that blowing up children was a good way of garnering support and achieving their aims? Really?

And you suggest I'm affected by confirmation bias?

That's what's known in the discussion business as a "straw man". You read what I wrote, decide I mean something by it that's easier to argue against than what I actually said, and go off on a tangent that allows you to avoid the actual point.

The actual point, for the avoidance of doubt, is that when a terrorist organisation plants a bomb for the purpose of attacking a security force (and that's glossing over the whole it's-OK-to-murder-policemen argument) or an economic target (which usually means destroying private property), that terrorist organisation has decided that the risk of murdering innocent civilians is an acceptable price to pay.

Yes. I would like my nephew to grow up to be a bomb maker because that's what makes the model human being. Ridiculous.

It is pretty ridiculous when you put it like that. Based on that fairly simple logic, my conclusion is that Dessie Ellis isn't someone that I would trust with running a lemonade stand, never mind a country, and as such I will never vote for him, or anyone who thinks it's OK to be in the same political party as a convicted terrorist.

Now, there's a different form of logic that says that someone who manufactured bombs in the knowledge that they were very likely going to be used to deliberately murder his fellow human beings is an acceptable public representative, because fixing potholes or sorting out passports is a bigger deal than making bombs for terrorists. It's not a form of logic that I subscribe to, personally.

I'm sure anyone who makes any type of weapon is aware that they can be used to cause harm to innocent people. Ellis was in the manufacturing end of the bombs not the planting and execution. Do you think he wrote the destination of the bombs on them?

He made bombs for a terrorist organisation that killed people with bombs. Just how stupid are you trying to claim he was, that he couldn't make the connection? Or are you claiming that it's OK to make bombs for a terrorist organisation that kills people with bombs, as long as you don't know which people are killed by which bombs?

Maybe that's why he's so anxious not to give any credence to the reports that have been published: if he found out that actual people had actually been killed by bombs that he'd made, he'd have to feel bad about it.

That's democracy for ya. Pity there wasn't a little more respect for democracy in 1960's NI and we may well not have had the IRA.

Ah yes. The logical answer to violence and a lack of democracy: violence and a lack of democracy.

spikethedog

Stheno wrote: »

Spike dog would you answer my question?

Do you even know who I am talking about without hitting google?

Sorry, I don't spend all my time online.
Has he put himself up for election?
I've voted labour all my life if your interested, until now.
Now. I'm what you'd call a floating voter.

MadsL

UDP wrote: »

Ok so Mandela founds, leads, helps fund and train a terrorist group who murders and injures hundreds of civilians over a thirty period but that's okay because he conducted himself well when released from prison?
They were both terrorists responsible for the death of many innocent civilians. They both have blood on their hands.
I guess it is right to forget Mandela's past for the good of peace but it is not the same for those who put their neck on the line in the pursuit of peace in northern Ireland?
Cognitive dissonance.

It is it cognitive dissonance if you believe the ANC's struggle to be justified and the IRA's bombing strategy in the 70s-80s to be unjustified. I can see how someone might hold that position.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The primary function of IRA bombs that didn't target the British/Unionist security apparatus was economic. Blowing up civilians only ever hurt the cause of Republicans rather than advance it.

A pub in Birmingham was an 'economic' target was it? What utter crap.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

The IRA decided to use bombs to terrorise people because they believed that terrorism was a potentially effective way to achieve their aims. The moral rights and wrongs of terrorism don't appear to have figured too strongly in their calculations.

It's a depressing fact of the Irish republican psyche that it still doesn't appear to figure too strongly. Time and again I see republicans in these threads state that they don't support the dissidents, because a campaign of violence at this time is seen as "ineffective" or "counter-productive" - rarely because it's morally repugnant, or just plain out-and-out wrong. ..............

I was unaware you were a pacifist. Is this the case?

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

I was unaware you were a pacifist. Is this the case?

I'm rarely an unqualified anything, but I'm pretty close to the pacifist end of the spectrum.

maccored

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm rarely an unqualified anything, but I'm pretty close to the pacifist end of the spectrum.

so you have an issue with all conflicts and wars etc? Thats a bit more general than what this is all about.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

The IRA decided to use bombs to terrorise people because they believed that terrorism was a potentially effective way to achieve their aims

.

So the IRA thought they could terrorise the British into doing what they wanted? The IRA thought they could out-terrorise a recently deposed Empire and major military force? Such delightful naivety. The IRA were well aware they could only hope to remove the British by turning the 'Irish problem' into an economic and political hot potato not by out terrorising the BA.

The moral rights and wrongs of terrorism don't appear to have figured too strongly in their calculations.

Who was terrorising who? The most afraid people in the north and most likely to be ethnically cleansed were Catholics/Nationalists. The Unionist junta did little to stop so-called loyalists from burning them out of their homes.

If you look at the numbers of killings attributed to Republicans ~35% were civilians, of the BA killings ~50% civilian, and loyalists (who the British/Unionists colluded with) had an 85% civilian kill rate. Who was terrorising who?

No; "terrorist bomb" as a phrase that's perfectly capable of standing on its own

Your 'terrorist bomb' phrase is ridiculous fucking nonsense and abuse of the English language.

Do you think it came as a surprise to Dessie Ellis?

I doubt it. I'm guessing that when people sign up to join a paramilitary group they know they're not going out to chase butterflies with a net.

That's what's known in the discussion business as a "straw man".

I know perfectly well what a 'straw man' fallacy is and you're pretty fond of using them yourself. Exhibit A: I think Dessie Ellis is a model citizen.

The actual point, for the avoidance of doubt, is that when a terrorist organisation plants a bomb for the purpose of attacking a security force (and that's glossing over the whole it's-OK-to-murder-policemen argument) or an economic target (which usually means destroying private property), that terrorist organisation has decided that the risk of murdering innocent civilians is an acceptable price to pay.

Terrorist, torrorist, turrurist. See above. Who was terrorising who? I'm not so naive to subscribe to your cognitively limited 'Cowboys and Indians' caricatures of the actors who used violence (terrorism) in the north.

Now, there's a different form of logic that says that someone who manufactured bombs in the knowledge that they were very likely going to be used to deliberately murder his fellow human beings is an acceptable public representative

Because bombs are only used to kill people. We've covered this. The IRA's bombs were primarily used to disrupt and destroy the economy of the north and to a lesser extent Britain. Indeed the impetus for the stalled peace process mid 1990's came from the Canary Wharf and Manchester CBD IRA bombings with their hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage to the UK economy.

Ah yes. The logical answer to violence and a lack of democracy: violence and a lack of democracy.

Democracy was attempted. Non violent civil rights was attempted. The civil rights movement was eventually met with lethal force by the British/Unionists. What did you expect people to do? Keep getting shot and burned out of their homes? What would you have done?

The IRA were a fringe element of the northern civil rights issue until people were murdered en masse by those they were asking to treat them fairly.

GRMA

Ah Chuck you don't get it, its all right when grandad fought back(maybe), or when some foreigners did it in far flung places (heroes don't ya know, we're all hoping Mandela pulls through) but taigs in the north? Cant be having it.