The disappeared

Happyman42

keeponhurling wrote: »

I assume the bodies are unrecognizable after so many years, they use DNA to identify them?

And as mentioned, no information has emerged, there has just been a new documentary?

Yes, nothing new presented.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

You know exactly why you won't answer the question and so does anybody else with any sense on the thread.
You disappoint me Alastair.

I'll just have to learn to deal with that. Feel free to engage with my answer when you're done playing games.

alastair

keeponhurling wrote: »

I assume the bodies are unrecognizable after so many years, they use DNA to identify them?

And as mentioned, no information has emerged, there has just been a new documentary?

The Boston College tapes were new material within the documentary.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'll just have to learn to deal with that. Feel free to engage with my answer when you're done playing games.

Not really bothered what you think of Nuala O'Loan's opinion. I just wanted to point out the dodgy ground you where standing on.
Job done I think.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The Boston College tapes were new material within the documentary.

The Boston College tapes have been known about for quite a while.

Gerry looked like he had new teeth though.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not really bothered what you think of Nuala O'Loan's opinion.

It didn't seem that way when you asked me about just that thing.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Boston College tapes have been known about for quite a while.

Heard for the first time by most in this programme though.

Stheno

first doyle wrote: »

Like Robert Nairac who was a member of the the FRU which infamously colluded with British Loyalist death squads? Why should the Irish public be concerned about his whereabouts considering the damage his group done?

Why should any society be concerned with making sure someone who dies gets a proper burial and allows their family to grieve?

Regardless of how they live, people deserve a decent burial and their families the chance to grieve.

As someone who has had very close contact with those involved in the conflict in the North I have no problem with this.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It didn't seem that way when you asked me about just that thing.

That's asking what was it about what Nuala O'Loan said makes you believe her. I already knew your opinion.
It's ok Alastair, I understand. You knew you where walking into a trap and you couldn't answer my question. That's enough for me, just hope you learned something from it.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's asking what was it about what Nuala O'Loan said makes you believe her. I already knew your opinion.
It's ok Alastair, I understand. You knew you where walking into a trap and you couldn't answer my question. That's enough for me, just hope you learned something from it.

I've learned that you're quite a dishonest person, who can't accept they've tripped over themselves trying to be clever. I've articulated a consistent case with regard to the merits of the IRA's claim that Jean McConville was an informer, and the contrary claim made by Nuala O'Loan, following her investigation. You've tried to distract from that by a pretty lame attempt to introduce a 'disprove a negative' line. The issue is whether you believe the liars or the credible investigator. I've been very clear who makes the more persuasive case.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I've learned that you're quite a dishonest person, who can't accept they've tripped over themselves trying to be clever. I've articulated a consistent case with regard to the merits of the IRA's claim that Jean McConville was an informer, and the contrary claim made by Nuala O'Loan, following her investigation. You've tried to distract from that by a pretty lame attempt to introduce a 'disprove a negative' line. The issue is whether you believe the liars or the credible investigator. I've been very clear who makes the more persuasive case.

Yes, you've said the Baroness O'Loan OBE is an impartial investigator and you believe her. I know you believe her, because before I said anything you had expressed your opinion on that.
I have been reading and listening to people on this case for over 20 years now.
Baroness O'Loan spoke for a few minutes on the programme at most, presented absolutely no evidence and just gave an opinion. I'll wait before I pass judgement on her opinion, because that is the wise thing to do.
But if she found NO evidence that in itself means very little, because of the nature of what Jean McConville was alleged to be doing.

first doyle

Stheno wrote: »

Why should any society be concerned with making sure someone who dies gets a proper burial and allows their family to grieve?

Regardless of how they live, people deserve a decent burial and their families the chance to grieve.

As someone who has had very close contact with those involved in the conflict in the North I have no problem with this.

The disappeared are portrayed as victims of the troubles when in reality they are not. Most of them were British agents. To deny this is to deny that Britain ever had a role to play in the conflict.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, you've said the Baroness O'Loan OBE is an impartial investigator and you believe her. I know you believe her, because before I said anything you had expressed your opinion on that.
I have been reading and listening to people on this case for over 20 years now.
Baroness O'Loan spoke for a few minutes on the programme at most, presented absolutely no evidence and just gave an opinion.

Yes - she is an impartial investigator - but keep chipping away at that OBE thing - maybe someone might care. The relevance of her investigation is not her contribution to the programme, but her broader credibility on the matter of Jean McConville's status as an informer. She's credible, where the IRA are not - on the basis of who's been shown to be liars.

alastair

first doyle wrote: »

The disappeared are portrayed as victims of the troubles when in reality they are not. Most of them were British agents. To deny this is to deny that Britain ever had a role to play in the conflict.

Some of them were claimed to be agents, some not. Even if they all were (which they were not) how would that change the despicable nature of 'disappearing' people?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Yes - she is an impartial investigator - but keep chipping away at that OBE thing - maybe someone might care. The relevance of her investigation is not her contribution to the programme, but her broader credibility on the matter of Jean McConville's status as an informer. She's credible, where the IRA are not - on the basis of who's been shown to be liars.

Yes, we know how you make your judgement calls, I have no idea whether Baroness O'Loan OBE is implausible or not, but forgive me for being suspicious of somebody who is so publically rewarded by those you claim she is impartial from.

'We can find NO evidence therefore she is NOT an informer'

I am hoping that you are not involved in the law, it's that kind of thinking that caused all the trouble in the first place.

Happyman42

first doyle wrote: »

The disappeared are portrayed as victims of the troubles when in reality they are not. Most of them were British agents. To deny this is to deny that Britain ever had a role to play in the conflict.

You are correct, informing has always attracted the most gruesome punishments everywhere, because informing is such a traitorous thing to be involved in, just look at what they want to do to Snowden and Assange. But the policy of "disappearing' people was wrong and made victims of families which is another sad and regretable aspect of the past in a long long line of aspects. There are many of them which will probably never heal.
The police constable has said that it is 'highly unlikely' that anyone will ever be prosecuted for this killing.
For RTE/BBC to continue to exploit the pain of this family when they have nothing new to offer (and the real intent of the programme is to slander Gerry Adams,) is actually the shocking thing about the programme whatever you think of Adams and the IRA.
Some of these journo/hacks and producers should be in a court of law for continuing to be involved in this shameful exploitation but unfortunately the stability of the peace process would most likely be the price.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am hoping that you are not involved in the law, it's that kind of thinking that caused all the trouble in the first place.

Actually - it was you who brought up the whole business of 'presenting evidence', and now a legal process. Straw man argument 101. The 'trouble' of disappearing people was a creation of the IRA - no matter how much you try to dissemble.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Some of these journo/hacks and producers should be in a court of law for continuing to be involved in this shameful exploitation but unfortunately the stability of the peace process would most likely be the price.

Says the man who continues the slander of Jean McConville and Nuala O'Loan. You couldn't make it up.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Actually - it was you who brought up the whole business of 'presenting evidence', and now a legal process. Straw man argument 101. The 'trouble' of disappearing people was a creation of the IRA - no matter how much you try to dissemble.

It absolutely was the creation of the IRA, have they denied that somewhere?
Yes it was me who brought up 'presenting evidence' because you and others seem to want to interpret 'the lack of evidence' differently to suit your own agendas. Pathetic and transparent agendas.

alastair wrote: »

Says the man who continues the slander of Jean McConville and Nuala O'Loan. You couldn't make it up.

Where did I 'slander' either of them?

.jacksparrow.

alastair wrote: »

Says the man who continues the slander of Jean McConville and Nuala O'Loan. You couldn't make it up.

You couldn't.

Oh wait you could actually.

Shall we continue?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

It absolutely was the creation of the IRA, have they denied that somewhere?
Yes it was me who brought up 'presenting evidence' because you and others seem to want to interpret 'the lack of evidence' differently to suit your own agendas. Pathetic and transparent agendas.

They haven't denied it - but you seem to believe it stems from some other cause. What you 'perceive' as an agenda is both wildly off the mark, and nothing to do with raising straw man arguments - no-one made a claim that evidence was presented to the public in relation to the claim that Jean McConville was an informer - so why pretend that's the case?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where did I 'slander' either of them?

Your inferences are crystal clear - what was that about 'pathetic and transparent agendas'? O'Loan's impartiality questioned because of an OBE, McConville tarnished with the ongoing suggestion she was an informer - despite any evidence to support that claim.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Your inferences are crystal clear - what was that about 'pathetic and transparent agendas'? O'Loan's impartiality questioned because of an OBE, McConville tarnished with the ongoing suggestion she was an informer - despite any evidence to support that claim.

Again Alastair, you seem to have an inability to answer the question you where asked, I'll try again before I report the post.

Where did I slander Jean McConville and Nuala O'Loan on this thread?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again Alastair, you seem to have an inability to answer the question you where asked, I'll try again before I report the post.

Where did I slander Jean McConville and Nuala O'Loan on this thread?

Again - why not engage with my answer rather than play games?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Again - why not engage with my answer rather than play games?

You didn't answer the question asked, once again.

Where did I slander Jean McConville and Nuala O'Loan?

Happyman42

Does anyone else find the following very disconcerting about the agenda of this programme,

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/man-who-led-searches-for-bodies-unhappy-with-film-s-treatment-of-special-commission-1.1582409

given that Geoff Knuper has said,

In a spirit of co-operation and reconciliation they [the IRA] are trying to help in every way they can. I am absolutely convinced that they are doing everything they can to assist. The support we have had from them has been absolutely 100 per cent from day one.”

www.niassembly.gov.uk/Assembly-Business/Official-Report/Reports-12-13/16-October-2012/

Would a programme from two 'National Broadcasters' be deemed responsible, plausible and unbiased in ommitting that information?

Scofflaw

This is going in an unproductive direction. I'd prefer not to see people dragging in other threads, but I also don't want to see people disclaiming positions on the basis that they haven't mentioned them on this particular thread.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Vivisectus

As a foreigner, this has always been a fascinating part of Irish politics to me. How does one go about rehabilitating what was an armed, militant group of insurrectionists back into regular democratic politics? On the one hand there is the wide-spread support all over Ireland (both republic and the north) for their cause*, on the other the problem that if you want to give them a place in your political life, you are almost seen to condone naked terrorism.

We could put Adams and McGuinness on trial. I don't think anyone doubts that they were in the IRA leadership at the time. But then again, they seem to be the very people who have been working to move from insurrectionism to political discourse. It seems oddly unjust that if you work to get your side to put down their arms, the result is that now that you are unarmed, they can come and arrest you.

Frankly, I quite like Sinn Feinn. I was raised a socialist, and they seem the only genuinely socialist option around these days. Now that I am older and more cynical I may not be quite the socialist I once was, but I sure do like to see some around, just as an antidote.

And I like Adams. I think what he has achieved is impressive. The man must be able to make water run uphill to get done what he got done.

The last insurrection left lots of scars too. Some of the guerrillas became politicians, undoubtedly stained with terrible deeds as awful as the ones we are discussing now. But that war had a victor, as did the civil war that followed: this one ended in a stalemate. We do not have a wave of historical revisionism that can handily forgive the misdeeds of the victor and vilify those of the loser. We are just left with the ugly, ugly stuff people do when they believe it is just to go to war.

But the necessity for shedding the legacy of insurrectionism seems clear to me. And to shed that, Sinn Feinn needs to shed their old leadership. They will always be tainted. Until a new generation of people take over the helm, I do not see how there can ever be any chance of moving on. In a perfect world, this would even mean a real revolutionary act on the part of Adams and McGuinnes: self-sacrifice. But I don't know that many revolutionaries past the age of 35 or so.

*Although one can wonder how many people were aware of the ideology they actually espoused: I hear they were quite radically marxist at one point, and most of the people I know that are sympathetic to the IRA never seem to mention that and certainly do not have similar ideals.

Hannibal

Vivisectus wrote: »

We could put Adams and McGuinness on trial. I don't think anyone doubts that they were in the IRA leadership at the time. But then again, they seem to be the very people who have been working to move from insurrectionism to political discourse. It seems oddly unjust that if you work to get your side to put down their arms, the result is that now that you are unarmed, they can come and arrest you.

No journalist has ever got the better of Adams and it annoys every single one of them, any slight chink they see in the armour and they are like dogs with a bone trying to unearth it. Regardless of the hard work put in by the leadership of Sinn Fein (none of which was appreciated) to move republicanism solely into politics it seems that a lot of journalists would rather unravel the whole peace process and it's leaders just to have Adams' head on a stick.

The Disappeared program last week was just another baseless attempt to slander Gerry Adams by using old information and the same old questions. Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price are anti peace process and anti GFA touts whose word and testiment is given preference over that of an elected representive who has topped election polls in Belfast and Louth.

Willie O'Dea wants this discussed in the Dail where TD's can use parliamentary privelege to again slander Gerry Adams and engage in political point scoring.

Vivisectus

Hannibal wrote: »

No journalist has ever got the better of Adams and it annoys every single one of them, any slight chink they see in the armour and they are like dogs with a bone trying to unearth it. Regardless of the hard work put in by the leadership of Sinn Fein (none of which was appreciated) to move republicanism solely into politics it seems that a lot of journalists would rather unravel the whole peace process and it's leaders just to have Adams' head on a stick.

The Disappeared program last week was just another baseless attempt to slander Gerry Adams by using old information and the same old questions. Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price are anti peace process and anti GFA touts whose word and testiment is given preference over that of an elected representive who has topped election polls in Belfast and Louth.

Willie O'Dea wants this discussed in the Dail where TD's can use parliamentary privelege to again slander Gerry Adams and engage in political point scoring.

That seems rather dismissive the point of view that what Adams was engaged in what was essentially terrorism and that it looks like he ordered executions - you may feel that we should let this rest in the interest of peace, but that does not make it any less problematic.

MRnotlob606

all ive been hearing all week is gerry adam gerry adams the disappeared gerry adams