They were asking for it....

I Heart Internet

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gerry-adams-two-murdered-ruc-officers-had-laissez-faire-attitude-to-own-safety-29809290.html

Gerry Adams deplores the behaviour of the two RUC officers killed leaving Dundalk Garda Station - made it far too easy for his colleagues to kill them. They were pretty much asking for it, like. Walking around the place, alive and all that....totally had it coming.

So when you have that type of laissez faire disregard for their own security by both An Garda Siochana in relation to these two RUC officers and more importantly by the RUC officers themselves. Here they were in the heart of south Armagh, in the middle of a very, very severe conflict at that time and seemed to think that they were immune to attack by the IRA and tragically as it turned out for them, that wasn’t the case.

dr strangelove

Actually quite surprised that Gerry didn't point out to them how vulnerable they were, you know, seeing as how he was a paragon of virtue and wasn't involved in killing anyone, ever, at all, oh no.

SEPT 23 1989

Adams is a very nasty piece of work

eviltwin

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Adams is a very nasty piece of work

That's putting it mildly, he's an out and out scumbag, a nice suit and a position in government doesn't change that.

FTA69

Don't see the big deal here to be honest. The two men shot were senior members of the RUC and were by anyone's definition, protagonists in the conflict. They were driving around unprotected in a major Republican area and were unsurprisingly, targeted by the IRA. He probably should have been more sensitive about the deaths in this day and age, but I don't see how anything he said is particularly earth-shattering.

Specialun

FTA69 wrote: »

Don't see the big deal here to be honest. The two men shot were senior members of the RUC and were by anyone's definition, protagonists in the conflict. They were driving around unprotected in a major Republican area and were unsurprisingly, targeted by the IRA. He probably should have been more sensitive about the deaths in this day and age, but I don't see how anything he said is particularly earth-shattering.

I agree. I think adams is a tosspot but I dont see how stating the obvious here makes him anymore of a tossot

I am pie

I dislike Gerry Adams, I dislike the underhand way he won't admit to his role in the conflict in order to support his own vain statesmanly ambitions, his silence in regard to his brother's crimes leaves me cold. I much prefer McGuinness and his pragmatic clarity. I say that as someone who grew up on the other side of the fence, although now not a SF supporter I am in favour of Irish unity.

However, in this case, I can't see much wrong with what he said. It was pretty daft to be in the region unprotected. They left themselves vulnerable and should not have done so. Their sad deaths served as a PR victim to the IRA. They should also clearly not have been so trusting of the Garda in Dundalk unfortunately. Not sure if everyone here was old enough to have lived through those times, but anyone would know they should have been very very cautious in their position. They were murdered, the blame lies with the IRA and the colluding Gardai, but they really ought not to have allowed themselves to be in a position where their fate depended on people they could not trust in an extremely "hot" zone in the conflict.

constitutionus

What's making me laugh is essentially Adams is standing up for the gards while the rest of the dail is saying they're corrupt !



Never thought is see that day

Irish Guitarist

He didn't say they were asking for it; he said they should have been more careful in a dangerous area.

It's like saying John F. Kennedy shouldn't have been driving around Dallas in an open top car.

Potatoeman

I am pie wrote: »

I dislike Gerry Adams, I dislike the underhand way he won't admit to his role in the conflict in order to support his own vain statesmanly ambitions, his silence in regard to his brother's crimes leaves me cold. I much prefer McGuinness and his pragmatic clarity. I say that as someone who grew up on the other side of the fence, although now not a SF supporter I am in favour of Irish unity.

However, in this case, I can't see much wrong with what he said. It was pretty daft to be in the region unprotected. They left themselves vulnerable and should not have done so. Their sad deaths served as a PR victim to the IRA. They should also clearly not have been so trusting of the Garda in Dundalk unfortunately. Not sure if everyone here was old enough to have lived through those times, but anyone would know they should have been very very cautious in their position. They were murdered, the blame lies with the IRA and the colluding Gardai, but they really ought not to have allowed themselves to be in a position where their fate depended on people they could not trust in an extremely "hot" zone in the conflict.

From most sources Adams was a behind the scenes man and McGuinness was more directly involved in actions. Im surprised McGuinness does not get more attention but then Adams is senior.

Ash.J.Williams

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

He didn't say they were asking for it; he said they should have been more careful in a dangerous area.

It's like saying John F. Kennedy shouldn't have been driving around Dallas in an open top car.

is Dallas dangerous?

MadsL

Victim blaming is a handy way to deflect from the real issues I suppose.

anncoates

It's true that they were mad walking around heedless of their own vulnerability in the middle of a conflict, Gerry,.

Kinda like countless victims of IRA bombs really.

BillyMitchel

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

is Dallas dangerous?

**** hole!! Stop thinking JR and Co!


Serious though, agree with the others. RUC walking around crossmaglen and the like unprotected was outright stupid.

MadsL

Stupid Manchester, being a city in England is just asking for it. Why couldn't they have had the foresight to build it in Munster.

P_1

Well in hindsight, perhaps two senior RUC members going about Dundalk in the 80's without their own backup wasn't the smartest of things to be doing but Adams (or indeed his PR people) really should have had the cop on to realise that perhaps that wouldn't have been the smartest of things for him to say to the press...

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Don't see the big deal here to be honest. The two men shot were senior members of the RUC and were by anyone's definition, protagonists in the conflict. They were driving around unprotected in a major Republican area and were unsurprisingly, targeted by the IRA. He probably should have been more sensitive about the deaths in this day and age, but I don't see how anything he said is particularly earth-shattering.

Is a man standing at a barricade on the Falls Road by definition a protagonist and therefore asking for it?

moxin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is a man standing at a barricade on the Falls Road by definition a protagonist and therefore asking for it?

Is he holding a gun and wearing a military uniform? If yes, he'd have the cop on to beware he be a target. Same for the RUC, be safety conscious in a time of conflict.

Busted Flat.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

is Dallas dangerous?

It was for Kennedy, you had one Dallas paper,The Dallas News, accusing Kennedy of treason. http://www.utexas.edu/know/images/2013/JFK_assassination/treason-poster_web.jpg


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.utexas.edu%2Fknow%2F2013%2F11%2F18%2Fjfk-assassination-dallas-1963%2F&ei=jFufUsmnDoWS7Aal-IFI&usg=AFQjCNEgC8k1yRI6i5TDEEENsQtYHTGTsg&bvm=bv.57155469,d.ZGU

Guy:Incognito

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

It's like saying John F. Kennedy shouldn't have been driving around Dallas in an open top car.

Its like the guy that put lee harvey oswald in the book depository saying it you mean.

Fratton Fred

moxin wrote: »

Is he holding a gun and wearing a military uniform? If yes, he'd have the cop on to beware he be a target. Same for the RUC, be safety conscious in a time of conflict.

So if the RUC officers weren't armed and in uniform the IRA wouldn't have killed them?

.jacksparrow.

Oh I wonder what thread this direction will take and how it will end!!

I Heart Internet

Potatoeman wrote: »

From most sources Adams was a behind the scenes man and McGuinness was more directly involved in actions. Im surprised McGuinness does not get more attention but then Adams is senior.

McGuiness has been reasonably open about his involvement in the IRA. I think people respect that. Adams just tells lies about it. To think, some would have had him as President of Ireland!

D1stant

Every time wee Gerry opens his gob I'd imagine Mary-Lou has a little smile. One step closer to the leadership.

moxin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So if the RUC officers weren't armed and in uniform the IRA wouldn't have killed them?

They were unarmed. You'd have to ask who was involved to get the rundown on the intention of the killings :rolleyes:

martinedwards

FTA69 wrote: »

The two men shot were senior members of the RUC and were by anyone's definition, protagonists in the conflict.

to many people they were trying to stop the confilct by investigating crimes such as shootings (both sides) and protection rackets funding both sides.

yes there were rotten apples in the barrel, just like the Garda, but the vast majority of the RUC, like the Garda were trying to bring and maintain peace.

by any IRA sympathizer's definition perhaps............

Yellow121

MadsL wrote: »

Stupid Manchester, being a city in England is just asking for it. Why couldn't they have had the foresight to build it in Munster.

Stupid innocent civilians walking the streets of Derry, asking for trouble.

errlloyd

This is almost exactly like a slut walk era rape thread. I think PSNI officers should March unarmed through Catholic areas now to demonstrate how they should be allowed.

Yellow121

errlloyd wrote: »

This is almost exactly like a slut walk era rape thread. I think PSNI officers should March unarmed through Catholic areas now to demonstrate how they should be allowed.

The RUC colluded with loyalists to kill innocent Irish people.

Ash.J.Williams

They should have a "who was worse" tribunal ...sort it out once and for all...

errlloyd

Yellow121 wrote: »

The RUC colluded with loyalists to kill innocent Irish people.

My post was more a satire of shut walks then a defence of the RUC. Then again, Sinn Fein colluded with IRA to murder innocents, so if you're gonna drag me into this I'll argue back.

BillyMitchel

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

They should have a "who was worse" tribunal ...sort it out once and for all...

Or they should all stop living in the past and try build a future for the sake of the next generation.

Yellow121

errlloyd wrote: »

My post was more a satire of shut walks then a defence of the RUC. Then again, Sinn Fein colluded with IRA to murder innocents, so if you're gonna drag me into this I'll argue back.

Well it turns out the RUC were sluts, as were SF if that keeps you happy.

dickwod1

Remember the Panorama program recently the hit squad driving around shooting and killing anybody they felt like at will, sanctioned at the highest levels of Government including cover ups and promotions for there killing's, Yet people wonder why the two RUC officers would be targeted in a Guerrilla war.

I am pie

Do people not understand what "protagonist" means? I doesn't mean legitimate target, it doesn't signify the killing was just, in this context it means they were playing a role in the conflict.

You may argue they were on the side of justice or not, comes down to your politics, but they were by the RUC's own definition accepted to be likely targets of IRA attacks.

It is hardly stretching the imagination too much to say it was dangerous for them to be in South Armagh without protection. A close family member had a snr role in the RUC at the time. The reason he is still alive is the precautions he took moving around that area.

Numerous times he received information, as local units had been compromised, that an attempt would be made on his life. Those warnings were heeded and the relevant precautions taking, houses were changed, movements altered and routes to work and times of travel were never ever the same. Even dealings with Garda would have involved closely guarded travel details. This is all fact.

I don't believe the discussion here is around the legitimacy of the act, but that Adams is suggesting their mistake was to allow themselves to be targeted so easily. To combat an enemy you have to accept that enemies existence and threat as a fact, no point with the usual myopic morality conversation. Each side has a different perspective and I don't think legitimacy of the attack is the drum Adams is banging here.

saltyjack silverblade

His IRA activity aside (and it is painful to put it aside to make this point), he has admitted knowing about sexual abuse within his family and actively discouraged the reporting of it. He silenced his niece for many years. When discussing it he said that there a need for some healing to be done.
On a political level, Ivor Callely claimed travel expenses which ended in a series of court cases and a referendum for the country. Willie O'Dea resigned over making defamatory remarks. (No Fianna Fail fan here).
Priests sexually abuse children and the politicians are on the steps chanting about it. Nuns abuse women in the laundries and it is the same.
Gerry allows kids to be abused and covers it up, which is a crime, and politicians "condemn his actions". Well I never. What does that even mean for him? No longer allowed to sit with the popular kids at lunchtime?

The fact that he has said this about the murder of the RUC men is disgusting, but the lack of action from the politicians will be as equally deafening.

I am pie

saltyjack silverblade wrote: »

His IRA activity aside (and it is painful to put it aside to make this point), he has admitted knowing about sexual abuse within his family and actively discouraged the reporting of it. He silenced his niece for many years. When discussing it he said that there a need for some healing to be done.
On a political level, Ivor Callely claimed travel expenses which ended in a series of court cases and a referendum for the country. Willie O'Dea resigned over making defamatory remarks. (No Fianna Fail fan here).
Priests sexually abuse children and the politicians are on the steps chanting about it. Nuns abuse women in the laundries and it is the same.
Gerry allows kids to be abused and covers it up, which is a crime, and politicians "condemn his actions". Well I never. What does that even mean for him? No longer allowed to sit with the popular kids at lunchtime?

The fact that he has said this about the murder of the RUC men is disgusting, but the lack of action from the politicians will be as equally deafening.

Agree with all above the above except the last 2 lines? What did he say that was disgusting? Why is it disgusting to suggest they were laissez faiure about their security? Again, my own family member would never have taken those risks and that is why he alive today! He had a more senior role than both of these officers.

saltyjack silverblade

The reason it is disgusting is this. Gerry Adams has placed fault on the victims. He is implying that it was an opportunistic killing when it was not. It was a planned attack and a planned ambush. The IRA had already decided to kill these 2 people.

efb

Victim blaming, boards should idolise him

Fratton Fred

dickwod1 wrote: »

Remember the Panorama program recently the hit squad driving around shooting and killing anybody they felt like at will, sanctioned at the highest levels of Government including cover ups and promotions for there killing's, Yet people wonder why the two RUC officers would be targeted in a Guerrilla war.

And in that thread, every mention of the IRA was bombarded with cries of off topic, whataboutery and deflection.

Zebra3

I Heart Internet wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gerry-adams-two-murdered-ruc-officers-had-laissez-faire-attitude-to-own-safety-29809290.html

Gerry Adams deplores the behaviour of the two RUC officers killed leaving Dundalk Garda Station - made it far too easy for his colleagues to kill them. They were pretty much asking for it, like. Walking around the place, alive and all that....totally had it coming.

What you've quoted Gerry Adams as saying is totally different from the thread title.

Would people think it crazy if George W Bush walked through Baghdad with no security?

Of course they would.

rockatansky

So two RUC Men decided to go into the Heartland of Irish Republicanism in the south, to gather / pass on information that would result in the killing / Capturing of IRA Volunteers? And in doing so are killed by the IRA?? Have I got that right?

Ah yeah sure its all Gerrys fault so. Lets keep the media campaign going until election time!

There are Irish Republicans in the Garda and Irish Army. This should not be news to anyone.

rockatansky

Did anyone hear Derek Davis on Newstalk this evening? He was spot on about it.

Zebra3

rockatansky wrote: »

So two RUC Men decided to go into the Heartland of Irish Republicanism in the south, to gather / pass on information that would result in the killing / Capturing of IRA Volunteers? And in doing so are killed by the IRA?? Have I got that right?

Ah yeah sure its all Gerrys fault so. Lets keep the media campaign going until election time!

There are Irish Republicans in the Garda and Irish Army. This should not be news to anyone.

Careful now, posting facts and all that.

The outraged over anything brigade won't be having that.

feargale

FTA69 wrote: »

Don't see the big deal here to be honest. The two men shot were senior members of the RUC and were by anyone's definition, protagonists in the conflict. They were driving around unprotected in a major Republican area and were unsurprisingly, targeted by the IRA. He probably should have been more sensitive about the deaths in this day and age, but I don't see how anything he said is particularly earth-shattering.

We keep hearing here phrases such as "protagonists in a conflict" and "guerilla war" as if these legitimised the IRA's campaign of murder. The IRA never received a mandate for killing, from the people of Ireland, of Northern Ireland or even from the Catholic community in NI. Before commencing the rebellion of 1848, when the people were not properly enfranchised, William Smith O'Brie, in a quest for legitimacy, toured the country taking a straw poll on the mood for a rising.
If my family were bombed into obliteration in 1940 in London, Rotterdam or Warsaw, I would prefer that somebody other than a friend of Adolf Hitler would tell me that they should have been more careful.

dickwod1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And in that thread, every mention of the IRA was bombarded with cries of off topic, whataboutery and deflection.

And your point towards my comment is what?

Zebra3

feargale wrote: »

We keep hearing here phrases such as "protagonists in a conflict" and "guerilla war" as if these legitimised the IRA's campaign of murder. The IRA never received a mandate for killing, from the people of Ireland, of Northern Ireland or even from the Catholic community in NI. Before commencing the rebellion of 1848, when the people were not properly enfranchised, William Smith O'Brie, in a quest for legitimacy, toured the country taking a straw poll on the mood for a rising.
If my family were bombed into obliteration in 1940 in London, Rotterdam or Warsaw, I would prefer that somebody other than a friend of Adolf Hitler would tell me that they should have been more careful.

And did the RUC have a mandate for supplying arms and intelligence to terrorists? Standing idly by while people are being ethnically cleansed from their homes? Carrying out torture? harassing innocent people?

Barrel

feargale wrote: »

We keep hearing here phrases such as "protagonists in a conflict" and "guerilla war" as if these legitimised the IRA's campaign of murder. The IRA never received a mandate for killing, from the people of Ireland, of Northern Ireland or even from the Catholic community in NI.

You say that like everybody else in the history of planet earth got mandates for guerilla wars except the IRA,

Sunnyisland

feargale wrote: »

We keep hearing here phrases such as "protagonists in a conflict" and "guerilla war" as if these legitimised the IRA's campaign of murder. The IRA never received a mandate for killing, from the people of Ireland, of Northern Ireland or even from the Catholic community in NI. Before commencing the rebellion of 1848, when the people were not properly enfranchised, William Smith O'Brie, in a quest for legitimacy, toured the country taking a straw poll on the mood for a rising.
If my family were bombed into obliteration in 1940 in London, Rotterdam or Warsaw, I would prefer that somebody other than a friend of Adolf Hitler would tell me that they should have been more careful.

Yet FG FF Lab will be all out in 2016 to celebrate the brave men & women who fought and died for Irish freedom, They never had a mandate either...

feargale

Zebra3 wrote: »

And did the RUC have a mandate for supplying arms and intelligence to terrorists? Standing idly by while people are being ethnically cleansed from their homes? Carrying out torture? harassing innocent people?

Would you read my post again and show me please any word of mine that exonerated the RUC of anything? If you want to respond to my post would you ever address a point made by me? The word whataboutery has been used more than once on this thread. I might be accused of boring everybody if I were to use it again. Let me see now : RUC members were guilty of collusion. Therefore it was right to murder two of them. You may as well say that Judge Smithwick on reaching his conclusions should have gone to Dundalk Garda Station with a gun and taken out a few of the members there.
I have things to do now so you will have some hours to pore over my post as suggested.

FTA69

martinedwards wrote: »

to many people they were trying to stop the confilct by investigating crimes such as shootings (both sides) and protection rackets funding both sides.

Many eejits maybe. The RUC were up to their necks in colluding with Loyalist paramilitaries and were an integral part of the British state's participation in the conflict in Ireland. They were a highly militarised force with a long sectarian history who were tasked with maintaining the status quo. You may like to portray them as a bunch of neighbourhood bobbies but they were anything but.

yes there were rotten apples in the barrel, just like the Garda, but the vast majority of the RUC, like the Garda were trying to bring and maintain peace.

With a long record of sectarianism, torture and the odd murder. I actually wonder where this ridiculous fawning attitude comes from in Irish people sometimes.