Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Options
1…2425272930…40

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    One side says she was an informer the other side says she wasn't.

    Why would you have to 'buy into Gerry Adams ordered her murder'? What a ridicuulous thing to say, the two statements have no connection nor does one follow from the other. That is like saying something like this is completely true because the first part is,

    'I believe it is going to rain, and that the world is flat'.
    You are firmly in the realm of the ridiculous now.

    Try and focus?

    There's only one source for claims that Jean McConville was supplying the British with information - Brendan Hughes. That's it - there's nothing else. He says Adams ordered her murder. Same subject, same source. So, belief in the first claim would logically also require belief in the second - given the lack of any supporting evidence (let's pretend Dolours Price didn't also implicate Adams).


  • Options
    #783
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Try and focus?

    There's only one source for claims that Jean McConville was supplying the British with information - Brendan Hughes. That's it - there's nothing else. He says Adams ordered her murder. Same subject, same source. So, belief in the first claim would logically also require belief in the second - given the lack of any supporting evidence (let's pretend Dolours Price didn't also implicate Adams).

    Despite me saying several times that I don't know if she was an informer or not and that I will await the trial you still try and say I 'believe' something.

    And again, belief in the first part does NOT mean you have to believe the second. Because the second part could be said for an entirely different motive.
    The people you mention where extremely bitter about the GFA arrangements and had attempted to undermine that process therefore their motivations and everything they say has to be treated with caution.

    Believing both statements is just convenient for you. Transparent as a window why you would mention it.


  • Options
    #784
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Despite me saying several times that I don't know if she was an informer or not and that I will await the trial you still try and say I 'believe' something.
    Bull**** - you're disputing that her death was a murder. You're jumping through hoops to look for any way you can frame her death as 'legitimate'. You're either remarkably confused or intentionally deceptive. Neither works well for you.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And again, belief in the first part does NOT mean you have to believe the second. Because the second part could be said for an entirely different motive.
    If you give credence to the first claim, then you have to give credence to the second - the issue is the credibility of the source.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The people you mention where extremely bitter about the GFA arrangements and had attempted to undermine that process therefore their motivations and everything they say has to be treated with caution.

    Believing both statements is just convenient for you. Transparent as a window why you would mention it.
    So why buy into the first claim? The same bitterness applies to the credibility of the the first claim. It's as if you abandon the notion of innocent until proven guilty on the word of a man who you then, one moment later, deem to be a pernicious witness with regard to the same issue. As I say - doublethink.


  • Options
    #785
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Bull**** - you're disputing that her death was a murder. You're jumping through hoops to look for any way you can frame her death as 'legitimate'. You're either remarkably confused or intentionally deceptive. Neither works well for you.

    I will say it again...I do not know if she was an informer or not.
    Again; if she was not, then her 'murderer' deserves to be in jail for the rest of his/her life.
    Again: if she was an informer, she knew, like all informers that there would be a consequence, just like any active service member of any army accepts the conequences of what they are doing.
    Again: it is my belief that an informer is an 'enemy combatant.

    If you give credence to the first claim, then you have to give credence to the second - the issue is the credibility of the source.

    Credibility comes down to motivations. You do not have to 'accept' everything somebody says because one part may be true.

    And btw: AGAIN, I haven't accepted the first part either.


    So why buy into the first claim? The same bitterness applies to the credibility of the the first claim. It's as if you abandon the notion of innocent until proven guilty on the word of a man who you then, one moment later, deem to be a pernicious witness with regard to the same issue. As I say - doublethink.

    AGAIN; I have not accepted she was an informer, I will await the trial and sworn testimonies.


  • Options
    #786
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I will say it again...I do not know if she was an informer or not.
    Again; if she was not, then her 'murderer' deserves to be in jail for the rest of his/her life.

    The scare quotes tell their own story. We know she was murdered. The only justification for putting scare quotes around the term is dissembling about that fact. You can't even admit that buying into your whole 'active service' bollox doesn't remove from the applicability of murder to her death. You're an apologist for murderers, albeit an evasive dissembling one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    You're an apologist for murderers, albeit an evasive dissembling one.

    And two seconds asking questions about the killing carried out by the British would reveal your hypocrisy, which I couldn't be bothered doing, safe in the knowledge that anyone with an iota of intelligence can tell what your agenda is here and the disgusting use of this woman's ad death and her family's grief to air your petty unfulfilled grievance and illogical hate of one man.
    Like Norman Tebbit's inability to temper his irrational hate, it really is beyond pathetic now.


  • Options
    #788
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And two seconds asking questions about the killing carried out by the British would reveal your hypocrisy, which I couldn't be bothered doing, safe in the knowledge that anyone with an iota of intelligence can tell what your agenda is here and the disgusting use of this woman's ad death and her family's grief to air your petty unfulfilled grievance and illogical hate of one man.
    Like Norman Tebbit's inability to temper his irrational hate, it really is beyond pathetic now.

    That's this woman's murder - but asides from that - not particularly interested in your stream of cant, whataboutery, and pure fiction Her family made their particular experience of intimidation by SF quite clear a long time ago, so they've spoken for themselves.


  • Options
    #789
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Again, please explain how and then maybe I can help you.

    I am neither and it wasn't worthy of a reply the first time around.


    All right then, if it was a war and she was a civilian informer (unless you are saying she held a rank in the British army?) then the IRA are guilty of war crimes (equivalent to murder) under the Geneva Convention.

    If it was not a war, then the IRA are guilty of torture and murder, simple enough.

    Either way, the killing of Jean McConville cannot be justified and must be condemned by anyone with any credibility.

    As I have already pointed out, unless you are prepared to excuse Bloody Sunday, all UVF and RUC killings, you must actually condemn this.

    And stop pretending that you don't justify murder.


  • Options
    #790
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I will say it again...I do not know if she was an informer or not.
    Again; if she was not, then her 'murderer' deserves to be in jail for the rest of his/her life.
    Again: if she was an informer, she knew, like all informers that there would be a consequence, just like any active service member of any army accepts the conequences of what they are doing.
    Again: it is my belief that an informer is an 'enemy combatant.




    Your belief that an informer is an "enemy combatant" is not supported by the Geneva Convention or other conventions of war. It is just a snivelling justification for murder.


  • Options
    #791
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    What fiction? I think it is you that is pre-empting the outcome of a trial.
    As for 'whataboutery', attempting to isolate an incident from the context in which it happened is a fairly transparent technique of those who resolutely live and selectively judge from the high moral ground.

    I have clearly stated where I stand on this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    What fiction? I think it is you that is pre-empting the outcome of a trial.
    As for 'whataboutery', attempting to isolate an incident from the context in which it happened is a fairly transparent technique of those who resolutely live and selectively judge from the high moral ground.

    I have clearly stated where I stand on this.


    Happy to discuss all other killings and murders with you, just starting here, not trying to isolate from anything.

    Again, was it a war crime, was it a murder or are you saying that Jean McConville had been inducted into the British Army ranks? There are no other options available to you. You have talked yourself into a corner.


  • Options
    #793
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    What fiction? I think it is you that is pre-empting the outcome of a trial.
    The fiction of your accusations regarding my 'agenda' and crystal ball gazing about your 'two seconds' of questions. The trial doesn't need to take place to confirm the woman's murder - all that's at issue is who murdered her.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    As for 'whataboutery', attempting to isolate an incident from the context in which it happened is a fairly transparent technique of those who resolutely live and selectively judge from the high moral ground.

    I have clearly stated where I stand on this.
    Yes you have, and I can only repeat it's a position of disgusting evasion and dissembling. I'm not taking any high moral ground. The murderers of a McConville understood how their actions would be received by all but a sad few sheep, and lied about what actually happened for years. Their fear wasn't from any minority on a high moral ground, but by the reaction of society, full stop.


  • Options
    #794
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Godge wrote: »
    Happy to discuss all other killings and murders with you, just starting here, not trying to isolate from anything.

    Again, was it a war crime, was it a murder or are you saying that Jean McConville had been inducted into the British Army ranks? There are no other options available to you. You have talked yourself into a corner.

    The war crime (had it been applicable, which it wasn't) would still have been one of murder of course.


  • Options
    #795
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Did you have a point?

    My point, which I really shouldn't have to spell out to either you or Karl, is that whether or not you consider it defensible to shoot someone in the head on a beach is determined solely by who did the shooting. It's the same confirmation bias that allows you to be shocked and horrified at the very idea that unionists might have started a war over home rule - the vicious thugs - while commemorating the republicans who did start a war - the noble heroes. Like it or not, you applaud actions by the side you agree with, and abhor actions by those you disagree with, and all the sophistry in the world won't change that.


  • Options
    #796
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The fiction of your accusations regarding my 'agenda' and crystal ball gazing about your 'two seconds' of questions. The trial doesn't need to take place to confirm the woman's murder - all that's at issue is who murdered her.
    testimony will be made about motive, if he testifies that he was acting on orders because she was an informer and if I believe the testimony (and I don't trust Hughes btw) then you know my opinion on the death of an informer.
    It is my opinion, already clearly stated. Think of it how you want.


    Yes you have, and I can only repeat it's a position of disgusting evasion and dissembling. I'm not taking any high moral ground. The murderers of a McConville understood how their actions would be received by all but a sad few sheep, and lied about what actually happened for years. Their fear wasn't from any minority on a high moral ground, but by the reaction of society, full stop.
    I have no idea why they kept it secret, but then I have no idea why state papers are kept secret either or why the normal period of secrecy is extended in particular cases.


  • Options
    #797
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    My point, which I really shouldn't have to spell out to either you or Karl, is that whether or not you consider it defensible to shoot someone in the head on a beach is determined solely by who did the shooting. It's the same confirmation bias that allows you to be shocked and horrified at the very idea that unionists might have started a war over home rule - the vicious thugs - while commemorating the republicans who did start a war - the noble heroes. Like it or not, you applaud actions by the side you agree with, and abhor actions by those you disagree with, and all the sophistry in the world won't change that.
    You are mmaking an assumption that I a neutral. I'm not


  • Options
    #798
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    testimony will be made about motive, if he testifies that he was acting on orders because she was an informer and if I believe the testimony (and I don't trust Hughes btw) then you know my opinion on the death of an informer.
    The testimony of Ivor Bell is irrelevant to the question of her murder. That's already an established fact. It's only relevant to his guilt of that murder.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It is my opinion, already clearly stated. Think of it how you want.
    Thankfully, your opinions play no role in defining the woman's death as murder.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I have no idea why they kept it secret, but then I have no idea why state papers are kept secret either or why the normal period of secrecy is extended in particular cases.
    Of course you've no idea. It's quite the mystery, isn't it? Oh, and cheers for yet more whataboutery.


  • Options
    #799
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You are mmaking an assumption that I a neutral. I'm not

    Quite how you discern that from what he wrote, escapes me. It's quite clear he attributes a bias to your reading, not neutrality.


  • Options
    #800
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Quite how you discern that from what he wrote, escapes me. It's quite clear he attributes a bias to your reading, not neutrality.
    Again, I have always been clear on which side I hold responsible. Stating that I have a bias is a statement of the obvious imo. I am not neutral, are you?


  • Options
    #801
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    My point, which I really shouldn't have to spell out to either you or Karl, is that whether or not you consider it defensible to shoot someone in the head on a beach is determined solely by who did the shooting.

    I've consistently said that even if Jean McConville was an informer she shouldn't have been killed. She was the sole carer of 10 children and if she was an informer you'd have to wonder if she fully understood the danger she was in. Hiding her body, any body, was cruel and cowardly.
    It's the same confirmation bias that allows you to be shocked and horrified at the very idea that unionists might have started a war over home rule - the vicious thugs - while commemorating the republicans who did start a war - the noble heroes.

    Try not to put words in people's mouths and adopt positions for them.
    Like it or not, you applaud actions by the side you agree with, and abhor actions by those you disagree with

    Welcome to planet earth where moral absolutes are few and far between. Enjoy your stay.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Again, I have always been clear on which side I hold responsible. Stating that I have a bias is a statement of the obvious imo. I am not neutral, are you?

    It's patently obvious he's not.


  • Options
    #803
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Try not to put words in people's mouths and adopt positions for them.
    I'm not. I'm reiterating positions that I've read over and over and over and over again from republicans on these forums.

    But if you're offended at the characterisation, please feel free to explain whether you feel that the threat of violence from unionists at the start of the 20th century was justified, or that the fact of violence from nationalists was not.
    Welcome to planet earth where moral absolutes are few and far between. Enjoy your stay.
    Moral relativism is one thing. The blatant admission that the very same behaviour is acceptable from people you agree with while contemptible from those you oppose, well, that's a whole 'nother thing.


  • Options
    #804
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    It's patently obvious he's not.
    If by "not neutral" you mean "disagrees with you" - and I've seen no evidence that you have any other benchmark for neutrality - then no, I guess I don't measure up to that standard of neutrality.


  • Options
    #805
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    unionists might have started a war over home rule

    Yes, yes 'might have'. The acquiring of 25,00 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition was just a bluff and if all Island home rule was granted (yes, granted by those denying it from us) they would have laughed and said 'okay lads, you got us, we were just bluffing, lol'. Your anti-Republican bias precedes you.
    while commemorating the republicans who did start a war

    Yes, yes Republicans were to blame for starting the war because there was no British threat of terrorism underpinning their presence here.

    Do you ever consider your own bias*?





    *That's what's known as a rhetorical question.


  • Options
    #806
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Yes, yes 'might have'. The acquiring of 25,00 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition was just a bluff and if all Island home rule was granted they would have laughed and said 'okay lads, you got us, we were just bluffing, lol'.

    Yeah, what kind of carry on was that? Could they not just have accepted being part of a state that they did not want to be in? You wouldn't get Irish nationalists carrying on ...... oh wait! :D:D:D


  • Options
    #807
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    I've consistently said that even if Jean McConville was an informer she shouldn't have been killed.
    Nobody should have been killed. or needed to be killed, therein is the tragedy. Full stop.
    The petty glory that some take when you try to understand why people died and the way they use particular deaths is just a symptom of what caused the deaths in the first place. The failure to recognise and fix an out of control suprematist statelet.
    Thankfully all sides came to their senses, I include the IRA in that and the 'statlet' is being fixed.
    How well we want to fix it is the next hurdle, but it won't get fixed by selectively punishing from your original bias and prejudice. Punish all or punish none.
    That doesn't help this family, but the hard fact is that they are being used, Take one look at the list of nearly 500 hundred people who died that year and honestly tell me that this death is somehow exceptional in that sad and tragic litany. If Gerry Adams name wasn't connected then it would be forgotten like all the others. Who is looking for, or even talking about the killers of Jill Mansfield or Margaret Grant or Anne Owens or Liz McAuley?

    The only thing that will bring fair and equal closure is a full and honest truth and reconciliation process. This thread should be used as evidence in that quest.


  • Options
    #808
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Yes, yes 'might have'. The acquiring of 25,00 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition was just a bluff and if all Island home rule was granted (yes, granted by those denying it from us) they would have laughed and said 'okay lads, you got us, we were just bluffing, lol'. Your anti-Republican bias precedes you.



    Yes, yes Republicans were to blame for starting the war because there was no British threat of terrorism underpinning their presence here.
    It's almost comical how you've just reiterated my point in a vain attempt to refute it.


  • Options
    #809
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's almost comical how you've just reiterated my point in a vain attempt to refute it.

    What point? It's not clear what your point is. Why did you bother quoting what I wrote?


  • Options
    #810
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    What point? It's not clear what your point is.

    It's philosophical Karl...you wouldn't understand! Philosophies are fashionable and you can discard one in favour of another whenever you wish, just like sweets, my favourite sweet du jour is........fill in the blank, don't write on both sides of the paper at once!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #811
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The failure to recognise and fix an out of control suprematist statelet.

    That's the problem here though. The complete lack of taking responsibility for causing a conflict by trying to preserve privilege and power by use, and threat, of terrorism.
    That doesn't help this family, but the hard fact is that they are being used, Take one look at the list of nearly 500 hundred people who died that year and honestly tell me that this death is somehow exceptional in that sad and tragic litany.

    Oh I'm quite aware that the vast majority of people who wave Jean McC's corpse don't really care about what happened to her and only care about using it to demonise Republicans.
    If Gerry Adams name wasn't connected then it would be forgotten like all the others. Who is looking for, or even talking about the killers of Jill Mansfield or Margaret Grant or Anne Owens or Liz McAuley?

    I try to avoid bringing up the names of those killed by Union/loyalists and the British because I don't want to lower myself to their corpse waving level but I take your point. All they need to do is google 'children killed by British Army Northern Ireland' and select a corpse to wave.
    The only thing that will bring fair and equal closure is a full and honest truth and reconciliation process.

    It's not going to happen. There are far too many people who've had medals pinned on them by Mrs Windsor and who're receiving pensions from the British tax-payer for them to admit their deeds.


Advertisement