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…34689…40

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Who killed her, why was she killed and where was she buried.

    I don't care how high up the moral high ground you want to climb and I am also not saying that it is correct, but you simply won't get that information when only one side is expected to tell the truth.
    It beggars belief that there are those who expect it too. What version of reality are they living in?


  • Options
    #153
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    I'm still waiting an answer to this:
    maccored wrote: »
    Oh ive read the thread - why are you asking me though?

    and an explanation of what you are insinuating here with thie:
    twowheelsgood wrote:
    Of course this is all predicated on the assumption that those that defend the IRA actually do believe their own stories …..

    Trying to throw muck are we?


  • Options
    #154
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I don't care how high up the moral high ground you want to climb and I am also not saying that it is correct, but you simply won't get that information when only one side is expected to tell the truth.
    It beggars belief that there are those who expect it too. What version of reality are they living in?

    The moral high ground is a precarious place to be, for example, any high profile politicians who are vocal about a truth and reconciliation process (whilst safe in the knowledge it isn't going to happen in his lifetime) has to expect to be called out, regularly.

    If SF/IRA really want the truth to come out, they could start by telling the truth on all the disappeared. Although that would probably highlight the criminal activities of a particular "good republican" who still seems to hold a particular amount of sway in the organisation.


  • Options
    #155
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The moral high ground is a precarious place to be, for example, any high profile politicians who are vocal about a truth and reconciliation process (whilst safe in the knowledge it isn't going to happen in his lifetime) has to expect to be called out, regularly.

    Again you don't seem to live in anything resembling a real world. Why not call these 'high profile vocal politicians' bluff, WHY NOT criticise those who aren't 'vocal' and who won't agree to a T&R commission.
    If SF/IRA really want the truth to come out, they could start by telling the truth on all the disappeared. Although that would probably highlight the criminal activities of a particular "good republican" who still seems to hold a particular amount of sway in the organisation.

    Again, you fantasize. In the absence of the truth from all sides the reality is going to be; 'catch me if you can' or if you believe there are cases to answer...prove it. That unfortunately is life.


  • Options
    #156
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    this phantom 'SF/IRA' thing seems to be alive and well, whatever it is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The motivation for doing that is important. If she was indeed giving sensitive information that endangered others then unfortunately that has to be taken into account, just as we must take into account how other armies and governments have dealt with informers throughout history.

    So the full truth of what happened and ALL the available info has to be offered before anybody can pronounce a judgement.
    For all we know she may have been sacrificed by the British for more valuable intel.

    The IRA was not an army or a government.

    Even if they were, the argument that they are only doing as other bad people did does not make that an excuse for torture and killing.


  • Options
    #158
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    The IRA was not an army

    The fact is, or again, the reality is, that they saw themselves as an army at war.
    Doesn't really matter what you think.


  • Options
    #159
    holyhead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭holyhead


    If the IRA felt it was a war then it takes two sides to fight a war. Therefore by logical extention loyalists and forces for the Crown were on the other side. Extending the logic then does that excuse what happened on Bloody Sunday where Crown forces thought marchers were armed but still they were operating in a war situation. Just as the IRA presumably justified Jean McConville's killing on the basis she was a tout and that the moral compass doesn't operate in war?


  • Options
    #160
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The fact is, or again, the reality is, that they saw themselves as an army at war.
    Doesn't really matter what you think.

    It is not a fact if someone sees themselves as something, it is their opinion.

    I could see myself as a reasonable poster on boards who continually rubbishes silly IRA propaganda but that doesn't make any of that true or a fact.

    So it doesn't matter what the IRA saw themselves as, the fact is they did not meet any reasonable definition of an army or a government.


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I don't care how high up the moral high ground you want to climb and I am also not saying that it is correct, but you simply won't get that information when only one side is expected to tell the truth.
    It beggars belief that there are those who expect it too. What version of reality are they living in?


    Let us be clear, we know that government papers will eventually come out and reveal the truth, even if it takes until 2059, we have seen that with many other government papers.

    However, there is absolutely no evidence that the SF/IRA axis will ever tell the truth or come clean or produce papers on anything. They have had the opportunity to do so with the McConville case and they have failed miserably.

    Godge wrote: »
    Many of us do treat the atrocities on both sides with equal revulsion.

    There is absolutely no way that I will vote for a British Army representative in any election down South.
    There is absolutely no way that I will vote for a Sinn Fein representative in any election down South.

    Just because one is more likely to stand in an election doesn't mean I wouldn't treat them the same in the ballot box.

    As you are calling on people to treat both sides equally why don't you take the chance to endorse my previous post and agree to treat both sides equally in the ballot box.


  • Options
    #161
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    holyhead wrote: »
    If the IRA felt it was a war then it takes two sides to fight a war. Therefore by logical extention loyalists and forces for the Crown were on the other side. Extending the logic then does that excuse what happened on Bloody Sunday where Crown forces thought marchers were armed but still they were operating in a war situation. Just as the IRA presumably justified Jean McConville's killing on the basis she was a tout and that the moral compass doesn't operate in war?

    This is one of the many logic gaps in the IRA was great argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    holyhead wrote: »
    If the IRA felt it was a war then it takes two sides to fight a war. Therefore by logical extention loyalists and forces for the Crown were on the other side. Extending the logic then does that excuse what happened on Bloody Sunday where Crown forces thought marchers were armed but still they were operating in a war situation. Just as the IRA presumably justified Jean McConville's killing on the basis she was a tout and that the moral compass doesn't operate in war?

    It would if the other side admitted there was a war. They wont - though they had no problem sending in the SAS for various covert operations.


  • Options
    #163
    holyhead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭holyhead


    Doesn't it take two countries to be at war. Official Ireland wasn't at war with Britain so Britain logically couldn't come out and declare war against Ireland. It was essentially a private army which waged war against Crown forces and loyalists.


  • Options
    #164
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    maccored wrote: »
    this phantom 'SF/IRA' thing seems to be alive and well, whatever it is.

    Are they not connected then?are there not SF politicians who would rather keep their IRA activities quiet?


  • Options
    #165
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Are they not connected then?are there not SF politicians who would rather keep their IRA activities quiet?

    I always thought the PIRA had disbanded and the current version of the IRA didnt agree with the SF view. Am I incorrect?


  • Options
    #166
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    holyhead wrote: »
    Doesn't it take two countries to be at war. Official Ireland wasn't at war with Britain so Britain logically couldn't come out and declare war against Ireland. It was essentially a private army which waged war against Crown forces and loyalists.

    1. War
    a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.


  • Options
    #167
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    It is not a fact if someone sees themselves as something, it is their opinion.

    I could see myself as a reasonable poster on boards who continually rubbishes silly IRA propaganda but that doesn't make any of that true or a fact.

    So it doesn't matter what the IRA saw themselves as, the fact is they did not meet any reasonable definition of an army or a government.

    Which, despite the eloquence, means diddly squat, if they believe themselves to have been and behaved as an army then that is that. Nothing you or I can do will change that.
    That old thing called 'reality' again.




    Let us be clear, we know that government papers will eventually come out and reveal the truth, even if it takes until 2059, we have seen that with many other government papers.

    However, there is absolutely no evidence that the SF/IRA axis will ever tell the truth or come clean or produce papers on anything. They have had the opportunity to do so with the McConville case and they have failed miserably.
    As long as living people are affected you will never get one sided disclosure.
    That is the 'reality' again.



    As you are calling on people to treat both sides equally why don't you take the chance to endorse my previous post and agree to treat both sides equally in the ballot box.

    I am not calling on anybody to 'treat' both sides equally. The 'reality' (that old word again!) is that people will always have a side.
    What I am calling for is both sides to agree to a properly structured commission to discover the truth, because the REALITY is that that is the only way to proper and lasting reconciliation.
    No side is going to offer that on it's own.....that is living in ...eh, what's the word??...eh...eh....guess!


  • Options
    #168
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    maccored wrote: »
    I clearly outlined and answered your question regarding this. I obviously wasted my time. then again, ignore the answers you dont like, eh?
    You will notice I asked “why is it such a bug bear for republicans “ ... not "why is it such a bug bear for you …”

    This is an open forum, not a PM exchange.

    And similarly for your subsequent posts.

    There are some republicans, the majority I would say, who regard the Nelson and Finucane murders as greater atrocities than the McConville one.

    There are some republicans, the majority I would say, who defend the IRA. Failure to acknowledge the McConville murder amounts to doing exactly this.

    And there are some republicans, confused ones I would say, who think that suggesting Adams was in the IRA constitutes a slur on his reputation.


  • Options
    #169
    holyhead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭holyhead


    maccored wrote: »
    1. War
    a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.

    Surely within a country would be by definition civil war and generally the conflict in the North was not described as such. Who gave the IRA a mandate to start and continue this war. SDLP were until more peaceful times the main political party on the Republican side. It was only when Sinn Fein embraced the path of peace, at least superficially anyway, that they overtook the SDLP in political circles.

    The IRA killed Colin Ball and Tim Parry, apparently in my name and the name of millions of Irish people. I'm not happy about that.


  • Options
    #170
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    So basically once again you ask me things that dont reflect anything I have said or any position I have made. Makes me wonder why you do that. Maybe its to avoid answering any questions I put your way.
    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    You will notice I asked “why is it such a bug bear for republicans “ ... not "why is it such a bug bear for you …”

    This is an open forum, not a PM exchange.

    And similarly for your subsequent posts.

    There are some republicans, the majority I would say, who regard the Nelson and Finucane murders as greater atrocities than the McConville one.

    There are some republicans, the majority I would say, who defend the IRA. Failure to acknowledge the McConville murder amounts to doing exactly this.

    And there are some republicans, confused ones I would say, who think that suggesting Adams was in the IRA constitutes a slur on his reputation.


  • Options
    #171
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Theres plenty of people who were killed and plenty or people who werent and arent happy. You cant re-write history by being pedantic about it. Besides, people here in the south of Ireland didnt actually get touched by much of what was going on. The IRA had a mandate from the people they represented which was mainly in the north.

    holyhead wrote: »
    Surely within a country would be by definition civil war and generally the conflict in the North was not described as such. Who gave the IRA a mandate to start and continue this war. SDLP were until more peaceful times the main political party on the Republican side. It was only when Sinn Fein embraced the path of peace, at least superficially anyway, that they overtook the SDLP in political circles.

    The IRA killed Colin Ball and Tim Parry, apparently in my name and the name of millions of Irish people. I'm not happy about that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    holyhead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭holyhead


    Getting back to the central issue of this man's arrest. Until Gerry Adams honestly places his cards on the table regarding the murder of Ms McConville his gravitas and sincerity will always be questioned in the Republic.


  • Options
    #173
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    if they believe themselves to have been and behaved as an army then that is that. Nothing you or I can do will change that.
    By this reasoning the loyalists organisations were soldiers fighting a war? Well, I never! And I always thought some of them were psychotic thugs?

    And don't some mafiosi types like to think of themselves as soldiers of sorts?

    The human capacity for rationalization is pretty impressive!

    The question that should be asked of course is not what these groups themselves thought, it is whether or not they had legitimacy.

    Waging a war for a united Ireland when the majority of Irish people did not want this brought about by violent means does not a legitimate army make.


  • Options
    #174
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    maccored wrote: »
    So basically once again you ask me things that dont reflect anything I have said or any position I have made.
    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    You will notice I asked “why is it such a bug bear for republicans “ ... not "why is it such a bug bear for you …


    ?????


  • Options
    #175
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    I fail to see how arresting Ivor Bell is going to do anything, considering the information collected by the Boston college is no good in court. Yes it would be fantastic to get the truth, but I cant see how they're going to get it this way.

    As for Adams - the only thing people want to hear is him saying he was responsible. Regardless of if he was or not.
    holyhead wrote: »
    Getting back to the central issue of this man's arrest. Until Gerry Adams honestly places his cards on the table regarding the murder of Ms McConville his gravitas and sincerity will always be questioned in the Republic.


  • Options
    #176
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    You shouldn't have bothered posting the remark at me then surely considering I already explained my pov? more whataboutery.
    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    ?????


  • Options
    #177
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    holyhead wrote: »
    Getting back to the central issue of this man's arrest. Until Gerry Adams honestly places his cards on the table regarding the murder of Ms McConville his gravitas and sincerity will always be questioned in the Republic.

    He has, once again offered himself for questioning on the matter if the need arises. In the light of today's events, could you see another politician in the Republic doing that? Are you sure you understand 'gravitas' and 'sincerity'?


  • Options
    #178
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    By this reasoning the loyalists organisations were soldiers fighting a war? Well, I never! And I always thought some of them were psychotic thugs?

    And don't some mafiosi types like to think of themselves as soldiers of sorts?

    The human capacity for rationalization is pretty impressive!

    The question that should be asked of course is not what these groups themselves thought, it is whether or not they had legitimacy.

    Waging a war for a united Ireland when the majority of Irish people did not want this brought about by violent means does not a legitimate army make.

    Which is once again, ignoring the realities in order to climb onto the high moral ground.


  • Options
    #179
    holyhead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭holyhead


    maccored wrote: »
    Theres plenty of people who were killed and plenty or people who werent and arent happy. You cant re-write history by being pedantic about it. Besides, people here in the south of Ireland didnt actually get touched by much of what was going on. The IRA had a mandate from the people they represented which was mainly in the north.

    It is true that the IRA tapped into a well of discontent at Catholics being treated as second class citizens in N.I. as well as a desire for a united Ireland. They had no official policital mandate and indeed as I say until Sinn Fein embraced peace the SDLP were the dominant political force on the Republican side.

    Yes most Irish people wanted/want a 32 county Ireland but not by violent means.


  • Options
    #180
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,661 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    We have no way of changing what happened, and it happened the way it did without - i believe - any kind of master plan. When people are treated in the way they were, violence is normally the result. Too late now to try and argue or change it.
    holyhead wrote: »
    It is true that the IRA tapped into a well of discontent at Catholics being treated as second class citizens in N.I. as well as a desire for a united Ireland. They had no official policital mandate and indeed as I say until Sinn Fein embraced peace the SDLP were the dominant political force on the Republican side.

    Yes most Irish people wanted/want a 32 county Ireland but not by violent means.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    holyhead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭holyhead


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    He has, once again offered himself for questioning on the matter if the need arises. In the light of today's events, could you see another politician in the Republic doing that? Are you sure you understand 'gravitas' and 'sincerity'?

    Yes happyman I am highly educated and well versed in the english language. Nobody will take Gerry Adams seriously as long as he continues to deny he was in the IRA and as long as he continues to deny having any hand act or part in Ms McConville's disappearance. It is Gerry who is insulting the intelligence of his fellow Irishman.


Advertisement