What evidence of Gerry Adams' IRA membership do people need?

Dan_Solo

junder wrote: »

Think I did point that out already, although the contributers actually come from all works of loyalism, but I forgot only republican paramilitarys are allowed an opinion. Still as it happens Danny morrisan has wrote a book review on that site

Who said you weren't allowed an opinion? Thing is you whined about objectivity at the same time. Cringeworthy.
Now, again, is that all you have in the way of "history"?

junder

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Who said you weren't allowed an opinion? Thing is you whined about objectivity at the same time. Cringeworthy.
Now, again, is that all you have in the way of "history"?

I already suggested a book which gives a very insightful look into loyalism, why not try reading it, then get back to me. Since you missed it here it is again
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Northern-Irelands-Lost-Opportunity-Frustrated/dp/0745333095

For those that are actually genuinely interested in northern irish politics the inside long Kesh site is a useful again a useful insight into loyalism, nobody says you have to agree with what's written

Dan_Solo

junder wrote: »

I already suggested a book which gives a very insightful look into loyalism, why not try reading it, then get back to me. Since you missed it here it is again
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Northern-Irelands-Lost-Opportunity-Frustrated/dp/0745333095

For those that are actually genuinely interested in northern irish politics the inside long Kesh site is a useful again a useful insight into loyalism, nobody says you have to agree with what's written

It's useful to know biased people's opinions... thanks so much for that.
So we can therefore assume everything they say is false as no case can be made (even by you it seems) that they are objective.

Crooked Jack

junder wrote: »

Thought I had included the link, you seem to not understand the definition of the term 'objective' so to help you out


objective
əbˈdʒɛktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, non-partisan, disinterested, non-discriminatory, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, clinical
"an interviewer must try to be objective"

Heres the link for

http://www.longkeshinsideout.co.uk/?p=1993&wprptest2=2

Im sure it will be of interest to the more mature and objective individual. You may want to avoid it Crooked Jack as i think you will burst a blood vessel, as it gives things from a loyalist perspective

Wait a sec. I referenced actual historians whereas you linked some story from a UVF website and you're going to lecture me on objectivity?
Y'know what, you dont even need me to respond to this. There's the rope, go do the business yourself.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

I already suggested a book which gives a very insightful look into loyalism, why not try reading it, then get back to me. Since you missed it here it is again
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Northern-Irelands-Lost-Opportunity-Frustrated/dp/0745333095

For those that are actually genuinely interested in northern irish politics the inside long Kesh site is a useful again a useful insight into loyalism, nobody says you have to agree with what's written

You post a book that blames Unionism, the British Government and MI5 for Loyalism's woes?
Interesting. .

junder

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Wait a sec. I referenced actual historians whereas you linked some story from a UVF website and you're going to lecture me on objectivity?
Y'know what, you dont even need me to respond to this. There's the rope, go do the business yourself.

Seems like I gave two well known political commentators O'Doherty and novosel, two for two. The long Kesh site was not really for you, I dont think your mature enough for reasoned debate, I thought it might be of more interest for those that are not so prone to bursts of unseasoned outrage. Your narrative is very easy to understand, if they agree with you they are OK. If they disagree with you, They are anti-republican. If you actually explored the site You will find writings by Billy Mitchell, gusty spence. David ervine, Billy Hutchinson, even as I already mentioned Danny morrisan, who reviews s book by plum smith, go on step out side your comfort zone, stop the petty name calling ( it really is quite on becoming of you) expand your mind alittle and try and seeing things from the other perspective, you never know, you might start feeling alittle less bitter

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

You post a book that blames Unionism, the British Government and MI5 for Loyalism's woes?
Interesting. .

Have you actually read the book?

DarkyHughes

junder wrote: »

I already suggested a book which gives a very insightful look into loyalism, why not try reading it, then get back to me. Since you missed it here it is again
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Northern-Irelands-Lost-Opportunity-Frustrated/dp/0745333095

For those that are actually genuinely interested in northern irish politics the inside long Kesh site is a useful again a useful insight into loyalism, nobody says you have to agree with what's written

If-by-whiskey

Dan_Solo

junder wrote: »

Have you actually read the book?

You've already assured us it is an entirely biased loyalist perspective.
That's OK, we believe you.
Now, why should anybody count that as a historical record?

Crooked Jack

junder wrote: »

Seems like I gave two well known political commentators O'Doherty and novosel, two for two.

No you havent, I mentioned O'Doherty's opinion piece, you came up with some UVF website and a book that the synopsis claims is about the UVF political outlook, not their actions, whatever use that would be in shedding light on what happened during the battle of st matthews.

junder wrote: »

The long Kesh site was not really for you, I dont think your mature enough for reasoned debate, I thought it might be of more interest for those that are not so prone to bursts of unseasoned outrage.

Yes, the person arguing on the side of the vast majority of historical and researched accounts is much less maturethan the guy posting UVF website opinion pieces. Imagine I had come on here arguing my side with only An Phoblacht as my back up, you'd have rightly torn through it.

junder wrote: »

Your narrative is very easy to understand, if they agree with you they are OK. If they disagree with you, They are anti-republican.

My narrative is very easy to understand, if it happened, it happened. I might argue a certain justification for an event that others disagree with but if the overwhelming evidence is that something happened then I can accept that. Your narrative on the other hand seems to be to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it didnt happen at all. I mean, you could try and argue some justification for the loyalist pogroms but no, you just completely delude yourself and make something entirely different up. This seems to be a trait in loyalism going way back. For an early example check the Orange Order website for their recollection of The Battle of the Diamond and then check actual historical accounts. Spoiler: Hilarity ensues.

junder wrote: »

If you actually explored the site You will find writings by Billy Mitchell, gusty spence. David ervine, Billy Hutchinson, even as I already mentioned Danny morrisan, who reviews s book by plum smith, go on step out side your comfort zone, stop the petty name calling

wow, one book review and then a load of loyalist articles, how very balanced.

junder wrote: »

( it really is quite on becoming of you)

Well I certainly wouldnt want to be on becoming, whatever that is

junder wrote: »

expand your mind alittle and try and seeing things from the other perspective, you never know, you might start feeling alittle less bitter

See that's the thing, Im not bitter in the slightest but as a student of Irish history I simply cant let it lie when some one tries to not only revise history but to totally make it up. You might as well say that the famine never happened or that the people on Bloody Sunday were killed in a crossfire. You really do yourself and your cause, whatever that is these days, absolutely no favours.

Jesus.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

check the Orange Order website for their recollection of The Battle of the Diamond and then check actual historical accounts. Spoiler: Hilarity ensues.

It is funny alright. But they're not the only ones that do it. I've a thread on the Pass of the Plumes and got someone to enlarge the memorial image for me and it says "over 500" English troops were killed, which is only taking the info from the Irish (biased) sources. The real number was almost certainly a good deal less than that.

Check out this RTE Docu from the 90's. At the very beginning Brian Dobson claims 39 British soldiers were killed at the Battle of Crossbarry, again only taking the rebel claims into account. The truth in these things is normally somewhere between both sides' versions of events.

Jesus.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Sean Lemmas killed god knows how many people . We've killers in the government right up to the highest places ever since this state was created.

Show me a Government that hasn't

Jesus.

junder wrote: »

Heres the link for http://www.longkeshinsideout.co.uk/?p=1993&wprptest2=2

Jesus Christ Junder. Please tell me you didn't just do that

Someone asks you for an unbiased historic account and you link up a Loyalist Website!

Next we'll have An Phoblacht being quoted as actual history

Crooked Jack

Jesus. wrote: »

It is funny alright. But they're not the only ones that do it. I've a thread on the Pass of the Plumes and got someone to enlarge the memorial image for me and it says "over 500" English troops were killed, which is only taking the info from the Irish (biased) sources. The real number was almost certainly a good deal less than that.

Check out this RTE Docu from the 90's. At the very beginning Brian Dobson claims 39 British soldiers were killed at the Battle of Crossbarry, again only taking the rebel claims into account. The truth in these things is normally somewhere between both sides' versions of events.

Certainly, but im not arguing for one side's propoganda over the others. Im taking up a position based on numerous well researched pieces from independent sources against Godge's UVF website. Anyway, we arent talking about battles from hundreds of years ago here where details get lost in the mists of time, this is a well studied event from 45 years ago

Jesus.

Agreed Jack.

I notice that you're a South Armagh man. Is Wullie the Tazer getting up to any craic these days?

He's a funny wee scut that lad!

junder

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No you havent, I mentioned O'Doherty's opinion piece, you came up with some UVF website and a book that the synopsis claims is about the UVF political outlook, not their actions, whatever use that would be in shedding light on what happened during the battle of st matthews.



Yes, the person arguing on the side of the vast majority of historical and researched accounts is much less maturethan the guy posting UVF website opinion pieces. Imagine I had come on here arguing my side with only An Phoblacht as my back up, you'd have rightly torn through it.



My narrative is very easy to understand, if it happened, it happened. I might argue a certain justification for an event that others disagree with but if the overwhelming evidence is that something happened then I can accept that. Your narrative on the other hand seems to be to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it didnt happen at all. I mean, you could try and argue some justification for the loyalist pogroms but no, you just completely delude yourself and make something entirely different up. This seems to be a trait in loyalism going way back. For an early example check the Orange Order website for their recollection of The Battle of the Diamond and then check actual historical accounts. Spoiler: Hilarity ensues.



wow, one book review and then a load of loyalist articles, how very balanced.



Well I certainly wouldnt want to be on becoming, whatever that is



See that's the thing, Im not bitter in the slightest but as a student of Irish history I simply cant let it lie when some one tries to not only revise history but to totally make it up. You might as well say that the famine never happened or that the people on Bloody Sunday were killed in a crossfire. You really do yourself and your cause, whatever that is these days, absolutely no favours.

So your a student of Irish history then? Surly as a student its important to explore alternative viewpoint from your own, something you seem to have great difficulty with, your only counter argument about O'Doherty point of view, is, he doesn't like republicans, so what if he doesn't, does not invalidate his argument, especially as I would assume he has nothing against Catholic / nationalists on account of him being, well a Catholic / nationalist. Also novosel is not a member of the UVF, nor even from Northern Ireland, he did however choose to study loyalism and its imput into the peace process, which by its nature involved talking to loyalist paramilitarys, so what? Is tim pat coogan invalidated because he wrote a book on the ira?
What you have missed, is at no point did I say my version is the truth and you must believe it, at no point did I say you are wrong, I merely posted some alternative viewpoints, you should pay more attention to what is actually written, as opposed to what you think is written, as a sinn fein supporter I thought that would be obvious. However I digress. It seems a recent HET enquiry had come to conculsion that it was the ira who shot first.

Here is another 'insight' for you, try to be objective and just read it, the actual article was first printed in the Sunday times


http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/Sunday_Times/arts2010/jun13_2_sides_tear_myth_apart__LClarke.php

Incidently here is malachi's actual blog site, sd opposed to just sn article in a newspaper, enjoy
http://malachiodoherty.com

Oh, and your more then welcome to publish whatever you like from An Phoblacht, cant say I will agree with anything thats written in.that paper, but I would have no problem reading it. You know, so I could be objective

Crooked Jack

Jesus. wrote: »

Agreed Jack.

I notice that you're a South Armagh man. Is Wullie the Tazer getting up to any craic these days?

He's a funny wee scut that lad!

Apparently his cancer has magically disappeared and he's holdin a press conference today to try and quell rumours he took a quarter mill off the southern government to call of Love Ulster 2 in Dublin. Wee Wullie Wonka is always good for a laugh

Crooked Jack

junder wrote: »

So your a student of Irish history then? Surly as a student its important to explore alternative viewpoint from your own, something you seem to have great difficulty with, your only counter argument about O'Doherty point of view, is, he doesn't like republicans, so what if he doesn't, does not invalidate his argument, especially as I would assume he has nothing against Catholic / nationalists on account of him being, well a Catholic / nationalist.

Eh? No. My counter argument to O'Doherty was that it's one opinion piece in a paper that goes against the grain of countless well researched history books. The fact he is a known anti-republican only adds to my suspicion but is certainly not the main reason for it. And once again I state I couldnt give a sh!te what religion he is, you seem fixated on this point.

junder wrote: »

Also novosel is not a member of the UVF, nor even from Northern Ireland, he did however choose to study loyalism and its imput into the peace process, which by its nature involved talking to loyalist paramilitarys, so what? Is tim pat coogan invalidated because he wrote a book on the ira?

Never said he was. I read up on the book you posted about and it clearly states it's about loyalist political outlook, not their actions so i questioned what use it was regarding the events of St Matthews when it clearly states that that is not what the book is about.

junder wrote: »

What you have missed, is at no point did I say my version is the truth and you must believe it, at no point did I say you are wrong,

Because it isnt and Im not

junder wrote: »

I merely posted some alternative viewpoints, you should pay more attention to what is actually written, as opposed to what you think is written, as a sinn fein supporter I thought that would be obvious.

What is the point in us being here if were just gonna throw out any old "viewpoint" that's not backed up in any way. my Da says that he was there and that the RA beat the loyalists back with pillows and then made them tea. There's an alternative "viewpoint". Is it as legitimate as all the other publications backed up with evidence?

junder wrote: »

However I digress. It seems a recent HET enquiry had come to conculsion that it was the ira who shot first.

Sure i said the IRA shot first. Loyalists came to burn th eplace to the ground and they fired numerous warning shots. That was never in dispute. If they were coming to burn my house down I wouldnt have given them that luxury. Total red herring of an argument.

junder wrote: »

Here is another 'insight' for you, try to be objective and just read it, the actual article was first printed in the Sunday times

http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/Sunday_Times/arts2010/jun13_2_sides_tear_myth_apart__LClarke.php

Incidently here is malachi's actual blog site, sd opposed to just sn article in a newspaper, enjoy
http://malachiodoherty.com

I've read all this before, again, where is the evidence. We've got the word of a loyalist forum, the only catholic allowed on it being Robert McCartney's sister who must have been God knows what age when this went down and more O'Doherty opinion pieces.

junder wrote: »

Oh, and your more then welcome to publish whatever you like from An Phoblacht, cant say I will agree with anything thats written in.that paper, but I would have no problem reading it. You know, so I could be objective

like I said, Im not here to post propoganda

DarkyHughes

junder wrote: »

An alternative view of the so called battle of Saint matthew's



De-Bunking the Myth of the Battle of St. Matthews.



Saturday 27th and Sunday 28th of June 1970 will live long in the memory of those who were witness to the horrific events that unfolded that weekend. Of the two people and many others who were injured by the indiscriminate gunfire their families pain has been exacerbated in the intervening years as they have had to endure the ignominy of the perpetuated untruth that somehow this incident was some sort of glorious battle honour by the Short Strand IRA, and that their sectarian murderous attacks were in actual fact heroic defending of a ghetto under siege. So much so that an erroneous moniker of “The Battle of Saint Matthews” was bestowed upon it. However all right thinking citizens are well aware of the FACTS surrounding that day’s events and can quite easily debunk this theoretical falsehood.
Almost one year after the onset of “The Troubles” the Republican movement and the Belfast IRA in particular were in disarray. In July and August of 1969 they, as a grouping had done little—in the eyes of the Catholic population in working class areas—to defend those communities from the “Loyalist hordes “. The acronym now read I Ran Away. Behind the scenes an idealistic shift was also taking place—a shift that would eventually –and inevitably lead to fractions within the movement, culminating in feuds and counter feuds. The new hardliners—although many were seasoned veterans of the organisation–were making their presence felt. Individuals like Francis Card—Billy McKee—Joe Cahill-Seamus Twomey and Leo Martin. McKee, as the Belfast Brigade commander knew that in order to make a statement and win back the affections of the disillusioned Catholic inhabitants he needed a victory—something that would announce the arrival of the new Provisional movement.
The annual Whiterock parade took place on the last Saturday in June each year and until then had moved from the West Belfast Orange Hall on the Shankill to the Whiterock Orange Hall on the Springfield Road and back again….without incident. June 1970 was to become a watershed in that particular event. There were orchestrated attacks on the parade at various intervals along the route and heavy fighting ensued leaving many bandsmen and marchers injured. News of the attacks quickly spread throughout Belfast and rumours abounded in the East of the City that in fact there had been a couple of fatalities. Luckily the rumours proved to be unfounded but it would only be a matter of hours before events would take a turn for the worse.
In the late afternoon on the 27th June Gertrude Star was one of those bands returning from the Whiterock Parade along the Newtownards Road. On passing Seaforde Street the band and a small group of followers were attacked—viciously and without warning –by a large number of Nationalist residents. This was the precursor for the more premeditated and brutal affront later in the evening. Almost a softening up. A trap had been laid by the IRA to entice the Protestants of the Lower Newtownards Road to respond to the provocation—to draw them in—and walk them straight into a deadly snare. From tea time until pub closing time—in those days 10:00 pm—an uneasy peace ensued—tensions were electric—crowds of locals gathered at various points along the main Newtownards Road and in the side streets off it. What they didn’t know at this time was that in the streets off Seaforde Street—Arran street in particular—Billy McKee had formed the Belfast Brigade of the IRA up and was openly parading his men complete with an array of weapons. Fortuitously—or coincidentally for the Nationalists in the Short Strand Belfast was awash with many IRA men this particular day. They had travelled from far and wide to bury the recently deceased Hughie McAteer—an IRA ex Chief of Staff and some sort of Republican hero. It is likely that McKee and his cohorts seized upon this opportunity to launch their fiendish attack on the innocent population of the Lower Newtownards Road.
Around the time that Gertude Star was returning from the Whiterock Parade along the Newtownards Road, all hell was breaking loose on the other side of town. Republicans—again as part of a premeditated plan—had attacked the main parade with gunfire leaving 4 Protestant men dead or dying from their wounds. Danny Loughins, Sandy Gould and Billy Kincaid died as a result of gunfire coming from Ardoyne while Tommy Reid would subsequently pass away a week later from injuries he received when he was struck by a brick or piece of metal at Mayo Street on the Springfield Road.
As darkness fell and tensions rose the spark that ignited the flames occurred. On a pre arranged signal a youth emerged from the shadows of Seaforde Street waving a tricolour. As expected many of the Protestant crowd surged towards the provocateur. Immediately a lone IRA man stepped forward—crouched down on one knee into a firing position and unleashed a volley of shots from a pistol in the direction of the crowd. Mayhem and panic ensued. After the initial salvo of shots a barrage of heavy gunfire followed forcing the Protestants to dive for cover in the little side streets. The reaction was one of sheer panic. Sure there had been incidents before this and indeed you only had to go back a year to recall the first days of the Troubles the previous August when sectarian strife was on a high. But to be targeted totally indiscriminately and in a deliberate fashion by gunfire—much of it from high calibre weapons was a new departure for the beleaguered residents.
Unlike their Catholic counterparts the locals on the Newtownards Road had not been preparing for such an attack and when it came it left them vulnerable and exposed with very little means of defence. Hastily some of those who were present issued an appeal to provide arms to protect the streets. In a short space of time a small stockpile was amassed. This amounted to a paltry number of weapons—A Steyr rifle—an old Martini Henry—a Lee Enfield rifle and a couple of hand guns—some dating back to the previous century—but in the face of the fusillade now being directed from the supposed sanctuary of St. Matthews Roman Catholic Church it amounted to little by way of defence. The gunfire was intense. It was almost impossible for those pinned down to move. The Chapel—particularly the high vantage points—offered a commanding views of the facing streets—Frazer—Roxburgh—Wolff—Josephine—and the gunmen fired at will. Any counter attack from the loyalist side paled in comparison but there were many brave souls that night who stood up to the enormous task. Only for their returning fire—with a pathetically low number of rounds—certainly saved further casualties and dare say it, fatalities.
The onslaught continued into the early hours of the morning. Republicans claimed the IRA fired over 800 rounds that night but in the Loyalist estimation that figure falls far short of the actual number. At some point during the fray the Army returned fire but didn’t become engaged in a gun battle as many claim. The IRA was allowed to continue their assault until first light was breaking through. By then two innocent local men lay dead and a total of twenty eight lay wounded—men—women and children. All of those killed or wounded can be described as innocent because they were going about their normal business—walking home from a night out—visiting friends and relatives to make sure they were safe—or simply standing outside their own terraced houses.
Jimmy McCurrie was a family man—45 years old with four children and a wife who was pregnant. He lived at Ardilaun Street—a small terraced street that cut across Frazer Street. He had been out that afternoon for a few drinks with his usual crowd of friends. Scotch Row pub was one of his favourite watering holes and he spent some time there before going home for his dinner. He went back to Scotch Row that night before heading up to the Buffs Club on the Albertbridge Road to once again meet his friends. At closing time the group decided to return to Jimmy’s house and as they usually did cut down Beechfield Street as a short cut. The streets were unusually deserted as the friends made their way home. At the corner of Beechfield Street and Bryson Street a volley of shots rang out…from Kilmood Street–directed at the group. Jimmy McCurrie fell to the ground—mortally wounded. A post mortem would reveal that Jimmy had been continually targeted after the initial shot had felled him. Jimmy was carried to a house in Thistle Street in the hope of administering first aid—but to no avail.


Bobby Neill pictured at a sisters wedding–far left in photo…



Bobby Neill was a local man—he was a single man who lived at this time in Central Street. He had worked in various places during his adult life and at this time was employed in the Irish Bonding. On this particular Saturday Bobby, who was 43 years old had spent much of the afternoon with his friends frequenting local bars, including McMahon’s—a Catholic owned bar in which both Protestants and Catholics drank. As people did in those days—Ginger—as he was called—went home around tea time. By the time the worst of the gunfire was taking place Bobby was lying down sleeping. The noise awoke him and he walked to the top of the street to see what was going on. Moments later Bobby was shot—a single round through the back—fired, it later transpired from the Chapel grounds—a gaping hole in his front. He died shortly afterwards on admittance to Dundonald Hospital.
That night, the Belfast IRA achieved what they set out and carefully planned to do. They had gained their “spectacular” and set about weaving a web of deceit and lies that would bolster their claims over the next forty years that these were the actions of a community under siege. Succinctly—they invented the battle of St. Matthews. There was no battle. What there was-was a wanton and premeditated attack on a community whose crime that day was to be Protestants celebrating their culture—just as they always had in the preceding years. To keep this myth alive they even invented stories around the fatality that occurred within the “haven” of St. Matthews that fateful night. Henry McIlhone was shot dead—of that there is no doubt. He can hardly be described as an innocent victim as he was reputed to be the gunman who came out of Seaforde Street earlier to fire the first shots and was part of the squad who attacked Protestants from the Church Grounds. First stories indicated that he was killed by Loyalist Marauders—His name was bestowed upon a plaque of IRA men in a roll of remembrance. It was subsequently removed at the behest of the dead man’s family who claimed he had no affiliation with the IRA. In more recent times evidence has emerged that suggests he was indeed shot dead accidentally during the offensive by a cohort within the Chapel grounds—his assailant may well have been Dennis Donaldson—who went on to have a long and “distinguished” IRA career before he was outed as a long time informer and later shot dead at a remote location in Donegal.
In the intervening years since those tragic days of June 1970 we have become very used to the re writing of history by the Republican section of the community. There are many reasons for this—to keep the notion alive that they were justified in what they were doing—to paint us as the baddies during the conflict. This nefarious tactic can only succeed if we as a community buy into it and accept what they say. However if we challenge them at every turn and can unmask them as the evil machine they were we will, in turn be writing the truthful versions of events. To do otherwise would sully the memories of those innocent men who died that night.

Billy Joe

Lol, That looks like it was written by Michael Stone.

Jesus.

I see the most Reverend William McCrea MP called for whole towns on both sides of the border to be bombed back in the 80's.

I taught these dozy followers of mine to love their neighbour for fukk's sake!

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/state-papers-dup-mp-william-mccrea-wanted-air-strikes-launched-on-the-republic-in-the-1980s-30867020.html

Crooked Jack

Jesus. wrote: »

I see the most Reverend William McCrea MP called for whole towns on both sides of the border to be bombed back in the 80's.

I taught these dozy followers of mine to love their neighbour for fukk's sake!

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/state-papers-dup-mp-william-mccrea-wanted-air-strikes-launched-on-the-republic-in-the-1980s-30867020.html

Unionist politicians tend to subscribe to their own brand of "christianity"

DarkyHughes

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Unionist politicians tend to subscribe to their own brand of "christianity"

Plus back in 80's Unionists didn't have to share power & did everything they could to wreck the Anglo-Irish agreement. They were forced to share power by Blair (the DUP) or else Britain would draw out of Ireland.

It's hard to reflect now that when internment was introduced 7000 Catholics were left homeless & most went to refugee camps to the Republic & another 17 were killed (11 in Ballymurphy & 6 else where). Unionists MP's must have been delighted with that, they probably weren't to happy tho when the IRA bombed Stormont away a few month later .

MakeEmLaugh

OP here.

Evidence of Gerry Adams’ membership of the IRA won’t go away. Next week’s issue of The New Yorker will carry a lengthy (15,000 word) article about the abduction and murder of Jean McConville, and the former IRA members who say Gerry Adams ordered that act. Jean McConville’s children – who witnessed her abudction – feature heavily.

The article is already available online. You can read it here.

Happyman42

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

OP here.

Evidence of Gerry Adams’ membership of the IRA won’t go away. Next week’s issue of The New Yorker will carry a lengthy (15,000 word) article about the abduction and murder of Jean McConville, and the former IRA members who say Gerry Adams ordered that act. Jean McConville’s children – who witnessed her abudction – feature heavily.

The article is already available online. You can read it here.

Murrica repeats the same old story. Are we gonna be invaded? :eek:

maccored

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

OP here.

Evidence of Gerry Adams’ membership of the IRA won’t go away. Next week’s issue of The New Yorker will carry a lengthy (15,000 word) article about the abduction and murder of Jean McConville, and the former IRA members who say Gerry Adams ordered that act. Jean McConville’s children – who witnessed her abudction – feature heavily.

The article is already available online. You can read it here.

same old info and the former ira members all are anti GFA etc etc, and therefore anti SF. All I want is some proof for a change - theres enough gossip to keep the biggest bingo hall in the land happy.

MakeEmLaugh

maccored wrote: »

same old info and the former ira members all are anti GFA etc etc, and therefore anti SF. All I want is some proof for a change - theres enough gossip to keep the biggest bingo hall in the land happy.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Anyone at this stage who asks for evidence of Adams' IRA membership is one of either two things

(1) Obstinate, and refusing to admit that they believe Adams was a member of the IRA because they are glad he got away with it.
(2) Genuinely unintelligent.

We have photographic evidence, as well as testimonial evidence.

What more do you need?

We don't have any evidence that Jimmy Savile had non-consensual sex with underage girls, other than testimonial. Do you regard him as innocent until proven guilty as well?

Godge

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

We have photographic evidence, as well as testimonial evidence.

What more do you need?

We don't have any evidence that Jimmy Savile had non-consensual sex with underage girls, other than testimonial. Do you regard him as innocent until proven guilty as well?

Of course they do. They don't have double standards. In their eyes, that man was never convicted of anything.

Happyman42

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

We have photographic evidence, as well as testimonial evidence.

Which court was this presented and cross examined in again?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which court was this presented and cross examined in again?

The same court that Jimmy Saville was convicted in.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

The same court that Jimmy Saville was convicted in.

The court where if enough people say something then it is so?