Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

No go Francie you raised a specific, point I answered it . When and if SF get ammunition on FF/FG/Lab/ SDLP etc they will use just as ruthlessly .

Fair enough, you don't want to take the whole picture into account.
There seems to me there are plenty of victims of the Irish security forces out there, and I see zero evidence of SF exploiting them, ruthlessly or otherwise. Certainly not on the scale that FF and FG do it with useless results unless you look at the polls.
At least you accept it is being done to keep SF away from power.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's quite wrong actually. Ireland and Britain is almost unique in not dealing with the legacy issues with a Truth recovery process.
SF, having had involvement in the conflict (they have never claimed otherwise) and are treated quite differently to like parties in other democracies that had internal conflicts.
Indeed FF and FG took quite a different approach when they emerged from the conflicts that established the state, their 'dirty linen' was suppressed by mutual agreement.

The reason there is no Truth Process here is because the 2 states have 'dirty linen' to hide. One state with a much more 'potent' laundry basket, mind you.
Tacitly, they have conspired as best they can to suppress what they did.

I have challenged SF supporters elsewhere on this site that we will accept what they say about the "conflict". That means they must answer for the following war crimes:

Kidnap and murder of Jean McConville and other "disappeared" - breach of Geneva Convention

Rape and sexual abuse of women and children (Mairia Cahill and Paudie McGahon) - breach of Geneva Convention

Murders and attacks on Gardai (e.g. McCabe and Fallon) and prison officers (Stack) in the South - attacks on neutral countries.

Punishment beatings - breach of Geneva Convention

If SF/IRA hand over those responsible for the above war crimes, and other similar ones, I for one will be satisfied, because I will never accept under any logic that they should go free.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fair enough, you don't want to take the whole picture into account.
There seems to me there are plenty of victims of the Irish security forces out there, and I see zero evidence of SF exploiting them, ruthlessly or otherwise. Certainly not on the scale that FF and FG do it with useless results unless you look at the polls.
At least you accept it is being done to keep SF away from power.

Not at all , again you are trying to shoehorn stuff into a very specific conversation , I'm just not buying it .

Those who have knowledge of these 'atrocities' cannot complain is they aspire to government if that knowledge is used against them .

No different that bribery/corruption / poor judgement etc etc , used every day of the week by SF against other parties .

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

I have challenged SF supporters elsewhere on this site that we will accept what they say about the "conflict". That means they must answer for the following war crimes:

Kidnap and murder of Jean McConville and other "disappeared" - breach of Geneva Convention

Rape and sexual abuse of women and children (Mairia Cahill and Paudie McGahon) - breach of Geneva Convention

Murders and attacks on Gardai (e.g. McCabe and Fallon) and prison officers (Stack) in the South - attacks on neutral countries.

Punishment beatings - breach of Geneva Convention

If SF/IRA hand over those responsible for the above war crimes, and other similar ones, I for one will be satisfied, because I will never accept under any logic that they should go free.

What's required of the other party's to the conflict?

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all , again you are trying to shoehorn stuff into a very specific conversation , I'm just not buying it .

Those who have knowledge of these 'atrocities' cannot complain is they aspire to government if that knowledge is used against them .

No different that bribery/corruption / poor judgement etc etc , used every day of the week by SF against other parties .

And I have no problem with that.
My problem is with the exploitation of victims and their families. Solely because they fit a cudgel to attack another party. To stop them advancing, as you said.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I have no problem with that.
My problem is with the exploitation of victims and their families. Solely because they fit a cudgel to attack another party. To stop them advancing, as you said.

As SF uses what ever ammunition they have to stop FF/FG/ advancing , that the name of the game Francie .

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

As SF uses what ever ammunition they have to stop FF/FG/ advancing , that the name of the game Francie .

When I see them use victims and then drop them like hot potatoes I will get back to you.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When I see them use victims and then drop them like hot potatoes I will get back to you.

You mean like how GA dropped his niece and all those other young people to protect his brother ? Right you are .

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

You mean like how GA dropped his niece and all those other young people to protect his brother ? Right you are .

Digging a low furrow there. Carry on.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Digging a low furrow there. Carry on.

But that is the absolute truth of the matter , why should he be treated any differently that Daly, O'Fiaich, Comiskey and all those others that covered up child abuse .

The bald facts of the matter is that Gerry Adams covered up for a child abuser.

There are no mitigating factors , he can't even plead ignorance of the paraphilia of paedophilia like some of those others in earlier decades after what the country had just gone through.

Why you consider that a low furrow is what is shocking .

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

But that is the absolute truth of the matter , why should he be treated any differently that Daly, O'Fiaich, Comiskey and all those others that covered up child abuse .

The bald facts of the matter is that Gerry Adams covered up for a child abuser.

There are no mitigating factors , he can't even plead ignorance of the paraphilia of paedophilia like some of those others in earlier decades after what the country had just gone through.

Why you consider that a low furrow is what is shocking .

Because he accepts he got it wrong. that he would do things differently.

You are fully entitled to your opinion of him and are free not to vote for him.

He is elected and has been given a mandate.

I think it is a low blow because this was a difficult family matter.

Had Adams broke the law in any of it, he's fair game.

FrancieBrady

Just a general question related to SF on these legacy issues.

Is it ever right that a politician makes a decision because they believe a greater good is being served?

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you critical at all of the two governments Billy for not finding a better way of dealing with legacy issues arising from the conflict?

*It is what the thread is about and you haven't said.

Is SF dealing with sex abuse cases, informers, kneecappings etc. not part of these legacy issues?

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because he accepts he got it wrong. that he would do things differently.

You are fully entitled to your opinion of him and are free not to vote for him.

He is elected and has been given a mandate.

I think it is a low blow because this was a difficult family matter.

Had Adams broke the law in any of it, he's fair game.

It is not a low blow , need I remind you that most child abuse is perpetrated by family members . And if other family members can't find the courage to do the right thing what hope have the victims got . And we all know how you care about victims

GA is a leader in his community , can you imagine the strength he could have given to others in a similar situation , but he choose the easy way out .

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Is SF dealing with sex abuse cases, informers, kneecappings etc. not part of these legacy issues?

Informers and kneecappings that are politically motivated, I would imagine they would.

I am not sure if sex abuse cases would come under it. That would be a matter for law enforcement as there would be no political aspect.
If an organisation was systemically covering up such cases for political purposes then that would be dealt with.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is right through it. I particularly remember the bit where he talked about his love for his brother, and then the judge had to over rule the prosecutor who was attempting to stop him talking about the easy way out of the problem. That to me was very compelling.
When I read it the thought struck me very strongly, it would have easier on him to just lie. There was no way to prove he was lying anyway.
But he didn't.

Again it is hard to judge with no tone or facial expressions but I got a strong impression of somebody who genuinely couldn't recall all the detail clearly.

Can you not just guess the tone if you need it to form an opinion....?

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

It is not a low blow , need I remind you that most child abuse is perpetrated by family members . And if other family members can't find the courage to do the right thing what hope have the victims got . And we all know how you care about victims

GA is a leader in his community , can you imagine the strength he could have given to others in a similar situation , but he choose the easy way out .

In my opinion it is low. Gerry Adams was not on trial.
He made errors in how he handled a family situation.
If you can't emphatise with that, that is your problem.

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Can you not just guess the tone if you need it to form an opinion....?

'I got the strong impression' is guessing I suppose.

Why do you, who already believes he is pathological liar, think he didn't just 'lie' about a lot of the detail?

As I said, the prosecution couldn't prove if he was or not and he would have made the whole thing easier on himself and preserved the political reputation, you say he was trying to protect?

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In my opinion it is low. Gerry Adams was not on trial.
He made errors in how he handled a family situation.
If you can't emphatise with that, that is your problem.

Again you are making assumptions that are not in my post , I can fully empathise with his situation and with that of the victim , probably a lot more you could possibly realize.

None of those in this country that covered up child abuse have been put on trial , but that in no way exonerates them .

Every single one of your posts on this issue is about GA and a defence of GA , not once have you stopped to think and post about the living hell his niece must have gone through , so if you want to talk about empathy take off the green tinted glasses and think about that one .

On this issue he deserves no more slack that the Bishop of Ferns ,

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

Again you are making assumptions that are not in my post , I can fully empathise with his situation and with that of the victim , probably a lot more you could possibly realize.

None of those in this country that covered up child abuse have been put on trial , but that in no way exonerates them .

Every single one of your posts on this issue is about GA and a defence of GA , not once have you stopped to think and post about the living hell his niece must have gone through , so if you want to talk about empathy take off the green tinted glasses and think about that one .

On this issue he deserves no more slack that the Bishop of Ferns ,

I don't have any issue with that at all.
What I have issue with, is equating it to victim exploitation to make political gain.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have any issue with that at all.
What I have issue with, is equating it to victim exploitation to make political gain.

SF exploit victims for political gain often enough.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

SF exploit victims for political gain often enough.

I see SF taking up victims cases and pursuing them.
Not using them for a wet week to attack another party and then forgetting about them.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

SF exploit victims for political gain often enough.

I see SF taking up victims cases and pursuing them.
Not using them for a wet week to attack another party and then forgetting about them.

You see all this guff from the likes of Enda about victims of abuse and then you see he is party to fighting an abuse victim all the way to the European Court. Has he implemented the recommendations on child protection made in the Louise O'Keefe case yet?
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/louise-o-keeffe-victims-of-abuse-in-national-school-continue-to-be-abused-by-the-state-1.2063254

Whatever you think of how Adams behaved at least he owned up to the errors he made.

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I see SF taking up victims cases and pursuing them.
Not using them for a wet week to attack another party and then forgetting about them.

You see all this guff from the likes of Enda about victims of abuse and then you see he is party to fighting an abuse victim all the way to the European Court. Has he implemented the recommendations on child protection made in the Louise O'Keefe case yet?
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/louise-o-keeffe-victims-of-abuse-in-national-school-continue-to-be-abused-by-the-state-1.2063254

Whatever you think of how Adams behaved at least he owned up to the errors he made.

I don't think anyone here woukd justify the government's stance on challenging victims. It can only be a disgusting experience for them.

Hiwever, don't use that to justify Gerry's abandonment of his niece and his enabling his brother to work with children.
Gerry didn't just own up. He was made to own up in exactly the same way the bishops were!

FrancieBrady

kbannon wrote: »

I don't think anyone here woukd justify the government's stance on challenging victims. It can only be a disgusting experience for them.

Hiwever, don't use that to justify Gerry's abandonment of his niece and his enabling his brother to work with children.
Gerry didn't just own up. He was made to own up in exactly the same way the bishops were!

If you see Adams talking outta the side of his mouth about abuse victims while harassing one all the way to the European court be sure to get on here and tell us about it.

I didn't use Enda to justify what Adams did (I have already criticised him for that) I was merely pointing to more hypocrisy from a government who cherrypick the victims they wish to get outraged about. Victims who fit a certain profile.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Informers and kneecappings that are politically motivated, I would imagine they would.

I am not sure if sex abuse cases would come under it. That would be a matter for law enforcement as there would be no political aspect.
If an organisation was systemically covering up such cases for political purposes then that would be dealt with.

I didn't know kneecappings were policitically motivated. I'd assumed they were because the IRA thought you were being a bold boy and needed to be put back in your box.

There's also no political aspect to the murder of Brian stack either but some posters in this thread are given Shane warne a run for his money with how much spin is being put on this murder by the Ira of Brian stack.

I read the evidence that was posted a few pages back of Gerry Adams at the trial of his brother and the same old phrase popped up "if you could answer the question" less than two pages into it.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you see Adams talking outta the side of his mouth about abuse victims while harassing one all the way to the European court be sure to get on here and tell us about it.

I didn't use Enda to justify what Adams did (I have already criticised him for that) I was merely pointing to more hypocrisy from a government who cherrypick the victims they wish to get outraged about. Victims who fit a certain profile.

Oh stop it for Christ sake. Enda kenny or Michael Martin for that matter didn't bring Austin stack to meet a "trusted confidant" of Gerry Adams in 2013. Why can't ye stop trying to deflect from something that has nothing to do with either the Taoiseach or the FF leader.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you see Adams talking outta the side of his mouth about abuse victims while harassing one all the way to the European court be sure to get on here and tell us about it.

I didn't use Enda to justify what Adams did (I have already criticised him for that) I was merely pointing to more hypocrisy from a government who cherrypick the victims they wish to get outraged about. Victims who fit a certain profile.

This constant whataboutery is just demeaning to everyone at this stage .

Francie you need to get real here , GA protected a paedophile for nearly 10 years and was aware that he was in proximity to children . It really doesn't get much worse than that .

Let others answer for what they did and let GA answer for what he did or didn't do

billy few mates

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I didn't know kneecappings were policitically motivated. I'd assumed they were because the IRA thought you were being a bold boy and needed to be put back in your box.

There's also no political aspect to the murder of Brian stack either but some posters in this thread are given Shane warne a run for his money with how much spin is being put on this murder by the Ira of Brian stack.

I read the evidence that was posted a few pages back of Gerry Adams at the trial of his brother and the same old phrase popped up "if you could answer the question" less than two pages into it.

Yes it was quite compelling, even without the tone....

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I didn't know kneecappings were policitically motivated. I'd assumed they were because the IRA thought you were being a bold boy and needed to be put back in your box.

There's also no political aspect to the murder of Brian stack either but some posters in this thread are given Shane warne a run for his money with how much spin is being put on this murder by the Ira of Brian stack.

I read the evidence that was posted a few pages back of Gerry Adams at the trial of his brother and the same old phrase popped up "if you could answer the question" less than two pages into it.

There is really no point having an argument about what Brian Stack's murder was a part of. The important thing here is that the IRA and SF consider it part of and as a result of the conflict/war. There will be no more info outside of a truth recovery process.
It's now up to the 2 governments to consider if the 'victims' are important enough to find ways of dealing with these issues.

And of course there were politically motivated kneecappings as well as others.