Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

You are missing the point Francie , YOU don't know what might have happened . And you are favouring the agguments you support . The fact is you just don't know.

That is the point of counter factual history - it is fantasy .


So lets try and deal with what actually happened shall we , more productive all round . The road less travelled and all that

I did mention what actually happened in all my posts on this.

*'I favour the arguments I support'? Is that not how it should be?

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And what would he have done sending the Irish army over the border ?

At the very least he would not have created a vacuum that was filled by the IRA.
And it would have been an issue between two elected governments.
Which it eventually became anyway after nearly 4000 deaths, countless injuries and thousands of traumatised families just one of which is the subject of this thread.

Hindsight is a great thing, but many were aware of what could potentially happen, it should have been no huge surprise that the lid would come off, we had history to guide us.
I find it hard to forgive them for doing nothing. I will never forgive them for eventually taking the British side because they foresaw the possibility that their power base would be eroded (exactly why Enda and Michael are exploiting these families) that was ALSO something Jack Lynch was acutely aware of.
Read the transcript of the phone call between Jack Lynch and Edward Heath just after Bloody Sunday and you can see what his primary concern was. His power.

Read the papers of the time and what you will see is a government considering all sorts of radical reactions to attempt to pressure Britain to do something. You will see Jack Lynch, almost simpering in his meetings and conversations with Heath, his entire almost apologetic reasoning was that he was 'coming under pressure from others' and he was appealing to Heath to help relieve that pressure.
What happened is, nothing effective was done. They dithered all through 1971 about bringing Britain before the ECHR for human rights abuses during internment, and while they eventually won the case in 1978 (the men at the centre of that case are still trying to get it re-opened as there are strong allegations not to mention proof that the British withheld crucial information) it was too little too late, they failed to bring any pressure to bear on an arrogant Heath led Britain (despite having been given advice on how to do that by the man who helped draft the European Human Rights Charter - Sean McBride and others) whose soldiers in the next few months would open fire on a civil rights protest in Derry.
Effectively the Irish government maneuvered themselves out of any effective role and then adopted a policy of effectively assisting the British to continue to suppress civil and human rights for decades.

billy few mates

Had to laugh at this one, with all the ignominy and fall out from this whole episode, Adams shows his complete misunderstanding and disdain of the situation by asking that the Dail record be amended to clarify the fact that he wasn't actually 'driving' the blacked-out van as he was just a passenger in it....:D

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/kenny-adams-didnt-drive-blackedout-van-but-he-did-travel-in-it-35295991.html


Almost as classy as the Dessie Ellis outburst in the Dail explaining how he couldn't have been involved in the murder of a prison officer because "I was in jail at the time..."

billy few mates

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Posts by and response to rereg troll deleted.

Glad to see admin move swiftly on the troll, I had him identified in his first five or six posts, the next twenty odd merely confirmed it. It was like a flashback to an earlier time on here when another (since departed) troll went as far as creating an imaginary friend whose sole purpose was to agree with him on a thread he'd started but was rapidly losing control of direction on. Thankfully in that episode the imaginary friend (BonesDeeny) was also identified and banned.
Good to see this one was nailed quickly, sad to see the person behind it is still amongst us.

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Had to laugh at this one, with all the ignominy and fall out from this whole episode, Adams shows his complete misunderstanding and disdain of the situation by asking that the Dail record be amended to clarify the fact that he wasn't actually 'driving' the blacked-out van as he was just a passenger in it....:D

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/kenny-adams-didnt-drive-blackedout-van-but-he-did-travel-in-it-35295991.html


Almost as classy as the Dessie Ellis outburst in the Dail explaining how he couldn't have been involved in the murder of a prison officer because "I was in jail at the time..."

How is it showing 'disdain'?
The Taoiseach told a porky and he got it corrected. We all know how these details can come back to bite you.

Jawgap

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And what would he have done sending the Irish army over the border ?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

At the very least he would not have created a vacuum that was filled by the IRA.
........

....a seriously out of touch and startling naive response that completely ignores the international political situation at the time and represents ignorance of the military realities.......

......again, consider what the outcome would likely have been of sending light infantry, mostly in buses, to fight in urban and rural terrain eminently suited to defence against a well resourced, experienced and equipped enemy.....as Clausewitz said defence is the superior form of warfare.....and that's why you need at least a 3:1 superiority of numbers to dislodge a defending force.

I don't doubt that the troops would have fought ferociously and courageously, but you'd have been sending in lambs to the slaughter, bearing in mind the resources and experience of the troops the Brits then had in NI - two battalions just off Northern Flank and three decades of fighting insurgencies and small wars during their 'retreat from empire east of Suez.'

The likely outcome would have been the Irish army being surrounded in Newry then pounded into surrender, while the RN blockaded our ports (they still had 5 carrier groups at the time) and the RAF our airspace. Politically we'd have been isolated for decades and we'd never have been accepted for EEC membership.

.....And if you think the international community would have cared, guess again. The US wouldn't have taken sides with us against another NATO member, and the one responsible for securing the GIUK gap, and where the US went the rest of Europe would have followed.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How is it showing 'disdain'?
The Taoiseach told a porky and he got it corrected. We all know how these details can come back to bite you.

It's all in the detail, if any other political figure in any other western civilised democracy we're within ten miles of a 'blacked out' van in a situation like this they'd be finished politically, Gerry just wants it clarified that technically 'he wasn't actually driving the van.... :rolleyes:

Probably so some minion in SF on the average industrial wage can claim the mileage for it....:D

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

....a seriously out of touch and startling naive response that completely ignores the international political situation at the time and represents ignorance of the military realities.......

......again, consider what the outcome would likely have been of sending light infantry, mostly in buses, to fight in urban and rural terrain eminently suited to defence against a well resourced, experienced and equipped enemy.....as Clausewitz said defence is the superior form of warfare.....and that's why you need at least a 3:1 superiority of numbers to dislodge a defending force.

I don't doubt that the troops would have fought ferociously and courageously, but you'd have been sending in lambs to the slaughter, bearing in mind the resources and experience of the troops the Brits then had in NI - two battalions just off Northern Flank and three decades of fighting insurgencies and small wars during their 'retreat from empire east of Suez.'

The likely outcome would have been the Irish army being surrounded in Newry then pounded into surrender, while the RN blockaded our ports (they still had 5 carrier groups at the time) and the RAF our airspace. Politically we'd have been isolated for decades and we'd never have been accepted for EEC membership.

.....And if you think the international community would have cared, guess again. The US wouldn't have taken sides with us against another NATO member, and the one responsible for securing the GIUK gap, and where the US went the rest of Europe would have followed.

If you only take into account that there was only pressure on the Irish side then you are of course right.
You know from previous debates that I agree with you about the effect of a full on 'invasion'. It would have been the wrong move and was rightly stood down.
However I think that a clearly signalled 'humanitarian mission' was also an option. We will never know what would have happened about that.

We do know that there was also pressure on the British that Lynch failed to capitalise on.
When he heard that Ireland was considering going to the ECHR Heath wrote a letter (below) to Lynch imploring him not to do it.
The subtext of that letter is the pressure Heath was under, Lynch failed to ramp up that pressure on Heath to do something effective and quickly to diffuse the situation.
As Sean McBride, Bernadette Devlin and others at the forefront of the Civil Rights movements said 'IMMEDIATE initiations of an action at the European Court' would have had an immediate effect (Everybody knew there would not be a judgement for years) in that a sub-Commission would have been dispatched to gather evidence which would have put the British under pressure to both clean up their act on torture and mistreatment and to do something about besieged nationalists and to bring in the reforms to dismantle the sectarian statelet. All of which, if you read the letter, Heath knew had to be done to resolve the situation. It took them a further 40 years to achieve their 'aim'

As you know, our aim is still to discuss the way forward with representatives of all the communities. We
are committed to finding a way to give the minority there an active, permanent and guaranteed role in the
life and public affairs of Northern Ireland.

in a negotiated settlement and agreement between the two governments.


Whatever about invasions, the salient point is that they dithered and cowered, while the situation worsened.
When you dither and cower you create vacuums. They knew (Heath, Lynch etc) the likelihood of what was going to fill that vacuum, the evidence was exploding right in front of them by mid 1971.

Ed Heath wrote:

My reason for hoping that these problems will not be brought before the European Commission relates
rather to the danger that my Government and yours would there by ranged on opposite sides in a public
forum on issues which, starting from particular allegations and explanations would be liable to broaden out
into charges and counter-charges concerning the operations of the IRA, the role they have in Northern
Ireland and the support they receive in the Republic. Such a position could hardly fall to result in
acrimonious exchanges between our two Governments. This would to my mind be unfortunate given the
complexity of the Northern Ireland problem and the need for our two Governments to remain in the closest
and friendliest touch about it. This will be particularly necessary if the security situation in the North
develops sufficiently favourably for an early impetus to be given to political moves.
As you know, our aim is still to discuss the way forward with representatives of all the communities. We
are committed to finding a way to give the minority there an active, permanent and guaranteed role in the
life and public affairs of Northern Ireland. As we are making clear in the debate in the House of Commons,
the best method and timing for doing this is very much in the forefront of our minds. It is because of these
considerations that I hope that you will not feel constrained to give way to pressures to take a public stance
against us at Strasbourg. If you do, it will no doubt rejoice the hearts of many people in the Republic and
some of those among the minority in the North. It will however, also please those Protestant extremists who
are always most opposed to the maintenance of a reasoned dialogue both public and private between our
two Governments

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

It's all in the detail, if any other political figure in any other western civilised democracy we're within ten miles of a 'blacked out' van in a situation like this they'd be finished politically, Gerry just wants it clarified that technically 'he wasn't actually driving the van.... :rolleyes:

Probably so some minion in SF on the average industrial wage can claim the mileage for it....:D

Or maybe it is because it wasn't true and Gerry knows how some like to use language to create sinister imagery around things like 'blacked' out vans and 'shadowy' IRA men (who neglect to hide their identities after going to the effort of using 'blacked' out vans.) :rolleyes:

The provisional IRA was set up in December 1969.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

The provisional IRA was set up in December 1969.

Yes, after a split.
A split that should and did actually signal the imminent dangers. The IRA split because factions of it were angry that the IRA had failed to protect nationalists in the north.

It was plainly evident to anyone with an ounce of sense what was going to happen.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did mention what actually happened in all my posts on this.

*'I favour the arguments I support'? Is that not how it should be?

No , one should always try to be objective .

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

No , one should always try to be objective .

Funny how, the people who claim to be 'objective' in this debate, only favour one side. Only one side is entirely wrong in everything they did and do.

Garymat67

billy few mates wrote: »

Glad to see admin move swiftly on the troll, I had him identified in his first five or six posts, the next twenty odd merely confirmed it. It was like a flashback to an earlier time on here when another (since departed) troll went as far as creating an imaginary friend whose sole purpose was to agree with him on a thread he'd started but was rapidly losing control of direction on. Thankfully in that episode the imaginary friend (BonesDeeny) was also identified and banned.
Good to see this one was nailed quickly, sad to see the person behind it is still amongst us.

Glad to see him gone, hopefully he's gone for good now.

Garymat67

Ok lets use some logic here if Gerry Adams does give the name of who the Stacks met then Adams will never get information for any victims again, he gets the information because he's trusted.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Funny how, the people who claim to be 'objective' in this debate, only favour one side. Only one side is entirely wrong in everything they did and do.

Yeah , you do seem to only always speak up for one side Francie , it is progress that you are aware of it though :)

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah , you do seem to only always speak up for one side Francie , it is progress that you are aware of it though :)

Which bit of 'I am not neutral on republican issues' did you not get away back early in the thread?

Garymat67

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah , you do seem to only always speak up for one side Francie , it is progress that you are aware of it though :)

Why would anyone stick up for the side who caused these problems on our island in the first place?

They partitioned our island against our will because they are bigger than us they can do whatever they want, they're no better than a bully

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which bit of 'I am not neutral on republican issues' did you not get away back early in the thread?

Oh I got that ok , but even when you support one particular viewpoint you should still try to be objective as best you can . Of course it is impossible to be completely so ,human nature being what it is , but we should still try .

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

Oh I got that ok , but even when you support one particular viewpoint you should still try to be objective as best you can . Of course it is impossible to be completely so ,human nature being what it is , but we should still try .

Indeed, and OBJECTIVELY speaking, if the world media spotlight was going to fall on NI for one set of circumstances where people were dying/suffering, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest they will fall on it when people were dying for a different set of reasons and cause the same pressure.

Objectively, neither of us know what would have happened, so within the bounds of credibility we can both speculate.

I have linked to further info/primary sources to support my speculation as well and that is just the tip of the iceberg on missed opportunities, by those who had the ultimate responsibility.

Exactly what they are doing over the issues today, avoiding them.

Garymat67

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Indeed, and OBJECTIVELY speaking, if the world media spotlight was going to fall on NI for one set of circumstances where people were dying/suffering, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest they will fall on it when people were dying for a different set of reasons and cause the same pressure.

Objectively, neither of us know what would have happened, so within the bounds of credibility we can both speculate.

I have linked to further info/primary sources to support my speculation as well and that is just the tip of the iceberg on missed opportunities, by those who had the ultimate responsibility.

Exactly what they are doing over the issues today, avoiding them.

Yes to be honest I think the only countries which would be fully supporting Britain would have been western europe.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Indeed, and OBJECTIVELY speaking, if the world media spotlight was going to fall on NI for one set of circumstances where people were dying/suffering, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest they will fall on it when people were dying for a different set of reasons and cause the same pressure.

Objectively, neither of us know what would have happened, so within the bounds of credibility we can both speculate.

I have linked to further info/primary sources to support my speculation as well and that is just the tip of the iceberg on missed opportunities, by those who had the ultimate responsibility.

Exactly what they are doing over the issues today, avoiding them.

With the greatest respect Francie this is just rubbish , you can speculate all you want , you can 'what if' all you want , but according to the old cliché 'if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle ' but she doesn't , so can we stick to what actually happened instead of what you think should have/might have/, could have happened

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

With the greatest respect Francie this is just rubbish , you can speculate all you want , you can 'what if' all you want , but according to the old cliché 'if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle ' but she doesn't , so can we stick to what actually happened instead of what you think should have/might have/, could have happened

Would that be because you don't want to have to apportion responsibility to certain players in the conflict maybe?
But yet wouldn't you be one of the first to make republicans responsible for what happened.

Sure let's all just wash our hands of it and forget it? Just like FG and FF did about the conflicts that founded the state?

If you don't speculate about what might have happened or could have happened then you don't learn from history.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would that be because you don't want to have to apportion responsibility to certain players in the conflict maybe?
But yet wouldn't you be one of the first to make republicans responsible for what happened.

Sure let's all just wash our hands of it and forget it? Just like FG and FF did about the conflicts that founded the state?

If you don't speculate about what might have happened or could have happened then you don't learn from history.

No it wouldn't Francie .

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

No it wouldn't Francie .

Do you think Lynch had options to apply more pressure on the British as Sean McBride and others outlined?

It's an important point as their is a point of view (mine included) that there is more the Irish government could be doing to make progress on the current issue. As per the quote from Adams in the OP.

G Adams wrote:

If the Taoiseach and Micheál Martin are interested in healing the legacy of the past for all families, including the Stacks, the Finucane’s, the families of the Dublin Monaghan bombs and hundreds more, then they could begin by putting in place an International based independent truth recovery process,”

Garymat67

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you think Lynch had options to apply more pressure on the British as Sean McBride and others outlined?

It's an important point as their is a point of view (mine included) that there is more the Irish government could be doing to make progress on the current issue. As per the quote from Adams in the OP.

I think Haughey was the only one to actually put pressure on, every time the IRA blew up or shot a few British soldiers Haughey would come on TV shouting partition has failed

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you think Lynch had options to apply more pressure on the British as Sean McBride and others outlined?

It's an important point as their is a point of view (mine included) that there is more the Irish government could be doing to make progress on the current issue. As per the quote from Adams in the OP.

Doesn't matter what I think . Do you think if Mcconville McCabe Stack had not been killed the situation now would be less toxic . Do you think if GA had done more about his brother in 2000 he would have more credibility now ?

It is just 'what if' speculation , usually partisan and adds little or nothing to the debate .

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you think Lynch had options to apply more pressure on the British as Sean McBride and others outlined?

It's an important point as their is a point of view (mine included) that there is more the Irish government could be doing to make progress on the current issue. As per the quote from Adams in the OP.

Mod:
In fairness you are going pretty off topic in your own thread! The Arms Crisis doesn't have much relevance to your OP.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Or maybe it is because it wasn't true and Gerry knows how some like to use language to create sinister imagery around things like 'blacked' out vans and 'shadowy' IRA men (who neglect to hide their identities after going to the effort of using 'blacked' out vans.) :rolleyes:

Yes that'll be it because everybody knows there's nothing remotely sinister or 'shadowy' about travelling around the border area in a 'blacked out' van unless you're actually driving it....:rolleyes:
I'm glad that Gerry was able to clear that one up for us....

Johndoe86

billy few mates wrote: »

Yes that'll be it because everybody knows there's nothing remotely sinister or 'shadowy' about travelling around the border area in a 'blacked out' van unless you're actually driving it....:rolleyes:
I'm glad that Gerry was able to clear that one up for us....

Would you rather the Stack family got no information? Would you rather Gerry didn't help any families?