Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes and one could say the same of the health services here......and yet people are quick to hold the FG minister for health to account for the gross deficiencies in the system in the Republic but the SF minister for health gets a pass?

He didn't hold the minister responsible, he used the names of the two parties who have swapped power since the foundation of the state.
Stop digging and just apologise for crassness in extreme.

And again with the harking back to history.....you know whe SF engage in appeals to historic it just makes them sound pre-historic.

And of course SF would rather not discuss health issues in NI because then people would question their performance in the light of having the largest per capita health spend of the UK countries.

Complaining about harking to history on a thread about a single killing being resurrected from nearly 35 yrs ago? Fabulous.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He didn't hold the minister responsible, he used the names of the two parties who have swapped power since the foundation of the state.
Stop digging and just apologise for crassness in extreme.



Complaining about harking to history on a thread about a single killing being resurrected from nearly 35 yrs ago? Fabulous.

Likewise, I simply pointed to the fact that SF hold the comparable ministry in NI and have not exactly covered themselves in glory in how they've delivered mental health services.

The issue isn't the killing, the issue is what did Adams know and when did he forget it.

Do you not get that people aren't skeptical because of what happened 3 decades ago they're skeptical because of what happened 3 years ago. Only SF think there's nothing wrong with elected reps stealing about the night in blacked out vans to meet God knows who. It's not normal behaviour.

A Little Pony

They aren't a normal party are they though. Gerry Adams as leader of any other party would have been gone years ago. He should have gone at least 3-4 years ago, an embarrassment.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Likewise, I simply pointed to the fact that SF hold the comparable ministry in NI and have not exactly covered themselves in glory in how they've delivered mental health services.

The issue isn't the killing, the issue is what did Adams know and when did he forget it.

Do you not get that people aren't skeptical because of what happened 3 decades ago they're skeptical because of what happened 3 years ago. Only SF think there's nothing wrong with elected reps stealing about the night in blacked out vans to meet God knows who. It's not normal behaviour.

The 'blacked out van' and the 'shadowy IRA' figure. :rolleyes:

Adams set up a pre-notified confidential meeting Stack was happy to go to and was happy with the result at the time.
Who changed the terms of that meeting? Stack did.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'blacked out van' and the 'shadowy IRA' figure. :rolleyes:

Adams set up a pre-notified confidential meeting Stack was happy to go to and was happy with the result at the time.
Who changed the terms of that meeting? Stack did.

Well nice deflection, but I never used the phrase 'shadowy IRA figure' but I notice no denial of the use of the blacked out van.

Who was the meeting with and who drove the van?

Look, I don't doubt to SF and its supporters such behaviour is fine, to a lot of other people not involved in supporting an organisation dedicated to subverting the Constitution of the Republic.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well nice deflection, but I never used the phrase 'shadowy IRA figure' but I notice no denial of the use of the blacked out van.

Who was the meeting with and who drove the van?

Look, I don't doubt to SF and its supporters such behaviour is fine, to a lot of other people not involved in supporting an organisation dedicated to subverting the Constitution of the Republic.

The use of language around issues like this is just so juvenile and predictable was the point, I was making. The Indo is a stock example of this use of adjectives and sensational detail.
A van with 'blacked out' windows. Really? How did the driver see out, was Stack blindfolded so he couldn't see out too? Vans, used by builders typically have blacked out windows to the back to stop potential theft, are they similarly sinister?
Will Stack add another detail to the story to cover that anomaly, like he did when questioned on why he initially thanked Adams and criticised 3 garda investigations.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The use of language around issues like this is just so juvenile and predictable was the point, I was making. The Indo is a stock example of this use of adjectives and sensational detail.
A van with 'blacked out' windows. Really? How did the driver see out, was Stack blindfolded so he couldn't see out too? Vans, used by builders typically have blacked out windows to the back to stop potential theft, are they similarly sinister?
Will Stack add another detail to the story to cover that anomaly, like he did when questioned on why he initially thanked Adams and criticised 3 garda investigations.

Make the semantic sound significant CHECK

Attack the victim CHECK

Pass trivialities off as inconsistencies CHECK

Minimise Adams' involvement CHECK

.......yes, I think all the usual SF rhetorical tics are present.

Miriam Lord's analysis is pretty spot on, imo, unless the satirists are in on the anti-SF conspiracy......

The reimagining of Adams continues. It is infinitely preferable to what went before. But maybe, just maybe, the Sinn Féin president and his advisers have been a bit too clever for their own good with that pre-election confessional to the commissioner. The party leader’s expressed willingness to co-operate in the fight to bring Brian Stack’s killers to justice provoked his sons to speak out, confidentiality agreement or not. They say they know otherwise. He certainly didn’t tell the commissioner the full story and, for obvious reasons, he was never going to.

But Gerry wanted to have it both ways – to look good in public by professing to do one thing while not doing it at all. The Stacks’ version of events, added to Adams’s dud email list of possible suspects and now his admission that he won’t name the IRA man who knows what happened, make his honeyed words seem very hollow indeed. Time to retreat behind the peace process.

Galwayguy35

Mary Lou always seems to go to ground when there is a bit of heat on Gerry, bit of a silver lining not to have to listen to her screeching on the airwaves.

Looks like Mr Stack isn't going to let up on this either so it could run for a while yet.

K-9

tomwaterford wrote: »

In 2008 SF had 4 ts I think it was??

As of now SF had 23 tds.....no other party in ireland has had >5 fold increase in its tds since then???


Is this not substantial progress????... or would you prefer them to become another party of the rich and abandon it's roots to appease you for votes???

After the 2011 election their aim was to over take FF and become the main opposition party, instead FF actually doubled the difference in TD numbers between them.

Galwayguy35

tomwaterford wrote: »

In 2008 SF had 4 ts I think it was??

As of now SF had 23 tds.....no other party in ireland has had >5 fold increase in its tds since then???


Is this not substantial progress????... or would you prefer them to become another party of the rich and abandon it's roots to appease you for votes???

SF abandoned it's roots long ago, the difference between it and some of the other parties is that it's rich Americans that stump up the cash for them.

I'm a former SF voter and to be fair I've found the local councillors to be hard workers but the party leadership is no different to any of the other parties.

Adams would have been as well off if he did the same as Martin McGuinness and admitted years ago he was in the RA and move on but he chose not to do that.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Make the semantic sound significant CHECK

Attack the victim CHECK

Pass trivialities off as inconsistencies CHECK

Minimise Adams' involvement CHECK

.......yes, I think all the usual SF rhetorical tics are present.

Miriam Lord's analysis is pretty spot on, imo, unless the satirists are in on the anti-SF conspiracy......

I have no idea what Miriam is on about tbh.

And what it has to do with the useless detail of 'blacked out' windows when telling this story.
Tell us Jawgap, when have you ever been in a van with all windows 'blacked' out? If there was one on an Irish road it would stand out like Ian Paisley in the front row of St. Peter's Basilica.
If you are in a van with blacked out windows you can still see where you are going unless you are blindfolded. He never said he was blindfolded when he originally told the story,(you would think that would be an important detail) so what relevance has 'blacked out' van got to the story unless it is there to imply a sinister sensational element, like journalist adding 'shadowy' to a description of the former IRA commander.
It is a detail, but whenever I hear a detail like that, when somebody is desperate to gild the lily I begin to wonder.
I am all ears as to what relevance that detail has to the story.

P.S. I wondered how long it would be before the 'attack the victim' stick would be raised.
Seems when it comes to SF questioning the source of allegations is not allowed.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no idea what Miriam is on about tbh.

And what it has to do with the useless detail of 'blacked out' windows when telling this story.
Tell us Jawgap, when have you ever been in a van with all windows 'blacked' out? If there was one on an Irish road it would stand out like Ian Paisley in the front row of St. Peter's Basilica.
If you are in a van with blacked out windows you can still see where you are going unless you are blindfolded. He never said he was blindfolded when he originally told the story,(you would think that would be an important detail) so what relevance has 'blacked out' van got to the story unless it is there to imply a sinister sensational element, like journalist adding 'shadowy' to a description of the former IRA commander.
It is a detail, but whenever I hear a detail like that, when somebody is desperate to gild the lily I begin to wonder.
I am all ears as to what relevance that detail has to the story.

P.S. I wondered how long it would be before the 'attack the victim' stick would be raised.
Seems when it comes to SF questioning the source of allegations is not allowed.

One detail of the account is, in your opinion, lacking in detail (when everyone knows what was meant by a "van with blacked out windows") and that leads you to question the credibility of Brian Stack's son......

.......and yet people are expected to believe Adams when his accounts of the various controversies he's been party to are do riddled with factual inconsistencies!

I suppose that's SF logic.......they were certainly ahead of their time......they were post-truth long before anyone even heard of the phrase!

EDIT: there's a big difference between questioning the source and attacking the source.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

One detail of the account is, in your opinion, lacking in detail (when everyone knows what was meant by a "van with blacked out windows") and that leads you to question the credibility of Brian Stack's son......

.......and yet people are expected to believe Adams when his accounts of the various controversies he's been party to are do riddled with factual inconsistencies!

I suppose that's SF logic.......they were certainly ahead of their time......they were post-truth long before anyone even heard of the phrase!

EDIT: there's a big difference between questioning the source and attacking the source.

What does it mean: a 'van with blacked out windows'?

Water John

Builders van, must have been one of McFeely's??

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What does it mean: a 'van with blacked out windows'?

I think we're way off topic now, but I'll indulge you......



Maybe you should criticise the account for not specifying the make & model......or wonder why he couldn't see out the front window.......

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What does it mean: a 'van with blacked out windows'?

The van's windows were covered by chipboard according to Stack.

Seth Brundle

According to Stack, the van had been seemingly customised with chipboard into a prisoner van. Those in the back could not see outside.

Not that hard to understand.

osmiumartist

FrancieBrady wrote: »

P.S. I wondered how long it would be before the 'attack the victim' stick would be raised.

It's the debating equivalent of raising a white flag at this stage. Pretty much 100% of the time it's used there is no victim blaming whatsoever and the poster has just grasped for anything they think will get some sort of reasoning-free emotional response.

Itssoeasy

Just listening to peadar Tobin from yesterday on Sean o rourke. Jesus Christ at some point it must be tiring for sinn fein TDs having to back up Gerry Adams time after time. He's refused to answer the questions asked and comparing the truth and reconciliation in East Timor to the Republic of Ireland.

I'll be honest I have huge issues with Gerry Adams and his past and his apparent refusal to be clear about it. I think it's hurting the newer Sinn Fein TDs who have no connection to the troubles by having to constantly defend him. I know people who will not vote for Sinn Fein because of Gerry Adams. If that isn't hurting his party then I don't know what is.

FrancieBrady

Chipboarded windows in a van made to look like a prison van now.

And yet Stack recognised the 'shadowy' IRA man? He is 'confident he knows the identity of man?

All that effort to obscure where they were going to and yet, the IRA man was identifiable.
They must have decommissioned all the balaclavas too.

If I was a journalist, I would be querying these anomalys first, because it's the professional thing to do. And I wouldn't be worrying about trite allegations of me victim blaming either. The truth is more important.

I would be also delving into why Stack thanked Adams and criticied 3 Garda investigations.
When asked about that he added another bit to the story. But the journo didn't pursue it.

osmiumartist

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know people who will not vote for Sinn Fein because of Gerry Adams. If that isn't hurting his party then I don't know what is.

Very true. Will be interesting when he does eventually go. A lot of people might be calling for him to come back if SF get a big boost with the electorate.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Chipboarded windows in a van made to look like a prison van now.

And yet Stack recognised the 'shadowy' IRA man? He is 'confident he knows the identity of man?

All that effort to obscure where they were going to and yet, the IRA man was identifiable.
They must have decommissioned all the balaclavas too.

If I was a journalist, I would be querying these anomalys first, because it's the professional thing to do. And I wouldn't be worrying about trite allegations of me victim blaming either. The truth is more important.

I would be also delving into why Stack thanked Adams and criticied 3 Garda investigations.
When asked about that he added another bit to the story. But the journo didn't pursue it.

Posted earlier in the the thread but it's worth repeating......

In weighing up any conflict of evidence, one must assess the general credibility of those making the competing claims.

Gerry Adams’s credibility is shot to pieces. The precedents that illustrate his loose relationship with the truth are stacked very high. His various contradictory statements about McConville, McCabe and Colombia Three are just some examples of how he has been caught dissembling on politically sensitive events.

Adams’s denials about how the IRA covered up the abuse of Maíria Cahill is another case in point. His refusal to confirm that he was ever a member of the IRA further undermines him. Anyone who, notwithstanding these examples, still believes that Adams’s word can be trusted should study the transcript of his evidence in his brother’s first trial for sexual abuse. The transcript is available online and is riddled with inconsistencies, to the extent that he was not called as a witness in the retrial.

On the other side of the scale we have the word of Austin Stack, a man who, like his father before him, has given a life’s service to the State and is now a senior prison officer. He is a son motivated by his family’s need to find answers about his father’s death.

Given their respective motives and track records, the choice on who to believe in this recent controversy is a no-brainer.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Posted earlier in the the thread but it's worth repeating......

The short answer to that is, if you are not going to believe what he has to say, why waste the country's time asking him questions?
You also have to ask why Stack bothered with the blacked out van trip when he immediately rejected what he was told. What was it all about? Like Maria Cahill and all the others there is only one answer - the one they want.

In other words and to get back to the OP, a waste of everyone's time.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The short answer to that is, if you are not going to believe what he has to say, why waste the country's time asking him questions?
You also have to ask why Stack bothered with the blacked out van trip when he immediately rejected what he was told. What was it all about? Like Maria Cahill and all the others there is only one answer - the one they want.

In other words and to get back to the OP, a waste of everyone's time.

Because Adams is an elected representative and whether he or SF like it or not we get to question our elected reps. It's an important part of living in a democracy.

As for Mr Stack, I don't know him and I can't speak for him, but at a guess I'd say most kids would do all in their power to find out and understand why their father was killed.

SF, still blaming victims after all these years.

osmiumartist

Jawgap wrote: »

SF, still blaming victims after all these years.

Are you ever going to back this up? You really do seem to think trotting out a bizarre "blame the victim" with zilch to support it gets you some sort of automatic win?

Itssoeasy

Something that was just pointed out to me. Apparently Mary Lou is missing in action recently. I hadn't noticed but apparently she's been in short supply.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Because Adams is an elected representative and whether he or SF like it or not we get to question our elected reps. It's an important part of living in a democracy.

As for Mr Stack, I don't know him and I can't speak for him, but at a guess I'd say most kids would do all in their power to find out and understand why their father was killed.

SF, still blaming victims after all these years.

One thing I have learned from the many many repetitive rounds of allegations, you always know the storm in the teacup is abating when the 'victim blaming' stick is brought out.

Adams did what he said he would do for Stack, and Stack was happy with that at the time and thanked Adams and used the experience to criticise 3 garda investigations.
At some point he changed the goal of his quest to one of justice seeking. Adams in fairness to him, said from the start, that he couldn't and wouldn't help with that.
The rest of the story is just the usual journos stoking, political point scoring and ignoring of the elephant in the room. The failure of politics to find a way to deal with all legacy issues, on all sides.

osmiumartist

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Something that was just pointed out to me. Apparently Mary Lou is missing in action recently. I hadn't noticed but apparently she's been in short supply.

Her Twitter seems active enough.
https://twitter.com/maryloumcdonald?lang=en
Where was she supposed to be and she didn't show?

FrancieBrady

osmiumartist wrote: »

Her Twitter seems active enough.
https://twitter.com/maryloumcdonald?lang=en
Where was she supposed to be and she didn't show?

And yet you will hear them say, 'Gerry must move aside, because then those not involved in the conflict will not have to answer for stuff that happened during it'.

Believe that?

One_Of_Shanks

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Adams did what he said he would do for Stack, and Stack was happy with that at the time and thanked Adams and used the experience to criticise 3 garda investigations.
At some point he changed the goal of his quest to one of justice seeking. Adams in fairness to him, said from the start, that he couldn't and wouldn't help with that.

Yeah to be fair there's probably an element of truth in that. Plus when Stack was interviewed on the radio he was asked did he agree to not legally prosecute anyone if given info and he delayed his answer and then went on a fairly long winded roundabout answer about only if 100% truth was given and the family agreed etc.

BUT....... What else could he do? What would you do if you were trying to get to the bottom of who killed your Dad? He had to do whatever he could to find out whatever he could and take it from there.

It's amazing that there's any talk about "deals" here. A person was murdered, a person knows who did it, a person should be prosecuted for withholding information. It's fairly cut and dry.

FrancieBrady

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Yeah to be fair there's probably an element of truth in that. Plus when Stack was interviewed on the radio he was asked did he agree to not legally prosecute anyone if given info and he delayed his answer and then went on a fairly long winded roundabout answer about only if 100% truth was given and the family agreed etc.

BUT....... What else could he do? What would you do if you were trying to get to the bottom of who killed your Dad? He had to do whatever he could to find out whatever he could and take it from there.

It's amazing that there's any talk about "deals" here. A person was murdered, a person knows who did it, a person should be prosecuted for withholding information. It's fairly cut and dry.

I fully respect that, and having witnessed the pain of quite a few deaths resulting from the conflict, fully sympathise.
But that doesn't get away from the fact that I understand the bigger picture too. That Adams, like a loyalist leader, can not go down the road of handing over combatants or reneging on confidentiality agreements.

The faux outraged refuse to see the problem with that, pretending SF and Adams are using the peace process as a smokescreen.
They aren't, the process would quite simply, cease to exist.

One_Of_Shanks

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I fully respect that, and having witnessed the pain of quite a few deaths resulting from the conflict, fully sympathise.
But that doesn't get away from the fact that I understand the bigger picture too. That Adams, like a loyalist leader, can not go down the road of handing over combatants or reneging on confidentiality agreements.

The faux outraged refuse to see the problem with that, pretending SF and Adams are using the peace process as a smokescreen.
They aren't, the process would quite simply, cease to exist.

Fully sympathise... I got that from Bank Of Ireland on the phone when they delayed the release of my mortgage funds.
But this is a murder we're talking about. Seriously, have you put yourself in his shoes for a minute and considered how you would feel if it was your Da?

I take your point though, probably so many killed from the Loyalist side looking for the same answers.
It's just incredibly sad all round.

Big point here though is for people like me who can't stand FG and not overly fond of FF, I was leaning toward SF vote next time around but all this stuff just harms your cause.
Would it not be prudent to get rid of Gerry and bring in someone younger and fresh who can put a bit more distance between themselves and things like this?
Why is he still there at all?

tomwaterford

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Fully sympathise... I got that from Bank Of Ireland on the phone when they delayed the release of my mortgage funds.
But this is a murder we're talking about. Seriously, have you put yourself in his shoes for a minute and considered how you would feel if it was your Da?

I take your point though, probably so many killed from the Loyalist side looking for the same answers.
It's just incredibly sad all round.

Big point here though is for people like me who can't stand FG and not overly fond of FF, I was leaning toward SF vote next time around but all this stuff just harms your cause.
Would it not be prudent to get rid of Gerry and bring in someone younger and fresh who can put a bit more distance between themselves and things like this?
Why is he still there at all?

Presumably you think they should be ashamed of their past??


There are many in SF who've lost family members to the troubles and who've wasted lives in jail for Ireland

They can't simply adbandon them to chase soft flakey votes.....their are plenty wholl acrept their past for what it is.....and see the present and future and vote according to policies



However.....with the push by FG for a united Ireland. ....perhaps the next election should be a cool off and concentrate on putting together pressure by all polirical parties for a border poll???

FrancieBrady

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Fully sympathise... I got that from Bank Of Ireland on the phone when they delayed the release of my mortgage funds.
But this is a murder we're talking about. Seriously, have you put yourself in his shoes for a minute and considered how you would feel if it was your Da?

I take your point though, probably so many killed from the Loyalist side looking for the same answers.
It's just incredibly sad all round.

Big point here though is for people like me who can't stand FG and not overly fond of FF, I was leaning toward SF vote next time around but all this stuff just harms your cause.
Would it not be prudent to get rid of Gerry and bring in someone younger and fresh who can put a bit more distance between themselves and things like this?
Why is he still there at all?

I don't have membership of SF or any party. I don't roll that way. I am neither right or left all the time either. If I agree with something that is how I vote. So who leads a party is nothing to do with me.
Do I see evidence that there is some sort of cult or despotic element to SF, no I don't, in fact, I think the debate is at a lower ebb when that is introduced than it is when the victim blaming one comes out. And both always do in a debate about SF.

On the sympathise point, why can't I do both? I'm human, I recognize suffering but I can also recognize the various positions people are in.
I would love to see the Stacks get what they want or Maria Cahill's alleged abuser answer in a court, but looking for somebody in Adams position (still building a peace process and keeping many different opinions on-side) to achieve that will mean that many others won't get what they want.

There is really only one (possibly flawed and imperfect) way to do it. The same way it has been done in many other conflict/war zones around the world.

One_Of_Shanks

tomwaterford wrote: »

There are many in SF who've lost family members to the troubles and who've wasted lives in jail for Ireland

They can't simply adbandon them to chase soft flakey votes.....their are plenty wholl acrept their past for what it is.....and see the present and future and vote according to policies

"Soft flakey votes"?
WTF?
You do realise that if you got enough "soft flakey votes" it can win you an election right?
Or does my vote count for less due to not being affiliated to any party?
Last I checked each vote counts for one regardless of whom it comes from.

And as for "seeing the future and voting for policies"... Did I not just say in my last post that i was leaning towards SF in the next election?

The question was would it not be better if Gerry moved on as it could influence voters with all these constant question marks over him.
If that riled you then that's your business.

You know, no offence or anything but if everyone in SF came across like you then you'd get no votes.

tomwaterford

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

"Soft flakey votes"?
WTF?
You do realise that if you got enough "soft flakey votes" it can win you an election right?
Or does my vote count for less due to not being affiliated to any party?
Last I checked each vote counts for one regardless of whom it comes from.

And as for "seeing the future and voting for policies"... Did I not just say in my last post that i was leaning towards SF in the next election?

The question was would it not be better if Gerry moved on as it could influence voters with all these constant question marks over him.
If that riled you then that's your business.

You know, no offence or anything but if everyone in SF came across like you then you'd get no votes.

It would undoubtedly be better?? (He is afaik...but the next leader being sorted afaik)


However.....they are chasing people wholl vote for them of policies regardless of its leadership??

As a substance above style approach (curiously enough like fg-even they don't like kenny)
As the old type of leaning on a leader and paying I'll regard to policies lead to a berries Ahearn style diaster....you don't want a return ticket that??

I do apologise Ifor this comes across as riled...I am not a member of SF to be clear here (know many who are/were)






Too conclude. ...there will always be these questions over its past....some view it with great pride that they protected nationlists for years when noone else would?

These questions are to be more regular over the next 8-20 years as the many members die off and a wave of paramilitary Funerals which the leadership will attend
What good is a flakes vote wholl be turned off by a leadership paying homage to dead ira members???

One_Of_Shanks

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have membership of SF or any party. I don't roll that way. I am neither right or left all the time either. If I agree with something that is how I vote. So who leads a party is nothing to do with me.
Do I see evidence that there is some sort of cult or despotic element to SF, no I don't, in fact, I think the debate is at a lower ebb when that is introduced than it is when the victim blaming one comes out. And both always do in a debate about SF.

On the sympathise point, why can't I do both? I'm human, I recognize suffering but I can also recognize the various positions people are in.
I would love to see the Stacks get what they want or Maria Cahill's alleged abuser answer in a court, but looking for somebody in Adams position (still building a peace process and keeping many different opinions on-side) to achieve that will mean that many others won't get what they want.

There is really only one (possibly flawed and imperfect) way to do it. The same way it has been done in many other conflict/war zones around the world.

Good post. And by the way you come across as very articulate.

Look, If this was my Dad then I would turn the world upside down to find out and it would f**kin kill me that a politician had the answer and was hiding behind procedure to stop me from getting to the truth.
As you said, you're human, so you can see that.

You say he's not hiding behind the peace process but to Stack he is.

FrancieBrady

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Good post. And by the way you come across as very articulate.

Look, If this was my Dad then I would turn the world upside down to find out and it would f**kin kill me that a politician had the answer and was hiding behind procedure to stop me from getting to the truth.
As you said, you're human, so you can see that.

You say he's not hiding behind the peace process but to Stack he is.

Harsh reality here again.
Even if Adam's gave the name of the IRA commander, do you think he is going to tell the gardai anything?

It is a desperate situation and the only people who have the key to unlock it are the 2 governments who promised to set up a truth finding process.

Failing that what we have to remember is that there are thousands out there (including my family) who like the Stacks who are desperate to find out what happened and why.
Look at the damage the Civil War did to society here and decades of politics precisely because the secrets where locked away and swept under the carpets of the Military Bureau until most involved were dead.
We face the very real prospect that many will never find out. It took 40 years for a government to tell the truth about what happened in just one incident and that was only because of the scale of it. They still haven't held anybody accountable for it.
As I said inin my OP we are wasting valuable time on these repetitive trips into cul de sacs.

Jawgap

osmiumartist wrote: »

Are you ever going to back this up? You really do seem to think trotting out a bizarre "blame the victim" with zilch to support it gets you some sort of automatic win?

It's easy, just look at what Ferris has been saying, or what was oreviously said about Mairia Cahill.

Then there's this......

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/806572999545651203

FrancieBrady

Anybody believe Mattie McGrath was asked to be a FG/FFbot in the Dail last week.

Never thought it would be Mattie who could potentially prove what a lot of us suspect, the existence of an joint party orchestra to do what orchestra's do best - orchestrate.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

It's easy, just look at what Ferris has been saying, or what was oreviously said about Mairia Cahill.

Then there's this......

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/806572999545651203

Are you really telling us that you didn't understand the consequences of informing in 1987?

Do you know what the consequences of deserting used to be, or spying in other armies?
Ridiculous now that you are trawling history for this faux outrage material.

Are you also asking us to believe that the Irish security forces where ALL cuddly teddy bears just doing their jobs? Really? Amnesty report - The Heavy Gang, anyone?

Lets try and stay in the actual realities of what happened.

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Anybody believe Mattie McGrath was asked to be a FG/FFbot in the Dail last week.

Never thought it would be Mattie who could potentially prove what a lot of us suspect, the existence of an joint party orchestra to do what orchestra's do best - orchestrate.

Oh, now I get it.
All this time I had presumed Gerry was assisting in a cover up of a murder whereas in fact the whole thing was concocted by FG and FF in order to get Stack onto a FF ticket at some point in the future. Bloody hell, Stack might even have made up the murder.
All this time I've been accusing Gerry of despicable things and it turns out he's not a dirty filthy lying scumbag.
My bad!

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Anybody believe Mattie McGrath was asked to be a FG/FFbot in the Dail last week.

Never thought it would be Mattie who could potentially prove what a lot of us suspect, the existence of an joint party orchestra to do what orchestra's do best - orchestrate.

It's politics - of course coalitions, formal and informal, are going to develop and disintegrate as issues rise and fall.

It's like SF and Syirza - one minute they're all buddy.....



.....next, cast aside.

FrancieBrady

kbannon wrote: »

Oh, now I get it.
All this time I had presumed Gerry was assisting in a cover up of a murder whereas in fact the whole thing was concocted by FG and FF in order to get Stack onto a FF ticket at some point in the future. Bloody hell, Stack might even have made up the murder.
All this time I've been accusing Gerry of despicable things and it turns out he's not a dirty filthy lying scumbag.
My bad!

No, it's quite simple what this might be...the exploitation of yet another victim's family.
Stack is still just as dead, the family are still waiting for closure (a little bit less closure, thanks to who?) like thousands of others.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you really telling us that you didn't understand the consequences of informing in 1987?

Do you know what the consequences of deserting used to be, or spying in other armies?
Ridiculous now that you are trawling history for this faux outrage material.

Are you also asking us to believe that the Irish security forces where ALL cuddly teddy bears just doing their jobs? Really? Amnesty report - The Heavy Gang, anyone?

Lets try and stay in the actual realities of what happened.

I certainly did - but do you think it's ok?

Adams seemed to think so.

BTW, 'Irish security forces' - I thought the IRA were not 'at war' with them? Are you now saying they were 'legitimate targets' - that Brian Stack's killing was justified? Do you agree with Ferris' assessment of him in his book?

Phoebas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is a desperate situation and the only people who have the key to unlock it are the 2 governments who promised to set up a truth finding process.

Adams has the key but is refusing to use it. How could be trusted to tell the truth in a 'truth finding process' if he can't manage to participate in the simplest form of a truth finding process - just telling the truth.

osmiumartist

Jawgap wrote: »

It's easy, just look at what Ferris has been saying, or what was oreviously said about Mairia Cahill.

Then there's this......

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/806572999545651203

So your evidence for Adams "victim blaming" Stack is somebody else supposedly said something about somebody else?
Compelling.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, it's quite simple what this might be...the exploitation of yet another victim's family.
Stack is still just as dead, the family are still waiting for closure (a little bit less closure, thanks to who?) like thousands of others.

It's his family who are looking for the information so is Austin stack and his family exploiting his fathers death ?
His family can't get closure because people who know who killed him won't tell the gardai.

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, it's quite simple what this might be...the exploitation of yet another victim's family.
Stack is still just as dead, the family are still waiting for closure (a little bit less closure, thanks to who?) like thousands of others.

I'm not sure I follow. Stack is leading the push against SF and their militant brethren. Stack appears quite competent to do his own fighting and given his recent criticism of FF and FG politicising the issue, I presume that they are not leading him.
Still maybe SF followers know what victim exploitation looks like given how they got so much experience of using the hunger strikers and so on.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I certainly did - but do you think it's ok?

Adams seemed to think so.

BTW, 'Irish security forces' - I thought the IRA were not 'at war' with them? Are you now saying they were 'legitimate targets' - that Brian Stack's killing was justified? Do you agree with Ferris' assessment of him in his book?

You cherrypick out one thing from a conflict to keep your foot on the faux outrage accelerator and ask 'do I think it was right?'
None of it was 'right'. And none of it has a chance of being put right if governing parties are engaging in this kind of exploitation.
They were not at war, the Irish state involved themselves by assisting the British in securing and strengthening partition, partition they were at the time constitionally against.